Legislators are hoping a new law will protect children from playing with toxic toys, but industry lobbyists say adequate regulations are already in place and lawmakers are overstepping their reach.
The Albany County Legislature on Monday, Dec. 8, voted 34-4 to approve Local Law J, known as the Toxic-Free Toys Act. The new law would ban the sale of children’s products containing benzene, lead, mercury, antimony, arsenic, cadmium and cobalt within the county.
Around a dozen environmental advocates rallied for the law’s passage shortly before the legislature’s meeting.
“We’ve seen failed leadership, both at the state and federal level, and this is the appropriate time to pass legislation like this,” said Saima Anjam, government affairs associate for Environmental Advocates of New York. “Albany County needs to protect kids. They need to take this first step in order to protect children.”
Passage of the bill comes after the recently released report from Clean and Healthy New York and the New York League of Conservation Voters Education Fund, which found a dozen “toxic toys” for sale in the county.
Bill sponsor Bryan Clenahan, D-Guilderland, predicts the law being implement would have a “tremendous deterrence” effect.
“No one in the season of giving should receive a toy with toxins in it,” Clenahan said before the meeting. “With the number of toys parents can buy in the store, it is very difficult to research and find out what’s in the products. We want to give parents the piece of mind if they buy products in Albany County they know it won’t these seven deadly toxins in them.”
Legislator Richard Mendick, R-Selkirk, pointed to this “peace of mind” as possibly giving consumers a false sense of security.
“We expect that parents shopping in Albany county will get a comfort level that products sold in Albany County will be free of these toxic substances, but in order to accomplish that we’re going to have to test an awful lot of products,” said Mendick.
Voting against the bill, Mendick contested the county could never test 100 percent of the products on shelves, but parents would would assume they had been.
Peter Crouse, R-Loudonville, also worried about enforcing the law. “If we are not going to put the money behind it to enforce it then it’s window dressing. Hopefully that will not be the case,” he said.
Though Crouse did urge his fellow legislators vote in favor of the bill if “enough isn’t being done” to regulate toys and children’s products as advocates contend. He felt in that case the county should intervene.
Opponents contended current regulations are sufficient; while others said stricter rules should come from the federal government to avoid creating a patchwork of laws.
David Garriepy, director of State Government Affairs for the Toy Industry Association, said organization members “go above and beyond federal regulations” to ensure the safety of toys.
“There is a whole breadth of federal legislation that is federally preemptive, meaning the implementation of this law is in question surrounding toys,” said Garriepy.
Advocates said federal regulations only set the minimum requirements and don’t preclude the county from enacting stricter rules.
Alison Walsh, assistant director of Government Relations for the Retail Council of New York State, said the proposed law is too broad. She warned there would be “unintended consequences” if the law is implemented.
“An undefined ban on (antimony) would effectively ban polyester, the world’s most widely used synthetic textile, in children’s products,” said Walsh. “Furthermore, cobalt is an ingredient in many dyes being used in the apparel industry.”
Many Democratic legislators touted the county as being a vanguard for initiatives statewide, such as banning smoking in restaurants and bars, and said other communities could follow suit.
“We love our children enough to do this,” Mary Lou Connolly, D-Guilderland, said. “Maybe, just maybe, the residents of the counties in surrounding areas, if the state doesn’t do it, will act on it if they love their children as much as we do.”
However, there was no financial impact laid out in the bill, which troubled Mendick. “I’m not saying that the cost overrides the concern, but we at least need to know what we’re dealing with,” he said.
There were debates over whether the cost could hinder the effectiveness of the law.
The law gives the county health commissioner the power enforce the regulations, which holds an initial $500 fine for an infraction and increases to $1,000 for additional violations.
Other than employees’ time spent to enforce the law, the largest expense would likely be the X-Ray Fluorescence Analyzer, which is a portable device that can detect levels of chemicals on the surface of nearly any object. Some legislators contended the county Health Department already owns at least one of the devices. Each device cost around $35,000.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has used the device to screen packaging, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration to screen food, and many state and county health departments use the analyzer to screen for residential lead paint.
Albany County Executive Dan McCoy will hold a public hearing on the proposed law on Tuesday, Jan. 6, at 6 p.m. in the Cahill Room at the Albany County Office Building.
The law, if passed, would take effect a year after it’s filed in the Secretary of State’s Office.
