Consumer Reports on Safety

We've Moved!

Thu, 07 Dec 2006 21:28:41 GMT

Consumer Reports on Safety can now be found at its new home, at blogs.consumerreports.org/safety. For a limited amount of time, our archives will still be available at this location, but you should update your bookmarks and favorites to point to our new address. If you're viewing this in an RSS reader, please update your links to point to our new RSS feed.

CPSC calls for tighter limits for lead

Tue, 05 Dec 2006 22:24:32 GMT

Recommendation would ban kids' jewelry with more than 0.06% lead

After what seems like a steady stream of recalls of children's jewelry, the Consumer Product Safety Commission staff is proposing a stronger stand on lead in children's jewelry. And we're glad it is, especially coming after this week's recall of 52,000 mood necklaces and pendants (pictured) made by Real Kids, Inc.

Responding to a petition filed by the Sierra Club, and strongly supported by Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports, the CPSC staff agreed that the commission should ban metal jewelry that contains more than 0.06 percent lead. In papers posted on the Commission’s web site today, the staff said such jewelry should be considered “a hazardous substance” because of the lead content and potential for exposure. Kids who ingest this highly toxic metal can experience a range of severe health problems, most notably brain damage, behavioral problems, and at high doses, kidney damage and even death. At least 14 separate recalls involving more than 160 million pieces of metal jewelry have been issued over the past two years.

The recommendation is a positive step forward for the CPSC, which up to now has operated on a two-step process to force a recall of jewelry containing lead. Under that process, if jewelry contained more than 0.06 percent lead, it was then tested for “accessibility” or “extractability” to confirm that the lead could leach or flake from the jewelry and get absorbed into the body through the mouth or skin. If the piece of jewelry passed that test — e.g., no more than 175 micrograms of lead was extracted — it could still be sold.

As most parents know, mouthing, and sometimes ingesting jewelry and other objects is unavoidable for many kids, especially little ones. From 2000 to 2005 the CPSC staff estimated more than 300,000 children aged 18 years and younger were treated in hospital emergency rooms for injuries associated with foreign object ingestion; nearly 20,000 of the ingestions involved jewelry items. Although it is unclear how many of these jewelry pieces contained lead, the staff said it knew of three individual cases of children who swallowed lead-containing jewelry — including one recent case of a child who died after swallowing a metal charm from a bracelet.

In agreeing with the Sierra Club petition, the staff said “the extractability of lead from children’s metal jewelry is strongly associated with the lead content of items.” They found that excess lead exposure that could result in substantial illness is likely in children or anyone mouthing or ingesting items that contain more than 0.06 percent lead, and that the amount of exposure likely increases with increasing lead content in the item.”

Eliminating the need for the second test will simplify and hopefully accelerate the process of getting lead-laden jewelry off of store shelves and out of the hands of children, provided the commission adopts the staff recommendation. Unfortunately, it still could be months or longer before the ban is final since the staff recommendation is only the very beginning of a rule-making process. In the meantime, Consumers Union advises parents to avoid cheap jewelry for kids -- and watch for recalls.

Stay safe while hanging holiday lights

Mon, 04 Dec 2006 17:51:48 GMT

With the holiday season now upon us, chances are good that you’ll be participating in the traditional hanging of the lights and other decorations to put your home in the holiday spirit. Hauling out the ladder and hanging lights can be a tedious and surprisingly hazardous ritual. Ladder-related injuries account for about 150 deaths and send some 180,000 people to the emergency room each year, many serious enough to require hospitalization.

The hazards associated with conventional ladders are as old as the holidays themselves, and for the most part, ladder designs have done little over the years to reduce the risks. Our recent tests of newer types, like the articulating and telescoping models found some new problems serious enough for us to judge several models Not Acceptable. Risks included crushing hazards to hands and fingers, ladder feet that slid out during testing, and injury risks when we tried to use some articulating models fully extended. We also found three conventional stepladders that bent under weights that simulated the stresses of climbing and weight-shifting. More details and tips for how to use a ladder safely are available here.

If all this makes you feel like leaving your lights up all year round, think again. Most outdoor holiday lights are only designed for 90 days of use. The wiring and plastics break down over time and can pose fire and electrical shock hazards. Keep a record of when you purchased your lights and don’t use them beyond their 90-day life. Plus, don’t connect more than three strings of lights together; that can cause an electrical overload. Look for authentic safety certification marks from either UL, CSA, or ETL that indicate that the product meets recognized safety standards Don’t overload extension cords. The Consumer Product Safety Commission recommends not attaching more than three standard-size light sets to one extension cord. Finally, after you handle your light sets, make sure you wash your hands well before munching on holiday cookies and other food. In many cases, electrical cords contain lead, the same harmful metal that’s been banned from paint and gasoline. It’s long been used to keep the plastic from breaking down and our tests found that it can rub off on your hands. Though the levels aren’t likely to be enough to cause acute lead poisoning, especially in adults, it’s a good idea to limit your exposure as much as possible. New regulations in California and the European Union are being developed that will eventually limit the use of lead in plastic used to make electrical cords and holiday lights.

High School sports injuries

Thu, 30 Nov 2006 22:17:38 GMT

Injury rates have dropped, but there's still room for improvement

True or False: Playing basketball is more dangerous for boys than girls.
True or False: Student wrestlers have higher rates of injuries than football players.
True or False: The rate of injuries among high-school athletes is climbing.

In every case, the answer is false, a reflection of just how safe school sports are today.

The National Federation of State High School Associations estimates that nearly 7.2 million students played high school sports during the 2005-06 school year—considerably more than 20 years ago when there were 5.2 million student athletes. And in the post-Title IX universe, girls are more active participants today, accounting for 41 percent of the players compared to 35 percent 20 years ago. And, as girls have entered sports in high numbers, they're entering the nation's emergency rooms as well. Some sports, such as girls’ basketball have higher injury rates than their male-oriented counterparts.

According to a recently released study by the Center for Disease Control, and conducted by the Ohio’s Center for Injury Research and Policy at Columbus Children’s Hospital, participation in high school sports resulted in an estimated 1.4 million injuries during the 2005-06 school year. That amounted to 2.4 injuries per 1,000 athlete exposures (practices or competitions).

According to the study, football continues to have the highest injury rate per 1,000 athlete-exposures (4.36), followed by wrestling (2.50), boys’ (2.43) and girls’ (2.36) soccer, and girls’ basketball (2.01). Sports with injury rates of less than 2 per thousand included boys’ basketball, volleyball, baseball, and softball.

The good news is that the number of sports-related injuries among high school athletes has declined dramatically since the 1990s when injury rates were nearly double the current number in most of the sports. For example, the rate of injury for football players per 1,000 practices or competitions was 8.1, according to a 1999 study published in the Journal of Athletic Training, the first study to calculate national estimates of sports-related injuries. For boys' soccer, the injury rate was 4.6, and 4.4 for girls' basketball. At that time, volleyball was the only sport with an injury rate that was less than 2.0.

Although there is a risk of getting injured while playing high school sports, the physical, mental, and social health benefits are so great that we believe participation should not be discouraged. But the latest CDC study is a good starting point to help high schools make sports safer. For example, which sports would benefit most from improved safety rules and gear, especially when money’s tight? Clearly football would have to be included in the list. Maybe the new CDC numbers will encourage improved helmet designs to reduce the number of injuries. (We have more on football helmets here.) We also believe there should also be more detailed research into the severity of sports-related injuries -- breaking it down sport by sport -- with a national surveillance system to track such injuries.

Meanwhile, we all realize that accidents happen. To reduce the risks:

Wear the correct, properly-fitting protective gear (helmet, mouth guard, knee pads, etc.) every time you practice or play in a game.
Warm up before you play.
Know the rules of the game before you play to help keep yourself and others safe.
Listen and communicate with others on the field or court.
Never play a sport when you’re injured.

And if you’re injured while playing a sport, RICE is the best way to keep the swelling down, feel less pain, and speed up healing time. No, we don’t mean you should eat rice; rather you should follow this rule: Rest, Ice, Compression, Elevation. But remember, RICE should not be a substitute for seeking professional medical treatment if you need it.

Lighter makers want mandatory standard

Wed, 29 Nov 2006 21:32:46 GMT

Europe has one. So does Canada. Mexico, too. But so far, the U.S. does not. It does not have a mandatory safety standard for cigarette lighters.

And that bothers the Lighter Association, which in a rare request for an industry trade group, has been begging the Consumer Product Safety Commission to order all lighters sold in this country to meet safety tests to reduce the risk of fires and injuries from malfunctioning lighters.

Often, trade associations try to fend off government regulation, but in this case, the industry has argued since 2001 that current voluntary standards are insufficient because many imported lighters fail to pass these tests. In fact, the industry has argued, many lighters that fail to meet the safety standards in Canada and Mexico are deliberately redirected to the U.S. markets. (Today, imports account for three-fourths of the one billion lighters sold in the U.S. every year. Nine out of ten lighters are disposable and China is the largest importer, accounting for more than half of the imported lighters.)

Despite the industry’s request, the CPSC staff has been reluctant to endorse a mandatory standard. In 2004, the staff said the risk of death of injury from lighter malfunctions was low given the number of lighters on the market. But the petition was granted by two CPSC commissioners, and one directed the staff to continue to "gather data" on whether lighters were a "big enough hazard to justify a federal rulemaking proceeding."

A recent report issued by the CPSC staff suggests that things haven't changed much. Although the staff didn’t specifically say it was against a mandatory rule, it noted that the estimated risk of injury associated with lighter malfunctions that potentially involved products that didn’t comply with the voluntary standard was about 1 injury for every million lighters.

The risks are low -- even though the staff did find that slightly less than half -- 42 to 45 percent -- of the lighters on the market don't meet the voluntary standard. Conformance was the highest -- 79 percent --among Lighter Association members, while lighters from nonmembers met the standard only 30 percent of the time. Among countries, lighters from China had the lowest conformance rate, also 30 percent.

The staff said that from 1997 to 2005, there were 362 reported incidents of lighter failures, of which 65 percent resulted in fires leading to 4 deaths and some serious injuries. That’s more than the agency reported in 2004, when it reported 256 incidents and three deaths between 1997 and 2002.

That additional death is one reason the staff should adopt a mandatory standard, argued David H. Baker, the association’s general counsel. “Why should you ignore a hazard that the industry has brought to your attention and says this needs to be regulated?"

Baker said association members want mandatory standards to help reduce their legal liability. He explained that members often get sued for fires resulting from malfunctioning lighters. In many cases, he said, the lighter was destroyed in the fire, so there’s no proof of who made the lighter. But the easiest targets are the well-known brands such as Bic, Scripto and Swedish Match -- companies that are members of the association, Baker explained.

“This may not be ATVs” which account for hundreds of deaths a year, Baker said. Even so, he said, "why not deal with the problem?”

CPSC spokeswoman Julie Vallese said the proposal to regulate cigarette lighters is still active. However, she added, “it’s a matter of resources when lighters go and how quickly it moves through the agency.”