CONTROVERSY OVER "NON-TOXIC" LABEL This file reprints a series of articles and responding letters that appeared in Vol. 11 No. 8 and Vol. 12 No. 2 of Art Hazards News related to the non-toxic AP/CP seals of the Arts and Crafts Materials Institute on children's art materials. Vol. 11 No 8 "NONTOXIC" LABELS ON ART SUPPLIES RAISE CONCERNS By Sarah Henry Experts Say Many Still Could Present Danger to Children Labels declaring many children's art supplies "nontoxic" may provide only an illusion of safety for parents and teachers, according to a team of experts at the California Department of Health Services. These labels, from the Art and Craft Materials Institute in Boston, have for more than 40 years reassured parents and school officials about the safety of paints, marking pens and other art materials. But according to California health officials, labels from the industry-sponsored institute may provide misleading and possibly dangerous information. In a December 1987 audit of the institute's work, state researchers could find no evidence that most products certified by the group had ever been tested. Officials also found in evaluations last year that some products contained heavy metals such as cadmium, mercury and lead - all potentially dangerous to children's health. "Evidence of testing was not available in any of the (product) evaluations," wrote Robert Schlag, head of the health department's Exposure Assessment Research Unit, in a March letter to the institute. "there was no evaluation, no paper trail, no complete formulation information." In compiling their own list in May 1987 of safe children's art supplies, state health officials rejected more than one-third of about 15,000 approved art supplies. the action came after an initial check of art stores revealed the presence of toxic art materials in some institute-approved products. About 25 percent of the products were reinstated in March after evaluations by state health officials showed they were not hazardous. But officials have refused to reinstate all products approved by the institute. Some Materials Unsuitable They say some art materials, such as aerosol products and oil paints will never be reinstated because they are unsuitable for use by young children. "We still haven't checked everything on this list but we will," Schlag said. I don't see us accepting their list in the very near future." Institute officials acknowledge there have been problems with their record-keeping in the past. The organization's consulting toxicologist, Dr. Woodall Stopford, admits that when health officials audited the program last year, "there was a lack of information and no paper trial; they should have been there." But Stopford says state officials have misinterpreted the purpose of the institute's list, which was meant for adults as well as children, he said. The institute argues that the concerns of state officials over children using potentially dangerous products are misplaced. "We assume that (children) don't (use those products)," Stopford said. "Do you eliminate the risk of a child using a product by taking it off the list? I don't agree with that."The institute also argues that while some institute-approved products may contain heavy metals, they are present in small enough quantities to be considered nontoxic. "If its not going to hurt you, then it can be labelled nontoxic," said Laurie Doyle, associate director of the institute. "The (state health department) does have a difference of opinion on that." Since 1940, the nonprofit association has sponsored a certification program for children's art materials. The institutes's literature says that product formulas "undergo extensive toxicological review" and "testing as deemed necessary" and that the group conducts annual random tests of approved products to make sure products continue to be represented by the institute. Stopford said that he was forwarding test results of thousands of materials to California health officials. Improvements in Record-keeping In a follow-up audit of the institute's program in June, the health department's Schlag said he saw improvements in evaluations and record-keeping. The institute "has come a long way," Schlag said. "They have made a commitment, but they have a long way to go." Some school officials outside California still rely on the institute's nontoxic label, as do many parents when choosing children's art materials. Subscribers to the institutes's labeling program represent about 75 percent of the art and craft manufacturers in the United States, according to Stopford. Exposure to toxic art products through eating, breathing or touching can cause kidney damage, nerve damage, lung disorders and cancer, say health experts. Each year there are fatalities from children swallowing solvents such as paint thinner, according to Michael McCann, executive director of the nonprofit Center for Safety in the Arts in New York City. "The solvent gets into the lungs and causes chemical pneumonia, and the child dies," McCann said. Children in kindergarten through grade 6 are especially at risk from exposure to these hazardous substances. Because they are small and have a tendency to put objects in their mouths, young children are more likely to receive a higher concentration of toxic substances than are adults. In addition, high metabolism increases the rate of absorption of toxic materials by children, and their still-developing bodies are more vulnerable to toxic agents. Despite increasing awareness about toxic chemicals and recent laws to protect workers and consumers, the exposure of children to toxic art materials is often overlooked, health officials say. A Serious Problem "I think people would be surprised to know that chemical exposure is a more serious problem with art and craft materials than in a chemistry lab," said Mark Veazie of the Washington State Office of Environmental Health Programs. "I've seen unventilated kilns used in elementary school classrooms," Veazie said. "I've seen photographic labs - kids looking at acid baths practically at their eyeball level." In California, a 1987 law required the state health department to provide each elementary school in the state with a list of art and craft materials unsuitable for use in schools. But the department was reluctant to do that. "We didn't want the burden of proof on the CDHS (California Department of Health Services) to prove that a product was hazardous. What if we missed something? It would imply that we felt the product was OK when we really didn't know." Instead, in June 1987, the health department provided a list of acceptable art products to school superintendents statewide. Struck from that list were various institute-approved products that state officials have concerns about, including airbrush and oil paints, paints with cadmium and mercury compounds and some ceramics and glazes. State Officials Remain Cautious Despite recent attempts by the institute to improve its certification program, state officials remain cautious. They have expressed concern, for example, that some products labeled by the institute as nontoxic may contain suspected carcinogens. State health officials plan to audit the institute again later this year. Meanwhile, health officials in a number of states, including Illinois and Washington, say they prefer to use the California school list over the institute list. "Some just cut off our letterhead and use the list," Schlag said. Sarah Henry is a staff writer for the Center for Investigative Reporting in San Francisco. (c) 1988, Center for Investigative Reporting EDITORIAL The safety of art materials used by children is of major concern to parents, teachers, art material manufacturers, and others responsible for children's health and well-being. The review of the safety of children's art materials by the California Department of Health Services is a crucial first step. This is the first time that children's art materials have been evaluated by a government agency. The results of the study verify our position that the safety of art materials should not be addressed solely by a voluntary standard, but should be part of mandatory regulation on the part of appropriate government agencies. The CP/AP non-toxic label of the Arts and Crafts Materials Institute has been around since the 1940's and this program has prevented numerous acute poisonings in children during that period. However, the audit of the ACMI program by the California Department of Health Services has revealed serious shortcomings, especially with respect to chronic hazards. Hopefully these problems will be remedied soon. One point of contention between California Department of Health Services and the Arts and Crafts Materials Institute is the use of the CP/AP label for art materials which might be non-toxic but should not be used by children for other reasons. For example, many oil paints carry the AP/CP seal. In support of the California position, we do not believe that oil paints should be used by children because hazardous turpentine or mineral spirits are commonly used both during painting and for cleanup. Since parents and schools might rely on the CP/AP label to determine whether to buy an art material for their children, this label should only be used on art materials recommended for children. A separate non-toxic label associated with the HL (Health Label) seal of the Arts and Crafts Materials Institute was formerly used to indicate non-toxic adult art materials. We believe that the ACMI should resume this practice. Vol 12 No. 2 CONTROVERSY OVER NON-TOXIC LABELS ARTICLE Vol. 11 No. 8 of Art Hazards News carried an article by Sarah Henry of the Center for Investigative Reporting on the non-toxic labeling program of the Arts and Crafts Materials Institute (ACMI). The ACMI has called the article and accompanying editorial by Dr. McCann "seriously in error" and has written letters concerning them. In the interests of bringing these issues into the open, Art Hazards News is publishing these letters as requested, despite their length, along with rebuttals by Sarah Henry and Dr. McCann. LETTER TO THE EDITOR We find the recent article by Sarah Henry on ACMI non-toxic labels and the accompanying editorial in a recent article of your newsletter to be seriously in error. A copy of our letter to Ms. Henry pointing out its errors is enclosed. We strongly request that you allow us equal space to answer the charges made or allow her to correct her errors in a subsequent issue. The accompanying editorial surprises us because we feel you have had sufficient information over the years about our program to understand it. Our program has never considered art hazards only. It has always taken into account acute and chronic hazards, and products cannot earn the ACMI non-toxic seals if they contain any ingredient that causes an acute or chronic hazard. ACMI has never had a practice of authorizing the HL (Non- Toxic or No Health Labeling Required) Seal for non-toxic adult art materials while limiting the CP/AP seal to non-toxic children's art materials. There are no degrees of non-toxicity in our program since all materials are evaluated on the basis of use and forseeable misuse by a small child. Therefore any product deemed non-toxic by Dr. Stopford can bear any of the three non-toxic seals: CP,AP, or HL (Non-Toxic or No Health Labeling Required). Those products needing a warning and instructions for safe use must bear the HL (Cautions Required) Seal. The HL (Non-Toxic or No Health Labeling Required) Seal was introduced with the HL (Cautions Required) Seal because European countries could not use CP/AP Seals in the European Economic Community, so an additional non-toxic seal was created for uniform labeling world-wide. We disagree with your contention that non-toxic oil paints should not be used by children because solvents could be used for clean-up. There are non-toxic mediums for thinning and non- toxic cleaners available, and we feel children should be encouraged to use these products at whatever age parents or educators feel is suitable. We do not and have never advocated the use of hazardous solvents by children. As you know, these products are labeled with strong warnings and the words "Keep out of the reach of children." We request that you include these comments and our letter to Sarah Henry in your next newsletter since it is a "forum" newsletter on the subject of art hazards. Deborah Fanning Executive Vice President Arts and Crafts Materials Institute LETTER TO SARAH HENRY Your recent article "Non-toxic Labels on Art Supplies Raise Concerns" in Art Hazards News is seriously in error on a number of issues and therefore is very misleading. Your most serious error is an exact reversal of meaning of a quote attributed to our Toxicologist, Dr. Woodhull Stopford, who bases all of his toxicological risk assessments and evaluations of Institute-certified art materials on their use and forseeable misuse by a child. You quote him as saying that he assumes children don't use certain art products, when, in fact, he assumes that they may use any or all art products and evaluates each of them based on the amount that would be injurious to a child. He also bases his evaluations on the possible misuse of these products , such as ingestion, by a child. This is a serious misquote, and the rest of the quote therefore does not make sense. Dr. Stopford was also misquoted in remarks about Institute record keeping. He may have said that there was not a paper trail sufficient for CDHS's purpose (underlined remarks omitted from your quote), but he did not state that there was a lack of information on which he based his evaluations. He does not make evaluations based on insufficient information, and he keeps records sufficient to his needs. The "accreditation" process that CDHS established was a wholly new and unique system developed with the assistance of Dr. Stopford and others. The kinds of records required for "accreditation" by an entity such as CDHS are of a different nature than the records needed for evaluation without accreditation previously used by ACMI. Your remarks attributed to Robert Schlag of the California Department of Health Services and your report of actions regarding CDHS's acceptance of our program is disturbing to us. Your reference to CDHS being unaware of product testing that is performed on products receiving ACMI certification was taken out of context from an earlier letter of Robert Schlag; he was subsequently informed and approves of the testing previously and currently being done by ACMI in its certification process. No product containing lead except a very few at very low lead levels qualifies for our non-toxic seal; products containing lead bear the HL seal with appropriate warnings and instructions for safe use. CDHS has accepted our Toxicologist's toxicological risk assessments and procedures for all ingredients, including heavy metals such as lead, mercury, and cadmium and suspected carcinogens. Their early concerns about these ingredients were based on such things as erroneous Material Safety data Sheets and outdated product labels and have since been corrected in their minds; however, your story does not indicate that any of these misunderstandings have been corrected and give damaging, untrue impressions of our program and its status with CDHS. In regard to the process of CDHS's acceptance of our products for their 1987 and 1989 lists, your implication that one third of the list was rejected for their May, 1987 list because of toxic ingredients in ACMI products is erroneous. They omitted almost 25% of our list because they refused to list any ceramic products based on lack of their knowledge of such products, and they restored almost all of these on their 1988 list. They omitted another 10% by excluding non-toxic oil paints and their non- toxic mediums because they mistakenly believed oil paints can only be thinned and cleaned up with hazardous products. They continue to discriminate against these non-toxic products even though there are non-toxic mediums and cleaners available. The hazardous solvent cleaners bear the ACMI HL seal and appropriate warnings, and we agree they should not be used by children. However, since many oil paints and their mediums and cleaners are all non-toxic, we disagree with CDHS's contention that they are "inappropriate". Art material products designed for and intended for use by children have been certified as non-toxic by ACMI since 1940. All of these certified children's products were accepted on the CDHS K-6 list. Art material products sued mainly by adults entered the ACMI program in 1983. Most of these products were evaluated as non-toxic, even if used or misused by children as well as adults. The principal differences between ACMI and CDHS on these materials involved oil paints, airbrush products, and talc in ceramic products. As pointed out above in the case of oil colors, CDHS eliminated an entire class of art materials, not because of inherent toxicity, but because of other assumed but not demonstrated problems. The same determination was made in the case of airbrush colors which were eliminated not because of toxicity problems but because CDHS deemed the airbrush spray technique not suitable for grades K-6. Although manufacturers use asbestos-free talc in ACMI-certified products and CDHS appeared to agree with ACMI's substantiation of this fact, CDHS withheld such products pending further study. These are the only products on which ACMI and CDHS disagree. Your quote attributed to Michael McCann regarding fatalities from children swallowing solvents such as paint thinner is taken out of context ion this article or at lest misleading. Solvents producing acute hazards such as those quoted do not carry and have never carried an ACMI non-toxic seal and do not carry strong warnings about such acute hazards. They are not part of the non- toxic portion of our program which CDHS is analyzing for children's use. We strongly request that you correct the above errors in another article on Art Hazards News and any other articles you write on this subject in the future. We would be happy to meet with you to discuss in greater detail the ACMI certification program as you are generally misinformed on the nature of this program. Deborah Fanning Executive Vice President Arts and Crafts Materials Institute THE EDITOR RESPONDS The letters to Sarah Henry and the Editor by Deborah Fanning are definitely intended to mislead readers to think that the major difference between the California Department of Health services (CDHS) and the Arts and Crafts Materials Institute (ACMI) over ACMI's non-toxic label program was about the adequacy of the documentation and nothing substantial. Other criticisms amounted to accusations that Sarah Henry misquoted people (which I will let her deal with), that CDHS is arbitrarily excluding certain materials, and misrepresentation of what was actually said in Sarah Henry's article and my editorial. I will consider each of these in turn. CDHS Criticism of ACMI Non-Toxic Label Program According to a March 8, 1988 letter from CDHS to ACMI (obtained under a Freedom of Information request), CDHS found in an audit of the ACMI program that "ACMI toxicological evaluation criteria are not equivalent to the CDHS guidelines" and that "documentation of individual product evaluations was inadequate". Previously CDHS had said that they would adopt the ACMI non- toxic list of children's art products provided that "ACMI conducted toxicological evaluations of art and craft products in accordance with criteria that were equal to or more stringent than the California evaluation guidelines, and that ACMI provided documentation that the products were evaluated according to those guidelines." Problems with ACMI toxicological criteria included: 1) failure to include forseeable misuse of products which could involve ingestion of larger quantities than ACMI assumes; 2) recent lowering of ACMI assumed chronic exposure levels by a child; 3) inadequate safety factors for levels of toxic chemicals in children's art materials (CDHS believes that safety factors should be at least 100-1000); 4) limits of exposure based on container or form of product; and 5) method of evaluation of carcinogenicity of chemicals. Problems with documentation of the toxicological evaluations included 1) lack of full disclosure of product ingredients; 2) product size was typically not listed in the files; 3) toxic ingredients found in non-toxic products were not indicated as being at non-hazardous levels; 4) no evidence that "concentrations of toxic ingredients were compared to acceptable levels"; and 5) there was no evidence of testing of products in any evaluations. In its March 8 letter, CDHS stated " While discrepancies exist between the ACMI and the CDHS evaluation criteria, we think that these differences can be resolved. However, because of inadequate documentation of product evaluations, CDHS is unable to adopt the existing ACMI AP/CP list, or accept the ACMI program as it currently exists as the source of art and craft products acceptable for purchase in school grades kindergarten through six." In a recent telephone interview with Robert Schlag of CDHS, he stated "The ACMI has made some very good progress and are about to have their evaluation process computerized. They have also now revised their evaluation criteria to meet CDHS standards." The above clearly shows that CDHS felt there were major problems with the ACMI certification process, but feels they are being worked out. Exclusion of Certain Products CDHS excluded certain categories of art materials - particularly oil paints and airbrush materials - from its approved list on the basis that they are unsuitable for young children. In the case of oil paints this was because, even though some oil paints are non-toxic, hazardous solvents are commonly used for cleanup. ACMI disagrees and stated that "There are non-toxic mediums for thinning and non-toxic cleaners available, and we feel children should be encouraged to use these products at whatever age parents or educators feel is suitable." However, these non-toxic mediums and cleanup materials are not readily available and most parents and teachers are not aware that they exist. In my experience whenever I have seen oil paints used by children, solvents are used for cleanup. Therefore I agree with CDHS that oil paints are unsuitable for young children. As to airbrush materials, on general principles I do not believe that children should be inhaling even non-toxic paints since even non-toxic materials can cause respiratory irritation, and even asthmatic reactions in susceptible individuals. Acute Versus Chronic Ms. Fanning's letter implied that I said the ACMI program only considered acute hazards. In fact I congratulated ACMI by stating that "this program has prevented numerous acute poisonings during that period." I did say that CDHS found "serious shortcomings, especially with respect to chronic hazards", but never said that ACMI didn't take chronic hazards into account. HL Seal I had been under the impression that the HL (Non-Toxic) seal was used for non-toxic adult art materials. I stand corrected. However I do believe that it would be useful to have a seal such as this which could be used for non-toxic art materials which, however, for various reasons are not considered suitable for young children. Michael McCann Editor, Art Hazards News SARAH HENRY RESPONDS In my article on toxic substances in art and craft supplies, I did not intend to imply that solvents, such as those referred to in Michael McCann's quote, carry the institute's non-toxic seal. I believe the information provided immediately prior to the quote sets it aside from background information on the institute. As Ms. Fanning points out, there are differences of opinion between the institute and the California Department of Health Services on the suitability for children's use of such materials as oil paints, airbrush products and ceramics products, and I believe the article reflects these differences. As my story clearly states, the health services department did reinstate a number of institute-approved products after evaluations by state health officials showed they were not hazardous. As for my interview with Dr. Stopford, I have reviewed my notes and stand by my quotes. Dr. Stopford was, in fact, discussing the debate over products potentially hazardous to young children, such as aerosol sprays, on the school purchase list; he did not say, and I did not imply, that the institute did not test all products for child safety. Finally, in researching the story, I found that the California Department of Health Services had serious concerns about the institute's program, and I believe the article reflects those concerns. However, in my article, and in a subsequent New York Times article by another reporter, the health services department's Robert Schlag was quoted as saying the institute's evaluations have greatly improved since his department's first audit.