With the 2007 Mattel lead recalls, began an aggressive effort to not only enforce the current lead regulations (which were justified), but a full blown reinvention of toy industry regulations. I am a firm supporter in making toys and children’s products safer, but what we have been through over the past couple of years has been next to impossible and for some of us, have thankfully pulled through it and become more responsible companies as a result. However, this can’t be said for everyone, including small businesses and start up companies, who have floundered as a direct result of these laws and how they have been enforced.
Since 1978, lead has been limited to 600ppm (0.06%) total weight in residential paints, paints used on toys, children’s articles and furniture finishes. The goal was to eliminate the possibility of lead poisoning, and the law applied to all consumer products, except for items like cars, motorcycles and products intended solely for adult use.
It has been since that effective date, the responsibility of the manufacturer or distributor to ensure adherence to the law, but never did anyone have to prove adherence; meaning that no manufacturer was ever required to produce a report showing that there was compliant levels of lead in the paint. This is where things possibly got sticky with Mattel.
Mattel, like a lot of importers, look for factories outside of the US to produce their products, mainly because of lower labor costs; places like Mexico and China, which have since the early 80’s been very capable of producing toys and other consumer goods. The factories would then manufacture and ship those items to Mattel, who would then ship them to retail stores. I know first hand that Mattel has one of the most complex manuals for toy safety of anyone. However, the key was; when they tested their toys using it. If they weren’t tested from production batches, who would know if those shipped toys contained lead? If they were tested for lead, there would have never been recalls.
You see, lead did serve a purpose in paints at one time. Lead chromates enhance the hue of some colors. Lead allows for a smaller amount of paint to cover a larger area. Lead allowed the paint to bond well to the substrate surface it was applied to, so it wouldn’t prematurely deteriorate. Lead made paints more UV resistant and prevented fading. The factory’s benefited from using lead because it is cheap; so they have all of these aesthetic advantages at a “low price”. However, most factories, no matter where they are; China, Mexico or the US would never purposely add lead to paints. Lead doesn’t accidentally fall into the paint bucket. Someone at some point somewhere adds it intentionally. Probably because they know no one is going to check the paint for lead. You would assume that if Mattel had processes in place to monitor the lead content of finished product that the factory would have processes in place to monitor their paint supplier. This process is often referred to as “upstream quality management”.
If Mattel was actively and continuously checking finished products for the presence of lead, do you think the factory would risk losing all of their production investment to simply include lead in the paint? NO and honestly, who would risk hundreds of thousands in dollars in lost materials, to save a penny or two per item, by using lead laden paint? No one and that includes Chinese factories; unless of course, they didnt feel they would get caught. I commend Mattel for accepting responsibility for the recalls, because it was just as much their fault as their suppliers. But, who is ultimately responsible, many ask? The importer is. Importers, who hire factories to manufacture their products are absolutely responsible for ensuring that the product meets their requirements and federal regulations. They, in the end have the option of denying shipment and even to stop doing business with a factory.
So, the process began of enacting new legislation that would forever prevent lead poisoning and place limits on other chemicals too; most of which I support, but some, not so much. Our legislators, some of which have law degrees, maybe studied political science in college, or perhaps had a decorated military career, assembled and drafted a policy that would reduce the lead limits in paints, limit lead in toy substrates and limit the percentage of phthalates in toys & child care articles. Hmmm……but I’m not sure they even knew what phthalates were, but hey….Europe and California did it, so why shouldn’t we? Let’s harmonize our global consumer regulations and appear to be saving children’s lives! I don’t think there was enough scientific data to support the limitation of phthalates, even when it was enacted in Europe or California. I can assure you that based simply on how fast this new US policy was drafted, not much thought went into its content and absoutely no thought for how it would impact the toy industry was ever considered.
Keep in mind; all of this happened in the midst of the deepest global recession in decades. This law bankrupted a lot of small companies in the United States; closed Chinese factories and added to increasing unemployment rates and foreclosures. But, why would legislator’s care? They aren’t being directly affected by the enactment of this law. In fact, I think they felt like heroes after the law was signed and I wonder how many of those who proposed the Bill were up for reelection in 2007 or 2008. This law may appear to some on the campaign trail as a major accomplishment.
With the help of the CPSC and its commissioners, the degrees of enforcement have prevented many of the bumps in the road, expected when this law was signed by President Bush. We are making it through and as an industry, believe we have become more safety conscious about our products than ever before.
We are stronger as an industry and as individual companies. We are still learning how to improve and also are trying to get years ahead of legislation, so that we aren’t impacted like we were this time around. It has been tough, but again, it is our obligation to keep children safe, so this isn’t always about having a report or proving compliance; it’s about having the confidence that children using our products would never be harmed and it has been worth every bit of effort and struggle. We are responsible and willing, so no matter what laws are enacted or how many bumps there are, we are moving forward together to do it right.
