It’s been several years since troubling reports of hazardous substances in children’s jewelry began grabbing the headlines.

Well, the problem is still with us. A new investigative report published Monday found that inexpensive jewelry items sold at popular retail stores — including several stores in Minnesota — continue to contain dangerous levels of toxic chemicals.

The report was issued by HealthyStuff.org, a project initiated by a Michigan-based environmental group called the Ecology Center.

The chemicals discovered in the jewelry, which included lead, cadmium, arsenic, mercury, bromine and chlorine, have been linked in animal and some human studies to birth defects and neurological problems as well as to liver disease and cancer.

“These chemicals shouldn’t be finding their way into children’s products, and if we had better regulations, children would be protected,” said Kathleen Schuler, co-director of Healthy Legacy, a joint project of the Minnesota-based Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) and Clean Water Action of Minnesota, in a phone interview Tuesday. Healthy Legacy participated in the HealthyStuff.org study by purchasing jewelry samples in Minnesota. Samples were also collected from stores in Ohio, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York and Vermont.

Key findings

For the study, 99 pieces of jewelry were bought at 14 different retail stores. These included Claire’s, Justice, Kohl’s and Target in Minnesota and Ming 99 City, Burlington Coat Factory, Big Lots, Glitter, Forever 21, Walmart, H&M, Meijers, Icing and Hot Topic elsewhere. Most of the jewelry cost less than $10.

Using an X-ray fluorescence analyzer, HealthyStuff.org tested the jewelry for the presence of chemicals.  Here are a few of the organization’s key findings:

• 57 percent of the jewelry contained at least one chemical that the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) considers hazardous to health at high levels.
• 27 percent (27 items, including two purchased in Minnesota) contained more than 300 parts-per-million (ppm) of lead, which is the limit that the CPSC permits in children’s products.
• 10 percent (10 items) contained greater than 100 ppm of cadmium — higher than the CPSC limit of 75 ppm.
• 13 percent (12 items) contained greater than 100 ppm of arsenic — much higher than the CPSC limit of 25 ppm

The concern about these items is that children will suck on — or even swallow — the jewelry, thus ingesting the toxic chemicals. In 2006, a 4-year-old Minneapolis boy died from lead poisoning after swallowing a heart-shaped charm that was given away with sneakers made for preschool and grade-school children. 

Not all the jewelry products tested by HealthyStuff.org are officially marketed to children, but they all have labels, images and a price tag that appeal to children and young teenagers, said Schuler.

“We have a law in Minnesota that regulates lead cadmium in children’s jewelry, but it only goes up to age 6,” she added. “A lot of this jewelry is marketed to kids over the age of 6.”

In 2009, the Minnesota Legislature passed the Toxic Free Kids Act, which requires the Minnesota Department of Health to create two lists of chemicals: “Chemicals of High Concern” and “Priority Chemicals.” The law also instructs the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to recommend strategies for reducing and phasing out the use of priority chemicals in children’s products.

Nine substances are currently listed as priority chemicals. They include lead and cadmium.

“The fact that a couple of the Minnesota samples [in the HealthyStuff.org study] were high in lead was surprising,” said Schuler. “It shows that there are definitely gaps in the regulation.”

A stalled Minnesota bill

Schuler’s organization, Healthy Legacy, is supporting SF 1766, a Minnesota bill that would require the makers of children’s products to report to the state any items that contain substances on the “Priority Chemicals” list.

But the bill is having a tough time getting through the Minnesota Legislature, said its Senate sponsor, Sen. Chris Eaton, DFL-Brooklyn Center, in a phone interview Tuesday.

“I think I have a chance [to get it to the floor for a vote], but since I’m not a Republican, I think it’s a small one,” she said.

Eaton cited her young grandson as a motivating factor behind her sponsorship of the bill. “It’s pretty frustrating,” she said, “that after all the children who have been harmed and all the publicity that this has received,” that products containing toxic chemicals are still getting being sold to kids.

“It seems to me ridiculous that we don’t have any way to track any of these chemicals,” she added.

Schuler agrees. “The bill would close one of the gaps,” she said, “but we also need better regulation at the state and federal levels. These chemicals shouldn’t be finding their way into children’s products, and if we had better regulations, that would be protected.”

In lieu of regulations

What can parents do in the meantime?

“Avoid purchasing anything that isn’t properly labeled,” Schuler said. “Even though it’s lead-free doesn’t mean it will be free of other chemicals.”

And don’t let younger children play with items purchased for older members of your household, she added, especially if there’s a chance they will put those items in their mouth.

You can also go to the Healthystuff.org database and look up its chemical ratings for more than 5,000 household products.