Trouble in Toyland The 30th Annual Survey of Toy Safety November 2015 Trouble in Toyland The 30th Annual Survey of Toy Safety Written by: Dev Gowda, Grace Lee, and Carli Jensen U.S. PIRG Education Fund November 2015 Acknowledgments CoPIRG Foundation thanks Elizabeth Ridlington, Policy Analyst, Frontier Group for her insights and suggestions. We also thank Ed Mierzwinski, Consumer Program Director, U.S. PIRG Education Fund for his review of drafts of this document. Special thanks to the Colston Warne program of Consumer Reports for supporting our work on consumer protection issues. Additional thanks to the Ecology Center in Ann Ar- bor, Michigan for use of their XRF analyzer, and individual contributors for their generous support of our work on toxics, public health, and consumer issues. The authors bear responsibility for any factual errors. Policy recommendations are those of CoPIRG Foundation. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of our funders or those who provided review. 2015 CoPIRG Foundation. Some Rights Reserved. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Li- cense. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc- nd/4.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, PO Box 1866, Mountain View, CA 94042, USA. With public debate around important issues often dominated by special interests pursuing their own narrow agendas, CoPIRG Foundation offers an independent voice that works on behalf of the public interest. CoPIRG Foundation, a 501(c)(3) organization, works to protect consumers and promote good government. We investigate problems, craft solutions, educate the public, and offer Coloradans meaningful opportunities for civic participation. For more information about CoPIRG Foundation or for additional copies of this report, please visit www.copirgfoundation.org. Layout: Alec Meltzer Cover image: korycheer, morgueFile license Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................. 1 Introduction ..................................................... 4 Hazards in Toys .................................................. 5 Toxic Metals ...................................................... 5 Chromium ........................................................ 5 Lead ............................................................ 6 Phthalates ....................................................... 6 Choking Hazards ................................................. 7 Small Balls ........................................................ 9 Balloons ......................................................... 9 Magnets ........................................................ 10 Excessive Noise .................................................. 12 Policy Recommendations ..................................... 13 Methodology ................................................... 15 Appendix 1. Potentially Hazardous Toys ..................... 16 Appendix 2. Reported Toy-Related Deaths, 2001-2013 ...................................................... 30 Appendix 3. CPSC Characteristics of Toys for Children Under Three .......................................... 31 Notes ............................................................ 32 Executive Summary or 30 years, U.S. PIRG Education Fund The problems we found include: has conducted an annual survey of toy Fsafety, which has led to over 150 recalls • Chromium. Skin contact with chro- and other regulatory actions over the years, mium can cause severe allergic reac- and has helped educate the public and poli- tions including skin redness, swelling, cymakers on the need for continued action to and ulcers. Chromium compounds are protect the health and wellbeing of children. also known to cause cancer. This year, Among the toys surveyed this year, we preliminary testing revealed 3 toys that found potential choking and noise haz- may contain unsafe levels of chromium: ards, one toy that exceeded federal toxic Minions pencil case, Slinky Jr., and mag- standards, and three toys that preliminary netic numbers, and we call on the CPSC testing showed may exceed federal stan- to do further testing on these toys. dards. This report not only lists the po- tentially dangerous toys that we found this • Phthalates. Exposure to phthalates at year, but also describes why and how the crucial stages of development may harm toys could harm children. development of the male reproductive The continued presence of hazards in system, and is linked to early puberty. toys highlights the need for constant vigi- Lab tests confirmed that a jump rope pur- lance on the part of government agencies chased by our shoppers contained phthal- and the public to ensure that children are ates at levels greater than the legal limit. not harmed by unsafe toys. Standards for toy safety are enforced • Small parts are pieces that might block a by the Consumer Product Safety Com- child’s airway. Children, especially those mission (CPSC). Safety standards include under age three, can choke on small parts. limits on toxic substances in children’s Our shoppers identified several toys that products, size requirements for toys for contain or may break into small parts, small children, warning labels about chok- but either do not have the correct U.S. ing hazards, measures to keep magnets and statutory warning label, or any warning batteries inaccessible, and noise limits. label at all. These included a fairy wand, toy car and plane, a Dory figurine, a mini U.S. PIRG Education Fund staff ex- vortex football, and a toy mermaid. amined hundreds of toys to confirm that they are safe. We discovered that • Small balls less than 1.75 inches in di- unsafe toys remain widely available. ameter represent a choking hazard for Executive Summary 1 children three years and younger. We • Lead. Even low levels of lead in blood found Magic Towels packaged as a small have been shown to undermine IQ, at- baseball and a small football at Dollar tentiveness, and academic achievement. Tree which did not have the appropriate While our shoppers did not find any small ball warning label. We also remain toys with high levels of lead, the CPSC concerned about other small, rounded has recalled toys due to lead limit viola- toys, such as toy food, that present the tions this year. same choke hazard as small balls, but are not labeled as a hazard. Despite recent progress in making toys safer, the findings of our 2015 investiga- • Balloons are easily inhaled in attempts to tion, as well as recent recalls and legal inflate them and can become stuck in chil- actions against importers, highlight the dren’s throats. Balloons are responsible need for continued attention to shortcom- for more choking deaths among children ings in existing standards, and vigilance on than any other toy or children’s product. the part of the shopping public. To keep We found three balloon sets on store children safe from potentially hazardous shelves marketed to children under eight. toys, there is still more to do. • Magnets. When two or more power- Policymakers should continue ful magnets are swallowed, they can building upon recent progress in the have fatal health consequences as their strengthening of toy safety standards. attractive forces draw them together The CPSC should: inside the body, perforating intestinal walls. We found ellipsoid magnets that • Continue to vigorously enforce the are just larger than the small parts cylin- Consumer Product Safety Improve- der. While we believe these magnets do ment Act’s mandatory standards for not technically violate any standards, we toys, including strict limits on lead and include them because their near-small lead paint in any toys, jewelry, or other parts size is a concern. We also note that articles for children under 12 years; following aggressive enforcement of an all-out ban by the CPSC, small power- • Vigorously enforce the Consumer ful magnets that do fit in the choke test Product Safety Improvement Act’s per- cylinder are nearly impossible to pur- manent ban on the use of three specific chase, although we did find one foreign phthalates in all toys and children’s Internet site that still sells them. products; • Excessive Noise. Excessive noise expo- • Upgrade the interim ban on three ad- sure can lead to hearing loss. This is es- ditional phthalates into a permanent pecially problematic for young children, prohibition and expand it to include ad- because hearing loss at an early age has ditional phthalates; ramifications for speech development. Our shoppers found five toys marketed • Enlarge the small parts test tube to be to children under three years that are es- more protective of children under three; timated to be either at or slightly above the decibel standards recommended for • Change the small-ball rule to include close-to-the-ear toys which included a small round or semi-round objects, and toy animal, car, flashlight, magnetic let- not just “balls” in the strictest defini- ter set, and a remote. tion, since these toys pose the same haz- 2 Trouble in Toyland: The 30th Annual Survey of Toy Safety ards as small balls, especially rounded • Report unsafe toys or toy-related injuries toy food, since they are “intended” to be to the CPSC at www.saferproducts.gov. eaten; • Subscribe to government announce- • Continue to enforce the use of the ments of recalled products at www.re- United States’ statutory choke hazard calls.gov; and warning label; • Remember,