What do the 1st and most recent issues of Consumer Reports have in common?

[Pangloss]

According to a report tonight on The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, the first issue of Consumer Reports -- from 1936! -- warns of the dangers of lead in paint.

 

And so does the December issue, 71 years later. Wow.

 

I put this in politics because, doggone it, if that doesn't say something about the importance of government safety oversight and the ultimate irrelevence of consumer awareness, I don't know what does.

 

 

(BTW, I started watching Lehrer again a few days ago when they began broadcasting in stunning 1080i HD. Not that HD really matters a whole lot with news shows, but the notice caught my eye, and I have to say I'd forgotten how thorough and absorbing their stories can be. They really do some great journalism on that show.)

[CDarwin]

Eat that, Boortz?

[iNow]

How many mistakes are we going to repeat? Knowledge is nothing if we don't apply it.

[Reaper]

How many mistakes are we going to repeat?

 

A lot more, and this will probably keep on happening forever.

[Sisyphus]

Are they just warning about imported products, like from China, say? (Please say yes.) Anyway, I don't know if consumer awareness is irrelevant, per se - if more people read Consumer Reports (an outstanding publication) and actually were aware, it might work better. Also, agreed about Lehrer. Intelligent questions that are hard but fair, and actual context for the sound bytes. Nice.

[john5746]

I like the overall atmosphere of PBS News Hour. Maybe because I was from the era of straight news with little showmanship, tickers and pop-ups everywhere to appeal to ADD video game addicts.

[ParanoiA]

I caught a little of that myself, actually. The question I kept screaming at the television is why does it matter if there's lead in some toy if the lead can't be extracted from the toy?

 

Some of this lead paint is being used in manufacturing plastics - so how does the lead get absorbed by a child in that case? Lead based "house paint" only got absorbed because the paint chipped and flaked and the pieces are then eaten and I'm assuming the body then breaks it down, thereby releasing the lead.

 

I didn't think any of these toys' lead content was able to be extracted - short of swallowing the entire toy. I mean, the toy is made of plastic - everyone is aware that eating plastic is bad right?? So does the lead in that plastic make it any worse?

 

I admit ignorance on this subject. I also admit suspicion of overreaction.

[Sisyphus]

Actually, the danger from lead paint was not in actually eating paint chips (which not even children generally do), but in the lead released during the normal processes of deterioration, which can be breathed in or absorbed into the skin from mere contact over time. I don't know whether the same thing happens with plastics, though.

[John Cuthber]

It seems we are condemned to make the mistakes of the past all over again.

Long ago a colleague told me of his old boss who had worked as an anlytical chemist. A really famous toy manufacturer made the point that heavy metals (Cd rather tha Pb) were well stuck into the toy and couldn't get into the child.

The chemist took one of the building bricks and chewed on it for a while then spat into a test tube. The yellow colour of the shredded plastic was perfectly clearly visible. As he pointed out the next tep would have normally been that the child who had been chewing on the brick would have swallowed the powdered plastic. That would have led to the plastic being leached with dilute acid. A quick experiment showed that plenty of Cd could be extracted this way to be a chronic poisoning hazard to small children.

 

Eating many plastics is pretty harmless because they are not digested.

 

Small children, to whom many toys are targeted are not aware that eating plastic is bad; they chew everything. Didn't you know that?

[Mr Skeptic]

Those with pica disorder will actually eat plastic toys, clay, old tires... Very young children also have a tendency to chew on things they are not supposed to.

[Pangloss]

They also had one bit in that story where they put uncontained food, like slices of cheese and fruit, into a soft-plastic lunch box, and the food picked up lead from transfer. I realize the food should normally be contained in plastic wrap (etc), but who hasn't seen kids eat food directly off tables, counter-tops, chairs, etc? I have some parent friends who let their children eat directly off tabletops in RESTAURANTS! Augh!

 

(My wife barbs me sometimes with her "five-second rule", pretending to eat stuff that's fallen on the floor if it's picked up within five seconds. Anybody else heard that one before? Apparently it was something her grandmother used to say, and she actually meant it!)

 

(And of course I say that, and then watch, those kids will have super-efficient immune systems and end up being the sole survivors of the superbug that's about to wipe out the rest of us!)

[iNow]

(And of course I say that, and then watch, those kids will have super-efficient immune systems and end up being the sole survivors of the superbug that's about to wipe out the rest of us!)

I was thinking exactly this reading your post. I'm glad to see you included it at the end.

 

 

I used the five minute rule myself.

[Mr Skeptic]

I've eaten candy that was under a couch for at least a year. Mostly to freak out my cousin (I know dry sugar doesn't spoil).

[ParanoiA]

Perhaps I'm depending on my personal experience too much on this one, because neither of my boys actually bit into a plastic toy that I ever witnessed. Sure they nibbled at them and drooled all over them, but I never actually saw them get any meat out of them.

 

I guess I have to agree though, the profit gained from using the cheap lead stuff isn't worth the risk. And I can appreciate the historical lessons of miscalculation.

 

During the program, they mentioned the Toys-R-Us (I believe) CEO ordered these particular toys off the shelves. Whether in honor or business, it certainly goes to show all you really need to do is get the public to make a big deal out of it and the market will respond. I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing "100% Lead Free!!" stickers on every freaking toy imaginable...yes, even those. (you dirty devils)

[iNow]

I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing "100% Lead Free!!" stickers on every freaking toy imaginable...yes, even those. (you dirty devils)

Certainly brings new meaning to the phrase, "Get the lead out."

[Sisyphus]

Sure they nibbled at them and drooled all over them...

 

That would be enough.

[ParanoiA]

That would be enough.

 

Which is why I changed my position on it.

 

 

 

Although, I haven't changed my position on this:

I put this in politics because, doggone it, if that doesn't say something about the importance of government safety oversight and the ultimate irrelevence of consumer awareness, I don't know what does.

 

But consumers weren't aware. Because public TV reports it means the public is now aware? Not saying safety oversight isn't necessary, but I don't agree with the notion that consumer awareness is ultimately irrelevent.

 

When consumers became aware of the Atkins diet, suddenly carb counts appeared on menus all over the country. When consumers really do become aware or start to make a stink about something, business takes notice and creates an opportunity out of it. They'll sell you whatever you want.

[Sisyphus]

I dunno, I think the public has been aware that they don't want lead in children's toys for a long time now. What the public isn't aware of is what businesses don't advertise, and what they do that they're not supposed to be doing. That kind of protection is something that really only government oversight can accomplish. This, incidentally, is probably the issue on which I most strongly disagree with Dr. Paul.

[ParanoiA]

I dunno, I think the public has been aware that they don't want lead in children's toys for a long time now. What the public isn't aware of is what businesses don't advertise, and what they do that they're not supposed to be doing. That kind of protection is something that really only government oversight can accomplish. This, incidentally, is probably the issue on which I most strongly disagree with Dr. Paul.

 

Yes, the public has been aware they don't want lead in kid's toys. They were NOT aware that there WAS lead - still - in kid's toys. That's part of what was covered in this story. When this part graduates from Leher to mainstream knowledge, then we'll get the capitalist pacification which can ultimately go further.

 

The government can only test and discover X number of toys. But if Toys-R-Us is getting PR points for bragging about being "Lead Free" - then they really can't jeopardize their reputation and they will make damn sure every item is lead free.

 

Now, about government oversight. What is in the constitution that makes it ok to sell poison in disguise of children's toys? I'm just saying. Again, it seems like we already have the laws in place - now we just need to investigate and prosecute.

 

This may be exactly how they operate, I really don't know. My aversion to regulation has always been in application, not theory. It's illegal for me to kill people, but I don't have to get "licensed" to walk the streets. Instead, I walk the streets freely and I'm investigated if I'm under suspicion of commiting murder.

 

When we regulate, it always seems to involve some sort of licensing, and ridiculous set of standards that every business has to meet - this always involves large amounts of money (the cost of which is passed to the consumer) and creates monopolistic bubbles that dissuade competition. Depending on the particular market of course, it can be too difficult to initialize your business - so competition becomes scarce (which also costs the consumer) and in some cases, like energy, becomes nil - which is a self fulfilling prophecy of even MORE regulation since now they really are a monopoly - a government enabled one. ( And yes, even MORE cost to the consumer).

 

This thing just snowballs because we're not giving business the same benefit of the doubt has private citizens. Why shouldn't each business simply operate as they see fit, while we investigate and police them the same way private citizens are policed? If they break the law - punish them. Punish them with money, jail time, whatever.

 

Sorry, I got way off track there didn't I?

[swansont]

When we regulate, it always seems to involve some sort of licensing, and ridiculous set of standards that every business has to meet - this always involves large amounts of money (the cost of which is passed to the consumer) and creates monopolistic bubbles that dissuade competition. Depending on the particular market of course, it can be too difficult to initialize your business - so competition becomes scarce (which also costs the consumer) and in some cases, like energy, becomes nil - which is a self fulfilling prophecy of even MORE regulation since now they really are a monopoly - a government enabled one. ( And yes, even MORE cost to the consumer).

 

But cost being passed along to the consumer implies that the older way of doing business — that was endangering the consumer — was cheaper. Businesses generally won't voluntarily go with a more expensive process unless they can somehow recover the expense, because they can't otherwise compete as effectively (they would have to leverage e.g. higher quality to justify the higher price)

[ParanoiA]

But cost being passed along to the consumer implies that the older way of doing business — that was endangering the consumer — was cheaper. Businesses generally won't voluntarily go with a more expensive process unless they can somehow recover the expense, because they can't otherwise compete as effectively (they would have to leverage e.g. higher quality to justify the higher price)

 

This is true, however by avoiding the "one size fits all" approach, perhaps we can avoid some of that higher price. It's always going to get passed on to the consumer as they have to make a profit, but it seems that blanket "bar" style regulation - basically a guilty until proven innocent concept - is too lucrative for the government to be honest.

 

I mean, here we are, with lead paint in toys, still, despite the regulation style. It's almost like the government is just in it for the money or something...