Question of the day: Would you knowingly give your child a toy that would harm him/her?
Doing non-stop research-I come across information that sends chills down my spine. That makes me wonder if the devil himself is heading some institutions...I mean, a person with a heart would never allow harm to befall innocent children. But. Some toy companies are putting dangerous stuff into the making of the toys they are selling to unsuspecting parents,and others who buy toys.
9. Is there evidence that children are more sensitive to the effects of DINP and if so how
should that be incorporated into any risk determination?
No data are available on the effect of DINP on children or immature experimental
animals, nor are there data that indicate that immature animals are more sensitive
to causes of spongiosis hepatis, the critical endpoint used by the Panel in the
DINP risk assessment.
10. How should background levels of DINP and other phthalates be incorporated into a
determination of risk?
There are no data on the interaction or additivity of dialkyl phthalate-induced
toxic effects. Even if they act through a common mechanism, DAP effects are not
necessarily additive, although the assumption of additivity for low exposure levels
is a generally accepted conservative approach to addressing this source of
uncertainty, as well as one that has theoretical support in the case that damage
occurs by statistically independent increments.
However, because of the difficulty in developing reliable estimates of phthalate
exposure for the population of interest (infants and toddlers) and uncertainties on
how exposure estimates should be combined for comparison with the ADI, further
explicit consideration of environmental background DAP exposures is not
undertaken.
11. What conclusions, if any, can be reached about the skin penetration of DINP as a
result of dermal contact? Should potential risks from dermal exposures be evaluated in
the same manner as those from oral exposure?
Dermal uptake of DINP may occur through prolonged contact of DINP containing
products with skin or mouth. However, detailed data on the prevalence of DINP
in consumer products that are in sustained contact with skin, such as sandals and
rainwear, are not available, and there is fundamental uncertainty concerning the
magnitude of dermal DINP uptake. Therefore, estimation of potential dermal
exposure from such products remains speculative.
12. Is the available exposure information adequate to permit the Panel to estimate the
probable harm, if any, to human health that will result from exposure to DINP from the
“reasonable and foreseeable” use of consumer products?
Estimated DINP exposures to children through toys and/or bedding/shoes/
clothing, and to adults from shoes/clothing, are preliminary at best. Recognizing
the limitations of the data, nevertheless, a prediction about the potential oral
exposure to children under the age of three to certain consumer products can be
made. Exposure information is inadequate to make predictions about dermal
exposure.
13. If such an estimate were made, what methodologies were used in estimating the
magnitude of the risk and what was the rationale for adopting that methodology?
A safety factor approach was applied to a non-cancer endpoint. To induce liver
cancer, DINP acts by a PPARα mechanism that is pronounced in rodents and that
is not readily induced in humans under current exposure conditions. Thus, the
human risk from cancer was seen as insignificant.
14. What are the uncertainties attendant with determining the risk to children from
exposure to DINP in consumer products?
There are uncertainties associated both with the determination of exposure and the
determination of hazard. Those associated with exposure include:
• lack of knowledge about what portion of toys contain DINP
• lack of knowledge about what other consumer products contain DINP
• lack of knowledge about how much DINP migrates out of toys and
other consumer products
• uncertainties about how much time each day a child spends with toys
and other DINP containing objects in their mouths
• lack of knowledge about how much, if any, DINP would be dermally
absorbed
The uncertainties associated with the hazard include:
• the degree to which spongiosis hepatis in rodents is relevant to humans
• how to extrapolate an effect from a lifetime exposure in rodents to a
two-to-three year exposure in young children
• lack of knowledge of effects of early in life exposures; there are no
toxicological data for exposures corresponding to infancy and toddler
years
• lack of knowledge of effects in non-rodents; there are no chronic
studies in non-rodent mammals
• lack of knowledge of PPARα expression and related responses in the
young; there are no data in human infants and children and scant data
in non-human species
• lack of knowledge on mechanisms by which PPARα induces rodent
liver tumors
15. What is the risk to children from the oral exposure to DINP?
One of the two estimates of plausible upper-bound DINP exposure listed in Table
IV-7 (Section IV) is greater than the ADI of 0.12 mg kg-1d-1 recommended above
for DINP. Namely, the estimate of 0.28 mg kg-1d-1 for ingested DINP among any
children 0-18 months old who mouth PVC plastic toys containing DINP for 3
hours/day exceeds the recommended ADI. This implies that there may be a risk
of health effects from DINP exposure for any young children who routinely
mouth DINP-plasticized toys for 75 minutes/day or more. For the majority of
children, the exposure to DINP from DINP containing toys would be expected to
pose a minimal to non-existent risk of injury. Further research addressing topics
listed above (see question #14) could reduce the uncertainty associated with this
characterization of DINP risk from consumer products....
In December 1998, the Commission staff completed an analysis, “The Risk of Chronic
Toxicity Associated with Exposure to Diisononyl Phthalate (DINP) in Children’s
Products.” As a result of this analysis and recommendations made by CPSC staff, toy
manufacturers voluntarily agreed to remove DINP from rattles and teethers and another
phthalate from pacifiers and baby bottle nipples. In addition, a number of large retail
chains agreed not to sell rattles, teethers, pacifiers, or baby bottle nipples that contained
phthalates. Staff indicated at that time that there were a number of uncertainties in the
staff’s analysis and recommended that the Commission:
• continue work to develop a laboratory test method that more accurately
estimates the amount of phthalate released when products are mouthed by
children
• conduct additional testing of products intended for children under 3 years of
age that contain DINP
https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/pdfs/dinp.pdf Wake-up to the reality-some among us are nothing more than 'lowlifes' who feel nothing, but the pleasures that their money can buy. I for one will shine the light into the darkest pit-to save children from being the victims of the fallout of greed. How many children have been harmed/killed by innocent looking toys?