Overcoming the Limitations of Command and Control and Free Market Approaches - Research Paper Example

Many conventional products still use phthalates to make the plastic soft and pliable. These are the same phthalates found in vinyl flooring and mattress covers, widely considered one of the most toxic and environmentally unfriendly plastics in use today. This toxic chemical is used in tethers and soft squeeze toys, beach balls, bath toys, dolls, and many other soft plastic products.

Soft plastics are especially dangerous for babies, who put everything in their mouths. Following the European Union, The Consumer Product Safety Commission in the United States asked manufacturers to remove phthalates from baby pacifiers and toys for children under age three, and many companies are doing so. However, reports on phthalate and other hazardous chemical levels in children’s products show that many manufacturers are far from compliant.

Plastics also damage the environment. The manufacture and incineration of PVC result in highly toxic dioxins and furans. In addition, plastic manufacturers are the single largest users of chlorine which reacts with organic matter in drinking water to produce toxic by-products. Moreover, to top off the list of assaults, the heavy metals lead and cadmium are added as stabilizers in children’s soft vinyl products and packaging. They can be released into the environment during both manufacture and decomposition contaminating water, soil, and air.

As the problem of toxic plastics begins to hit the mainstream media, manufacturers may soon be pushed to remove them from children’s toys. In December 2006, Time Magazine ran a feature article titled ‘What’s Toxic in Toyland’. The story covered San Francisco’s ban on the sale of certain plastic toys for children under the age of three (Greene et. al., 2007). Moreover, environmental magazines and coalitions against toxic toys dedicated to consumer awareness about the dangers of certain toys, such as those made of phthalate are committed to stopping their production. The health and environmental concerns are linked to concerns with fair labor practices since PVC factories employ a workforce of mainly poor, minority people, who are exposed to physical dangers from their exposure to dioxin (Hall & Bishop, 2007).

Children often chew on soft PVC toys, which leach toxic plasticizers into their mouths. In 1998, after extensive press coverage, several US toy manufacturers such as Brio, Chicco, Evenflo, First Years, Gerber, and Safety 1st voluntarily agreed to remove plasticizers from toys intended for the mouth. In 2002, the US Consumer Product Safety Commission or CPSC reviewed the data on plasticizers in chew toys and found the plasticizers were more toxic than previously known. Yet instead of calling for a nationwide ban, they simply lowered the ‘safe’ exposure limit by 20 percent. The CPSC’s reason for lowering the limit rather than banning it outright was that children spend less than 75 minutes a day mouthing this plastic and this duration of chewing would expose them to the plasticizer in amounts that were within the ‘safety’ limit. Calling plasticizers ‘safe in toys’ because of the amount of exposure rather than their inherent safety has failed to protect the children. Children have multiple sources of exposure, which increases their dose to unsafe levels. It has already been documented that children have plasticizer levels high enough to cause health problems (Holler, 2008). The European Union has steadfastly supported its original ban on soft PVC teething toys since it was issued in 1999. The Japanese government banned plasticizers in toys that might be mouthed by children under the age of six in 2002. At least 14 countries are phasing out or have already banned toxic plasticizers from children’s toys. With no government regulations and no labeling requirements, consumers in the US can never be certain that the toys their children put in their mouths are safe. California recently passed The Toxic Toys bill, which intends to ban the use of six plasticizers from products intended for children under the age of three. While this is a giant step in the right direction, it does not address the fact that young children chew on everything, including plastic spoons and siblings’ toys. Dolls, action figures, and other toys designed for older children are more likely to contain harmful chemicals because they are not intended for young children. “There is simply no place for harmful chemicals in any children’s toys” (Holler, 2008, p.144)