  |
The only reason I tested these dog toys is because I have lost three Shelties in the last four years and I can only figure out why one of them died, said Nancy R. of Orland Park, Illinois. When all the news came out about pet food and the tainted ingredients from China, I got concerned.
"Then my 83-year-old mom noticed that my dogs toys were all made in China. I went to Petco and PetSmart and couldnt find any toys not made in China -- except one rope knot that was made in Mexico.
I was doing this personally for the safety of my dogs and only tested for lead because thats what theyre finding in the toys from China, she said.
But Nancys lab results -- and the interpretation of those findings -- has again pitted a forensic toxicologist against veterinarians and others in the pet industry about what are safe and acceptable levels for lead and heavy metals in toys for dogs and cats.
The results also illustrate why many in the pet industry want acceptable national levels for lead and other toxins -- specifically for dog and cat toys.
Heres the latest development in this debate, which surfaced in the wake of recent ConsumerAffairs.com story.
Illinois findings
The Illinois Department of Agricultures lab released its findings late last week on the 24 dog toys Nancy had tested for lead.
All the toys had lead levels that fell within that states acceptable limits for lead paint in childrens toys, according to the lab.
The levels also fell far below the amount of lead paint in childrens toys thats allowed by federal law 600 parts per million.
The lab found the highest levels of lead in a PetSmart tennis ball -- 335.7 parts per million. It detected the lowest levels of lead in a Hartz Rubber Percival Platypus 0.02 parts per million.
These are all within the acceptable limits for lead content in childrens toys in Illinois, said the labs director, Dr. Gene Niles. The veterinarian is a Diplomate of the American Board of Veterinary Toxicology (DABVT). There are no levels for lead content in pet toys. Are these numbers high or low? All I can tell you is that in Illinois, the state allows up to 600 parts per million for lead in kids toys and these are all within that guideline.
But the lead levels in the PetSmart tennis ball are 335 times higher than the amount of lead a Texas laboratory -- hired by ConsumerAffairs.com to analyze four Chinese-made pet toys for heavy metals and other toxins -- found in one of the products.
That product -- a latex dog toy that looks like a green monster -- had what the labs forensic toxicologist called elevated levels of lead -- 907.4 micrograms per kilograms.
Thats almost one part per million, said ExperToxs director and forensic toxicologist Dr. Ernest Lykissa, Ph.D. With that kind of concentration, if a dog is chewing on it or licking it, hes getting a good source of lead.
The green monster toy also had what Dr. Lykissa considered high levels of chromium -- 334.9 micrograms per kilogram.
With that kind of chromium in there you have what can be an extremely toxic toy if they (animals) put it in their mouths. And dogs put things in their mouths. If a dog puts this in his mouth, he runs a big chance of getting some type of metal toxicity that may shorten his life.
The lab also found other toxic metals in the green monster toy.
Theres cadmium, arsenic, and mercury in there, Lykissa said. This is not a clean toy. This is toxic. Bank on it.
ExperToxs tests also detected what Lykissa called worrisome levels of cadmium in a catnip toy -- 236 micrograms per kilogram.
Thats a big number, Lykissa said. Its a good dose of cadmium.
ConsumerAffairs.com purchased all four pet toys it hired ExperTox to test at a Wal-Mart store in Kansas City, Missouri. All the toys had a tag attached that read Marketed by Wal-Mart stores and Made in China.
Wal-Mart attacks
Wal-Mart has attacked ExperToxs finding and said Dr. Lykissa severely misinterpreted the results.
The conclusions drawn in this article appear to have been based on incorrect interpretations of the data, and based on the opinions of a person (who is) not an expert in consumer product testing, Melissa OBrien, who identified herself as representing Wal-Marts corporate communication, wrote us in an e-mail. Other news organizations said O'Brien told them she worked for a public relations firm called Edelman.
After reviewing these test resultsthe results of these tests actually prove the products are VERY safe," the hired publicist said.
If these measurements are in fact the results, as you have reported, they have been severely misinterpreted by the director of ExperToxs lab, if he is reporting these levels to be high or dangerous," O'Brien argued. To the contrary by this lab's own report, these levels are considered very low and actually much lower than what is acceptable by regulatory bodies in the U.S. and Europe for products, including childrens toys.
OBrien referred to the Consumer Product Safety Commissions (CPSC) limit of 600 parts per million for the total lead in surface coating.
By comparison, the highest concentration of lead found in any of the ExperTox tests is a very low 907.4 parts per million more than 600 times less than the CPSC limit for surface coatings.
Two veterinarians who reviewed ExperToxs findings said the levels of heavy metals found in the chew toys do not pose a threat to dogs or cats. Whether the chew toys ExperTox tested are a hazard to children and adults who handle them is unclear.
I dont see any of those numbers being a toxicity concern for dogs or cats, Dr. Mike Murphy of the University of Minnesotas College of Veterinary Medicine told us. Latex paint can contain one-half to one percent of lead, which is 10,000 parts per million. What he (Dr. Lykissa) is saying is that one part per million is a risk. But latex paint is 10,000 times higher than that and we dont recognize latex paint as a toxicity risk to dogs and cats.
I disagree with the interpretation thats being made (by Lykissa), added Dr. Murphy, who holds a Ph.D. in toxicology. I consider these to be extremely low numbers and they are not a toxicological concern for pet owners.
Dangerous? It depends
Dr. Fred Oehme at Kansas State Universitys College of Veterinary Medicine said the risks to dogs and cats from these toys depends on how much of the heavy metals are absorbed in their bodies.
Could they be harmful? The poisoning depends on how much is taken into their systems. Most animals require 30 parts per million of their total daily diet before you get into a problem with lead. Cadmium is more than that.
Im more concerned about the lead than the other two (heavy metals), he added. Lead accumulates and if it gets into the body, it builds up.
Dr. Niles, at the Illinois Department of Agricultures lab, agreed that one part per million of lead is not a health risk to pets.
Thats my personal opinion, not the opinion of the Illinois Department of Agriculture, he said. Youd find very few things that you would let anybody play with if that (one part per million) was your benchmark.
Lack of standards
PetSmart told us earlier this week that it routinely tests its products -- including dog and cat toys -- for lead and other toxins.
The companys spokesman reiterated those safety protocols today.
The products we sell must meet a variety of safety and quality standards and protocols, said Bruce Richardson, the companys director of external communication. These are based on federal regulations and standards (such as those found in the Code of Federal Regulations), state and provincial regulations, as well as commonly accepted standards established by highly respected institutions such as the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI).
"In addition, we have established our own stringent standards of quality and safety for areas not necessarily covered by those groups named above, he said.
Richardson took exception with our comparison of the levels of lead in the PetSmart tennis ball to those found in the green monster toy.
He said its not fair to use ExperToxs benchmark of one part per million as a safety measure for lead or other toxins in pet toys.
The terms high and elevated are relative terms and must be used carefully and given proper context to avoid confusion and alarm, he said. Its not fair to pit a (forensic) toxicologist against a veterinary toxicologist on this issue. I dont think he (Dr. Lykissa) has a leg to stand on. Hes not a veterinary toxicologist and has no point of reference when he talks about elevated levels. Elevated against what? I dont think his results bring any value to this discussion. And his comments will not change anything were doing.
Richardson added: To our knowledge, we are not selling any products that have compounds that have tested above levels of toxicity established by the various entities named above and are not posing any health threat to pets or humans.
ExperTox isnt swayed by its critics.
The lab stands by its findings and calls them rock solid.
The labs manager also disagrees that the levels of lead in PetSmarts tennis ball are safe.
Those are a lot higher levels than what we found in the green monster toys, and I dont see how 600 parts per million is acceptable, said ExperToxs Donna Coneley. We dont agree that (335.7 parts per million of lead) is a safe level.
Coneley -- who pointed out that ExperTox and Dr. Lykissa are experts at consumer product testing -- said she wouldnt let a dog chew on a toy that had those levels of lead.
Not from what I see here at the lab. We have differing opinions on what is safe and acceptable.
ExperTox, however, doesnt look at CPSC or ASTM limits during its testing procedures, Coneley said.
We simply pour out our results as we receive them, she said, adding her lab uses state-of-the-art technology. We dont look at the limits on products.
Coneley questioned the validity of using the same acceptable levels for lead and other toxins in pet toys that are used in childrens toys.
Weight is always a factor, she said. If youre dealing with a teacup-size dog you cant assume that whats safe for a 20-pound child is safe for a three- to ten-pound dog. Cats are light as well. Their little bodies are not able to spread out the toxins. Animals also tend to chew things off more aggressively than kids.
Everyone seems to concentrate on humans with this type of testing, but maybe more scrutiny is needed on what limits are safe for pets.
Thats the one point where nearly everyone involved in this debate is on the same page.
"Huge question"
There clearly is an absence of regulations for pet toys, Richardson said. Maybe the guidelinesthe levelsfor human standards are not so good based on the exposure for dog (or cats). Thats a huge question that needs to be addressed.
PetSmart, he said, would not object to having national acceptable standards and levels for lead and other toxins in pet toys.
The president of the American Pet Products Manufacturers Association said his members -- who represent more than 900 pet product makers, importers, and livestock suppliers worldwide -- would welcome such standards.
Theyre looking for a benchmark that everyone can follow, said Bob Vetere, president of the non-profit organization. Maybe what we need is to have everyone sit down at a table and talk about what makes sense.
"Its not going to be easy to find an answer, but its a process that has to start. The CPSC is certainly somebody that needs to be sitting at that table, and wed (APPMA) certainly be willing to work with them and help them on this issue, he said.
The CPSC, however, said its agency currently has no regulatory control over pet products.
We only have jurisdiction over a pet-related product (that is not food), if evidence is presented that the product has put the safety of consumers at risk, said spokesman Scott Wolfson. He did not address the potential danger to children and adults exposed to the pet toys.
Dr. Niles with the Illinois Department of Agriculture joins those who favor national acceptable levels for lead and other toxins in pet toys.
We have to use human data now in the absence of pet data, he said. Work needs to be done to get standardized levels for pets. But you have to have the data. And Im fully in favor of scientific data to support those guidelines. Once we get those guidelines, we can interpret this data in relationship to animals instead of humans.
Until that happens, Vetere said members of the APPMA will triple-checking their products to be sure theyre tested for lead and other toxins.
That action, he said, is the result of our story that revealed what Dr. Lykissa said were elevated levels of lead, chromium, and cadmium in the two pet toys sold at Wal-Mart.
Everyone (in this industry) is well aware of your story, Vetere told us. And the reaction from virtually everyone Ive talked to about the story is: Wait a minute. We didnt know about this. Hello, whats going on? And theyve called their vendors and suppliers to be sure theyre testing the products.
Its good that you got this out there so they (our members) could know, and they are pushing very hard on their vendors now to get those test results. If nothing else, everyone is now aware of this in the industry.
No U.S. toys?
Meanwhile, Nancy told us shes relieved by test results on her dog toys.
Dr. Niles convinced me that these are all within safe limits, she said. My first reaction when I heard these results was a deep sigh of relief. I had lost dogs and then I thought oh, no, theyre chewing on toys that may be dangerous. So when I found out these results, I was relieved that these toys are safe.
Nancy, however, is still troubled that she cant find pet toys made in the United States.
What amazes me is that all these toys are made in China. I was going to dump out all my old toys and buy only ones made in the USA. But I couldnt find any that werent made in China. So I thought that if thats all I can get, Im going to make sure theyre safe. And the lab told me these toys are safe.
Whether pet owners agree or disagree with that interpretation, ExperToxs Coneley said this debate has given them the tools to make more informed decisions about the products they give their dogs and cats.
Thats what this is all about, giving people more information that I feel will help them make a better choice. If a vet says he think our results are extremely low numbers than people can take that information and balance it against what Dr. Lykissa said to make a better decision.
This has opened a Pandoras box and its good that people are now talking about this issue.
