TIA fights for safety standards 'harmonization'

By Brent Felgner -- Playthings, 4/11/2008 9:24:00 AM

NEW YORK—When Washington state Gov. Christine Gregoire (D) signed an expansion of the state’s Children’s Safe Products Act in to law earlier this month, the toy industry’s lobbying efforts assumed a new posture: working with NGOs (non-government organizations), lawmakers and state officials to resolve two sections that were vetoed, as well as the implementation of the new law.

“Although the bill is signed, the work is far from over in Washington state,” offered Rob Herriott, the Toy Industry Association’s director of international and government relations, in a telephone interview.

Gregoire vetoed two sections of the bill. In her message to members of the state’s House of Representatives, Gregoire said she objected to the language in one section affirming the need to regulate toxic chemicals in children’s products because it could be interpreted to “create obligations that are beyond what state government can deliver.” She vetoed the second section because it required the state Department of Ecology to identify chemicals of high concern for children—which appeared to preempt another section in the legislation, which set a different date for completion.

Moreover, Gregoire acknowledged that without careful implementation, the new law could negatively impact the availability of safe toys in the state. For that reason, she said, she would convene an advisory group to work with state agencies to find a “common sense” way to implement the bill and work on “needed legislative fixes” for the next session.

“I will ask both large and small toymakers and children’s products retailers, children’s health experts and public interest representatives to work together on these tasks, and I will invite state legislators to participate,” she wrote. According to Herriott, TIA will be directly involved in the effort.

Indeed, the TIA’s work to encourage what it terms “achievable” regulatory “harmonization” is actively underway in jurisdictions around the United States, as well as globally. Dozens of measures are pending in 30 states, most seeking to eliminate certain chemicals used in the manufacture of children’s toys — including phthalates, lead, cadmium and bisphenol A — as well as dealing with broader safety issues.

Herriott said, “It’s a global industry. As much as we strive for harmonization in the states and domestically on the federal level, we also strive to harmonize it internationally. It’s a very big-picture strategy — giving [legislators] the understanding that this is a highly regulated industry already and there are very robust safety standards already applied to the toy industry.”

Herriott acknowledged that the industry’s challenge has been exacerbated by the seemingly unending series of recalls that began last year, essentially spawning much of the state-level legislative efforts.

“The recalls from last year do make our job more challenging,” Herriott said. “What you saw was literally 0.01 percent of all toys recalled. That’s not to discount the fact that the toys that were recalled, broke the rules and needed to be recalled. The fact that they were recalled so quickly is part of the argument that the system works. Recalls will always exist; they are part of the success of the system. Even with that, TIA went back and reassessed why these toys even made it to market. We found we could do better.”

Part of the TIA’s and the industry’s challenge is simply to deploy its resources when needed everywhere they’re needed. The TIA’s staff isn’t large, so Herriott said it has employed some on-the-ground assistance to be its eyes and ears, then directing internal staff to individual states to provide testimony at hearings and meeting with lawmakers when measures are under active consideration. Some individual companies are also involved in the effort.

The TIA remains supportive of the general effort involving the Consumer Product Safety Commission — including toy-specific provisions, such as the conformity assessment program, reducing allowable levels of lead, and advertising. In some cases, the federal law could preempt the state laws, Herriott said.

“It’s a multi-tier effort and you put the resources you do have against it, and hope that your message is heard and understood,” he noted.