The Environmental Protection Agency has released findings of a recent study indicating that a currently unregulated phthalate, dipentyl phthalate (DPeP or DPP for short), may be more hazardous than any of the phthalates permanently banned by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (DEHP, DBP, and BBP) as well as those under a temporary ban (DINP, DIDP and DnOP). Phthalates are widely used as softeners for plastics, primarily but not exclusively in PVC.

From Environmental Health News, a publication of the journal Environmental Health Sciences:

The results provide strong evidence that DPeP – a little known and understudied phthalate – may actually pose a greater risk to the developing male reproductive system than the better-known DEHP. DPeP was eight times more potent in reducing testosterone production, 3 - 6 times more potent in blocking gene activity, and 2 - 3 times more potent in causing male genital abnormalities.

Rats share many developmental similarities with humans, so there is good reason to think that prenatal exposure to DPeP would have similar effects on human male reproductive development. In both species, testosterone production during certain critical fetal periods is needed for the reproductive system to develop in characteristically masculine ways.

The study is important because it provides solid information about how prebirth exposure to different doses of DPeP affect male reproductive development. The authors have filled in data gaps that will help determine whether it, too, might warrant government regulation in the future. Several other less potent phthalate compounds have been identified for stringent regulatory actions by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. [Link]

The EPA appears to be in the middle of an assessment process for evaluating the hazards of DPP which is set to conclude at the beginning of 2012.

ZRecs has advised companies to avoid all phthalates in their products. Unfortunately, some companies offering products claiming to be "phthalate-free" may be referring not to all phthalates, but to those specifically banned by CPSIA.

After a period of silence, we have been getting some new reports from readers of Carter's brand infant and toddler clothing causing skin rashes in an echo of the issue we reported on a year ago. The series of investigative posts by Z Recommends culminated in an advisory issued by Carter's and the CPSC, the widespread return of Fall 2008 and earlier Carter's clothing to the company for reimbursement, and an interview with Carter's CEO.

Ultimately, Carter's promised consumers that for their Spring 2009 line they were switching from one type of inked label to another, and the new one would be an "Eco" label that uses water-based inks and has "no harmful substances" (label-maker Avery Dennison's words); more critically, it conforms to Öko-Tex 100 standards for infant skin contact. They are free of Azo dyes, formaldehyde, heavy metals and vinyl (PVC) products.

But then, over the last few weeks, we started hearing from consumers whose children were experiencing the same kinds of painful rashes we heard about last summer. It was difficult to identify over email which season of Carter's clothing they were experiencing these problems with, so we decided the best route was to call Carter's to confirm that what they had told us would happen actually had happened, to try to get some images of the different tag styles so parents would have a good chance of identifying problem garments themselves, and to see if there were any new developments that might impact their Fall 2009 line, which should be hitting stores right about... now.

Carter's spokesperson Janell Cleveland suggested any new bump in reports might be linked to parents getting new sizes of baby clothes out of storage for reuse, because the company had in fact switched to the new, Öko-Tex approved labels for their Spring 2009 line, and were using them for their Fall 2009 line as well.

Here are images of the labels. ZRecs advises you not to buy Carter's children's clothing from Fall 2008 or earlier lines, new or used. You may be surprised how long these items could be on some store shelves, and should check any hand-me-downs as well. Of course, there is a chance that your child will not have any adverse reaction to the labels at all - many children don't. But to us, a possible skin irritant may indicate an exposure to something no child should be in close contact with.

Safer labels: Spring 2009 and later

Most irritating labels: Fall 2007 and earlier

Edited 10-12-09 to add: Possible reports of irritation: 2008 labels

What to do if your child has a reaction

Cleveland stated that she is unaware of Carter's having received any uptick of consumer calls or requests for reimbursements beyond what they would consider normal, but that Carter's standard customer service policy applies - if a consumer has a problem, they can call Carter's and they will work to resolve it, up to and including refunding consumers for purchased clothing and paying for return shipping.

If you have a child who has suffered from significant skin rashes due to Carter's clothing, compare the labels of the items in question with the photographs above. If the label matches the second photo, call Carter's at 888-782-9548, and comment here to tell us how they resolved your issue. If you can positively identify that the label was of the type shown in the first photo - the labels being used now, which are widely regarded as safer - call us at 979-220-0395.

Thanks to Carter's for their continued cooperation and interest in this story.

Ever wonder what people in the plastics industry say to each other about reform efforts aimed at banning phthalates and BPA? We caught a glimpse of that often private conversation this week in Plastics News, an industry publication that just cited "renewed attacks from activists" as the No. 2 issue that has faced the plastics industry over the past two decades. Interestingly, the News points out that attacks on the plastics industry are nothing new - they're just more effective now because they involve marketplace campaigns as well as legislative ones.

"[T]he reality is that attacks on plastics were just as persistent 20 years ago, with efforts then under way to ban chlorine, a ban in New York’s Suffolk County on PS and PVC takeout food containers, and the first concerted effort by environmentalists to ban plastic bags and PS takeout containers," the News writes. "What’s different is that yesterday’s visible rallies have taken a back seat to well-organized new media campaigns that are designed to create public pressure, not just on governments to take action, but on retailers to remove products from their stores - in other words, achieving the effect of a legislative ban without getting one enacted."

The article goes on to discuss the role of various industry groups, who we know primarily as the folks who set up industry-run websites that weigh in on public health debates with the chemical industry's perspective. As many web surfers digest information they find on websites fairly quickly, these sites' scientific and objective tone often give them an effectiveness beyond what one would typically grant a trade organization with a significant vested interest in the status quo. To their credit, most sites we've seen along these lines do provide clear, if subtle, marks indicating their parent organizations or backers.

Anti-reform plastics organizations Plastics News cited which work in the media include:

• The Progressive Bag Affiliates: "formed to meet the threats posed by proposed plastic bag bans or taxes." Organized by the American Chemistry Council.


• The Plastics Foodservice Packaging Group: Combats legislation banning polystyrene takeout packaging. Formerly called the Polystyrene Packaging Council, and organized by the ACC.


• The Phthalates Ester Panel: Responds to calls for bans and other criticisms of phthalate plasticizers. Backed by the Chemical Manufacturers Association.


• The Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group: Combats warnings and proposed bans on BPA. The organization behind Bisphenol-A.org and Facts on Plastic. Current spokesman, widely cited in the media, is Stephen G. Hentges.


• The Vinyl Institute: Promotes and defends vinyl (PVC) against critics.

But all is not lost, the News concludes. The industry has held its own in many of these battles to date, particularly in its anti-environmental efforts:

"To its credit, the plastics industry has successfully fended off many chemistry-specific bans, phthalates notwithstanding. What’s more, possibly because it has so often been under the gun, the industry has learned how to successfully ward off product bans, with the exception of numerous bans on PS take-out packaging in California. Only Westport, Conn., and three communities in California - San Francisco, Malibu and Fairfield - actually have enacted plastic bag bans. But the industry has been less successful in devising a successful strategy to combat what is likely to be the battleground of the 21st century - the new media campaigns that pressure retailers and large institutions, including health-care facilities and governments, to de-select products, so as to avoid any association with potential negativity.

At the moment (and this is our analysis here, not the publication's) no one in the industry seems to have a counter-strategy for this market-based activism, in part because there are ready substitutes for the chemicals and materials under fire, and new brands have emerged that place their chemical safety status front and center in their operations and marketing. This has meant that major retailers have faced competitive pressures within their industry to establish their own, more progressive chemical policies, and the manufacturers have no real choice but to follow suit.

The true irony is that many twentieth-century baby care empires were built by repetitively and creatively triggering and enhancing anxieties among parents in order to spur demand for new purchases. Now that parents' concern about potential risks to their children is demanding that companies respond to those concerns rather than creating the concern to help sell a product they've created, companies often seem downright perplexed by these impulses to err on the side of caution when it comes to childrearing issues.

You can read the full article, and comment on it, here, or find out what else made Plastics News' top twenty issues for the industry (for the "#1 issue," you'll have to wait until March 16).

We've completed our Hamilton Beach updates for BPA, phthalates, and PVC in blenders and food processors. The good news is, they currently produce only one blender known to include BPA-containing polycarbonate parts - the Wave Station Dispensing Blender (it has a tap) - but there are a couple of others with blade attachments you should check the color of (they stopped using polycarbonate in a couple of blender lines in July 2008, and we believe some units produced prior to that could still be on store shelves).

These changes correct information collected from Hamilton Beach representatives in January 2009.

Check our Hamilton Beach section of the ZRecs Guide for all the details if you're interested in (or currently own) a Hamilton Beach blender or food processor. Some of their lids do contain phthalates, but other lines appear to be free of BPA, phthalates, and PVC. Given their transparency and willingness to share real information about their products - rather than the legalese, patently false statements, or double-speak we get from some other companies - we strongly encourage you to consider supporting companies like Hamilton Beach when making safer kitchen purchases.

Members of the House of Representatives' Committee on Energy and Commerce formally submitted a letter to chair Henry Waxman today requesting that the committee hold a hearing to discuss issues surrounding all the folks the Consumer Products Safety Improvement Act (as currently written) will put out of business. (Hat tip to Liz at Cool Mom Picks for putting it on our radar!) Read the letter below, or download it yourself in PDF form, but here's the real meat of it:

The emails, letters, and phone calls we have received from constituents about the unintended consequences of certain provisions and deadlines in CPSC's implementation plan now number in the thousands. Many involved in CPSIA's creation were passionate to improve the safty of our children's products, but surely no one expected or wanted to drive thousands of home-based and small businesses out of operation and turn thousands of Americans into surprise victims of a brutal recession. For example, it seems obvious to us tha t the hand-knitted sweaters and homemade hair bows sold by artisans on eBay are highly unlikely to endanger children's health.

The situation is urgent. On February 10, in less than three weeks, these tiny toy producers will be out of business. Their products, regardless of innocence and safety, will have to be removed from store shelves and the websites of their home businesses.

You have urged the Commission to deal with the problem by issuing new guidance. Regrettably, the kind of modifications to existing requrements needed to prevent a broad collapse of home-based businesses may take months to achieve. We are advised that even if the CPSC devotes full staff attention and moves at the most expeditious speed, it will be unable [to] issue the necessary guidance prior to February 10 without violating Federal rulemaking requirements.

Meanwhile, there is no evidence that these micro-producers are doing anything wrong or endangering anyone, and we believe there is no reasonfor them to suffer a dvasating economic blow simply because their government cannot find a way to help in time.

Here's hoping that Waxman takes their call for action seriously. Honestly, the alternative is so draconian, we're quite hopeful he will. And it gets better - also today, Obama's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, sent out notice to federal agencies that all pending Bush regulations will be placed on hold pending executive review. It's unclear to us exactly what this means, the term "pending" specifically, but it's another sign that there may be some movement on this issue, and quickly.

The Natural Resources Defense Council and Public Citizen have sued the Consumer Product Safety Commission over its loose interpretation of the upcoming ban on phthalates. NRDC's Sarah Janssen writes:

In the case of toys and other childcare articles, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is responsible for ensuring their safety. However, just recently, the CPSC announced a legal interpretation of the new law which stated that any phthalate containing toys manufactured up until Feb. 10, 2009 could continue to be sold in stores until their stocks are depleted. In other words, with stockpiles of phthalate-containing toys out there - parents can't even be assured that come next holiday shopping season toys on the shelves will be phthalate-free. [Link]

From a press release:

"The Consumer Product Safety Commission is ignoring the will of Congress and threatening our children's health," said Dr. Sarah Janssen, NRDC scientist. "Overwhelming evidence led Congress to ban these toys, a ban that some retailers have already started to adopt. The CPSC decision completely undermines those efforts by allowing banned toys to sit on the same shelves as the safe ones."

Their description of what happened:

In response to heightened concern about risks to children from certain harmful phthalates and other chemicals in children's products, Congress, by an overwhelming majority, passed the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), which was signed into law by President Bush on August 14, 2008. This Act permanently bans the sale, after February 10, 2009, of toys and child care products that contain certain phthalates and lead. The final Senate vote for this ban was 89-3, and the final House vote was 424-1.

The law passed in the U.S. bans the same six phthalates that have been banned in European toys for nearly 10 years. Other countries, including Argentina, Japan, Israel and Mexico have also banned phthalates from children's toys. Several major retailers have previously announced that, by the end of 2008, they would remove phthalate-containing toys from their stores.

In a letter dated November 13, 2008, the law firm Arent Fox, on behalf of unidentified clients, asked the CPSC to only apply the U.S. ban to the production - and not sale - of toys with phthalates. In a legal opinion published only two business days later, on November 17, 2008, the CPSC General Counsel agreed. As a result, manufacturers can stockpile toys and child care products with the banned phthalates right up to the date of the ban, and then sell them to consumers long after the ban was supposed to go into effect.

Over at the NRDC's Simple Steps blog for parents, they're specifically recommending the ZRecs Guide as a trusted resource for finding phthalate- and PVC-free toys, as well as calling customer service reps yourself:

Toy manufacturers both in the US and abroad are already making toys that don't contain phthalates. Parents just need to find them. Call customer service and ask the manufacturer if their products contain phthalates. If they can't tell you whether or not the toy is phthalate-free, find another that is. Check healthytoys.org or the ZRecs guide to safer children's products. Avoid buy anything that is made of PVC plastic and buy fragrance-free personal care products. Ethylene Vinyl Acetate (EVA) is a soft plastic that is bisphenol A (BPA) and phthalate-free. [Link]

Our one caveat regarding doing your own research is that CSR data can be slippery. Call more than once, and you may get more than one different answer. We work companies from multiple angles to collect and verify the data we publish.

This story is developing; we'll publish updates as we get them.