“While the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act is a major step forward, many of its protections don’t take effect until 2009, so it’s still ‘buyer beware’ for this shopping season,” said U.S. PIRG Public Health Advocate Liz Hitchcock. “Worse, last week the CPSC told companies that they could keep selling toys with toxic phthalate chemicals until they ran out of them, despite the law’s clear prohibition against selling them after Feb. 10.”

According to the most recent data from the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), toy-related injuries sent more than 80,000 children under the age of five to emergency rooms in 2007. Eighteen children died from toy-related injuries that year.For 23 years, the PIRG “Trouble in Toyland” report has offered safety guidelines for purchasing toys for small children and has provided examples of toys currently on store shelves that pose potential safety hazards.

Because the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), passed in August 2008, established new standards for lead and phthalates, PIRG’s research this year used laboratory tests to identify toys that contain those toxic chemicals.

Among the findings of the 2008 Trouble In Toyland:

Toxic Phthalates: Numerous scientists have documented the potential health effects of exposure to phthalates in the womb or at crucial stages of development, including (but not limited to) reproductive defects, premature delivery, early onset of puberty and lower sperm counts. Effective February 2009, the CPSIA bans toys that contain concentrations of more than 0.1 percent of a toxic chemical called Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act. PIRG found toys that contained concentrations of phthalates of up to 40 percent.

“Congress clearly intended the new law to stop the sale of toys containing toxic phthalates in February, but last week’s CPSC legal opinion told manufacturers that they can keep selling the remaining millions of hazardous toys until they run out, which could take years,” said Hitchcock. “Congress gave America’s littlest consumers the gift of safety—they should not let the CPSC take it away.”

Hitchcock noted that U.S. PIRG and congressional champions intended to take every possible action to overturn the CPSC decision and restore the February 2009 ban on sale of toxic phthalate-laden toys.

Lead in Toys and Children’s Jewelry: Children exposed to lead can suffer lowered IQ, delayed mental and physical development and even death. In 2006, a four-year-old died of lead poisoning after he swallowed a bracelet charm that contained 99 percent lead. PIRG researchers went to just a few stores and easily found three children’s toys containing high levels of lead or lead paint. One piece of jewelry was 45 percent lead by weight, or more than 750 times current CPSC action levels.

The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act will eventually ban lead except at trace amounts in paint or coatings (90 ppm limit as of August 2009) or in any toys, jewelry or other products for use by children under 12 years old (100 ppm limit as of August 2011 after scheduled interim reductions beginning February 2009).

“Congress took important steps to address the serious health risks that lead poses to children, yet consumers can still find lead-laden children’s jewelry and lead painted toys on store shelves until the protections take effect next year,” continued U.S. PIRG’s Hitchcock.

Choking Hazards: In 1979, the CPSC banned the sale of toys for children younger than three if they contain small parts. The 1994 Child Safety Protection Act required an explicit prominent choke hazard warning on toys with small parts for children aged between three and six. Researchers found toys with small parts for children under the age of six that lacked the required explicit choke hazard warning.

“The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act gave the CPSC the tools it needs to do a better job,” said Hitchcock. “Now it’s up to Congress to fully fund those tools and for the CPSC to vigorously carry out its new responsibilities.”

Hitchcock also reminded parents that the toy list in the PIRG report is only a sampling of the potential hazards on store shelves, and urged consumers to shop with a copy of PIRG’s Tips for Toy Safety.

“Shoppers should remember to examine all toys carefully for hidden dangers before making a purchase this holiday season,” concluded Hitchcock.

From the desk of Cathy Zoi, CEO, RepowerAmerica.org:

In April 2007 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide if it is harming our health and welfare. After more than a year of delay, the EPA is finally now requesting public comments on whether carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping pollutants are endangering our health and our climate.

For nearly eight years, the Bush administration has done nothing to address the growing threats we face from global warming. Hurricanes are getting stronger, the North polar icecap is melting, and we’ve suffered through intense droughts, floods and killer heat waves.

The deadline is November 28th. Let’s help end the era of delay.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Join us, and send a message about how crucial it is to reduce harmful carbon dioxide pollution. That you expect the EPA to use its powers to protect our health and welfare. That we can “Repower America” by using energy sources that don’t emit carbon dioxide, and make the switch to 100% clean electricity. And that the solutions to the climate crisis are the same ones needed to address our economic and security challenges.

Most people don’t know about this opportunity for public comment, so your voice can make a real difference. And with a new president in the White House, it’s likely that someone will actually be listening. Submit your public comment to the EPA here: http://www.RepowerAmerica.org/EPA

This is our chance to go on the public record — all the comments will be posted on the EPA’s website. To post your public comment, just go here.

Cathy Zoi, CEO www.RepowerAmerica.org

According to a recent report from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, at least one in four teenage girls nationwide have a sexually transmitted disease. Clearly abstinence only school programs do not deter young people from sexual activity, but in fact this direction actually deters young adults from access to information that they need to make responsible and safe choices. We must act immediately to withdraw funding for this program and allow teachers to present sensible sexual education curriculum.

As a candidate for federal office I believe that young people must be presented with all the facts available to them. Instead of relying on religious rhetoric and the value system of a fundamentalist minority, I believe that we must look clearly at human behavior as biological fact. The school system is not an avenue for proselytizing about various belief systems. Sexual activity is a fact of life, much like any other human activity and young people need to know the facts before it is too late.

Abstinence only until marriage curricula is censorship, pure and simple. Any school program that withholds scientifically valid information does not present young people with the full range of options they will actually face in life. This is a betrayal to the trust of our students who will carry the scars of misinformation with them their entire lives, both physically and psychologically. We must present them with all the information that they need to know at an appropriate age when they need to know it.

Seven years after abstinence only education was introduced into the school curriculum, many people are still not aware of the damaging affects that it is having on our young adults. The legislation uses the federal government to teach that abstinence is the only definite way to prevent sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy. Additionally the curriculum teaches that monogamous relationships within the context of marriage are the standard value system and anything else could be damaging, both psychologically and physically. School systems that have agreed to teach abstinence receive significant grants from the federal government via their state.

The problem with abstinence only education is that it isn’t real. It isn’t grounded in science or in fact. What we know is that the average teenager will become sexually active before they leave high school regardless of what the government tells them they should do. Educators who teach abstinence only know that it doesn’t work but they teach it anyway. So what they are really teaching is morality, which is the whole point of the legislation.

Withholding information from young people can be harmful. What our high school and junior high students need is comprehensive sexual education classes that are presented the way that they were intended to be taught. Our young people are worth the investment and telling them the truth about sex is the best bet to minimize the impact of the choices they are going to make. By fully educating our students about the risks of STD’s [Sexually Transmitted Disease] including HIV and the risk of pregnancy, and by presenting them with the range of contraception choices available to them along with the basic facts about human sexuality we are giving them the best tools to go into the world prepared.

By investing in comprehensive sexual education we can redirect the federal budget toward sensible priorities. The cost to taxpayers of abstinence only has been estimated to be as high as $500 million dollars when considering matching state funds. By eliminating abstinence only curricula we will also save public health dollars by providing reliable information which can help prevent costly misinformed decisions among sexually active teenagers. If elected to office I will work to see that Congressional appropriations regarding abstinence only education is brought before the public for hearings and debate and that the appropriations process does not automatically qualify for funding each year without review. It is the best decision for students and their future.