Putting the Fun Back into Childhood
Washington, DC -- It's staggering how high the bar for being shocked has become in our capital city. Three years ago, the Sierra Club exposed that children's toys had become a toxic melange of lead and other poisons, courtesy of a global supply chain that values low price over everything. After a huge round of initial outcry, the EPA and Consumer Product Safety Commission sluggishly began to respond. But even though new federal standards were established for lead in toys, companies kept making and shipping and selling toys that violated those standards. Just last month I heard a radio program about how common poison toys are on the shelves of discount toy retailers in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Then, last year, the EPA proposed new rules that would have perpetuated the single largest source of childhood exposure to lead -- paint in homes. The Sierra Club and others sued, challenging the rules. Last week the EPA agreed to remove the loopholes from its proposed rules and move forward to protect kids. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson made her position very clear:
"As both EPA Administrator and as a mother, my highest priority is protecting our children from environmental threats in the places where they live, play and learn. Lead is still present in many of our neighborhoods, but we can limit exposure to children and adults by working together on comprehensive actions like these."Jackson also announced that the EPA would take a number of other steps designed to reduce overall risks from childhood exposure to lead.
This is wonderful. But really, why did it require three years of litigation to get this far? How do the companies that sell those toxic toys, now knowingly, justify what they are doing? How can landlords and contractors continue to sell buildings that they know will poison the next generation? And how did Washington find it acceptable for previous EPA regulators to simply stonewall cleanup measures that are this simple and ethically essential?
