Certainly NOT Mattel, since they have gone through the process to get the products to to market, and pulling them out is minimally a major loss of market time, and loss of potential sales, which surely had been in the income/profit projections of Mattel’s bean counter.

Also, corporations aren’t well known for their social or consumer consciousness where they would initiate a recall. Nevertheless, Mattel would have to be alert, because the flap that would ensue would cost Mattel far more.

Lead has been banned for many years (at least 40, I think), when it was discovered to affect children’s mental functions, and lead paint in homes was one of the principal sources, since kids like to eat wall peelings, and other stuff. Lead known to be a cumulative poison, as most metals tend to be; in other words, a ‘safe level’ doesn’t prevent the potential accumulation in a body, because if there were many products with a safe level, their accumulation would then be toxic. Sometimes it takes years of accumulation before toxic effects are visible.

Since Bush’s budget cuts in many public protection agencies inside government, their staffs have been decimated, so it’s unlikely that found the problem through ‘random inspections.’ My guess is that it was found by one of the many consumer protection NGO’s who constantly are on guard, testing and checking, who found the problem and then reported it to government who would then have to act.

The gruesome stories about the effects of lead is probably deeply imprinted in the American mind, so the reaction is normal, and I’m sure it has nothing to do with protectionism.

Interestingly, none of the scholarly reports I managed to read online mentioned lead paint in toys being a source of poisoning amongst children – a potential issue to back up the allegations of anti-Chinese protectionism when 70% of the worlds toy market is sourced from China. It proved difficult to obtain specific and clear details on what an ‘acceptable’ level of lead in paint actually is – but one historic fact kept raising itself time and time again – lead poisoning cases in the US stem largely from paint used in houses pre-1978, after which the the practice was subsequently barred, with Federal Law dictating that paint to be used in premises should not exceed 5 parts per million. (See http://www.lockport-ny.com/Allegheny/lead.htm). Other concerns deal with the lead in petrol, (benzene) long known to have effects on children exposed to polluted air or living near highways. The EHP website goes on to study the sources of lead paint poisoning in children, in surveys carried out in 2006. It doesn’t mention toys at all – however, the lead paint in old pre-1978 built American houses, and the soil contanimation is strongly mentioned as a major factor:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1332675

However, that also appears to conflict with a Report to Congress made in 1974 that stated that levels of 0.5% were safe, endorsed by the US Consumer Product Safety Council, and then again with an apparent FDA regulation that specifies 0.5 parts per million quoted in the Green Guide http://www.thegreenguide.com/doc/118/chocolate. Other levels too are bandied about by the Federal Center For Disease Control, which mention lead levels of lead in paint are unacceptable ‘if higher than 25 micrograms per deciliter of blood’. Confused as to applicable standards? I was.

Finally I seemed able to come up with a WHO study, however it again uses a different mechanism to measure acceptable levels of lead. Generally the report is excellent however and does cite various US lawsuits, as well as medical studies on sources of lead poisoning in Children. Tellingly – not once are toys mentioned: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1247191.

The most recent case for damages awarded I could find was cited as being USD2.2 million, in 2002 to a child whose lead levels proved so toxic she suffered brain damage – however the source was lead paint used to coat the house, not toys: http://www.peterdanziger.com/tr121302.html

So – as far as I can establish, the threat to children from lead paint being used in toys appears to be so low it is not mentioned in any of the studies I have read, with the issue being further clouded by a raft of apparently differing opinions and guidelines on what acceptable standards actually are.

I am not for a minute denying that lead should be used in paint – however I do wonder if the standards set by the US in certain consumer products are actually grounded in what could be termed ‘sustainable deliverables’ by manufacturers elsewhere, and whether or not this process is either a reflection of a litigious Amercian society, in which consumer is king, or a more subtle mechanism to protect domestic industries ?

From what I can establish – paint containing lead on childrens toys does not constitute a health hazard. But lead in petrol, and in paint used in house decoration most certainly does. Over legislation ?