Complain about a product or service

Pet Industry Agrees on Need for Toxicity Standards

Wal-Mart relies on spin doctors, while others call for research and stricter standards

By Lisa Wade McCormick
ConsumerAffairs.com

September 23, 2007

• RECALL LIST • Consumer Complaints --- News • Illness, Death Dog Nutro Pet Food • Feds Raid PETCO Warehouse in Illinois • Pet Owners Not Thrilled with Poison Food Settlement • CDC Links 2006 Salmonella Outbreak to Dog Food • FDA Orders Illinois Pet Food Maker to Clean Up Its Act • String of Illnesses Afflicts NUTRO-Fed Pets • Pet Owners Not Thrilled with Poisoning Settlement • Menu Foods Settles Pet Food Class Action • Many Pet Foods Still Missing From Store Shelves • Pet Owners Cheer Indictments in Toxic Pet Food Case • Indictments in Toxic Pet Food Case • Diamond Pet Foods Agrees To $3.1 Million Settlement • Tests Find More Toxic Pet Toys • Finding Safe Toys to Give Your Pet • China Agrees to Stepped-Up Food, Drug Inspections • Menu Foods Denies Acetaminophen Found in its Cat Food • Veterinarians Solve Pet Food Death Puzzle • Menu Foods Agrees to Test for Pain Killer in its Cat Food • Lab Tests Again Find Acetaminophen in Pet Food • Toxic Pet Toys: A Doctor's Advice • Consumers Respond to Toxic Wal-Mart Pet Toy Stories • Federal Import Safety Panel Outlines Proposals • Pet Industry Agrees on Need for Toxicity Standards • Industry Responds to Reports of Lead in Wal-Mart Pet Toys • Wal-Mart Attacks Lab Tests that Found Lead, Chromium in Pet Toys • Wal-Mart Reviewing Results of Tests on China-Made Pet Toys • Lab Tests Find Lead, Other Toxins in Pet Toys Sold at Wal-Mart • CANIDAE Denies Reports of Painkiller in its Pet Food • Lab Tests Find Painkiller in Samples of Pet Food • Purina Denies Claim on Bichon Frise Deaths • FDA Blocks Nutro Pet Food Shipment from Entering U.S. • FDA Testing Dog Treats Pulled from Wal-Mart Shelves • Wal-Mart Finds Melamine in Chinese-Made Dog Treats --- • More about Pet Food Recalls ...

An Illinois pet owner -- worried about the safety of the chew toys her Shelties played with -- recently hired a laboratory at the Illinois Department of Agriculture to test 24 Chinese-made dog toys for lead.

“The only reason I tested these dog toys is because I have lost three Shelties in the last four years and I can only figure out why one of them died,” said Nancy R. of Orland Park, Illinois. “When all the news came out about pet food and the tainted ingredients from China, I got concerned.

"Then my 83-year-old mom noticed that my dogs’ toys were all made in China. I went to Petco and PetSmart and couldn’t find any toys not made in China -- except one rope knot that was made in Mexico.

“I was doing this personally for the safety of my dogs and only tested for lead because that’s what they’re finding in the toys from China,” she said.

But Nancy’s lab results -- and the interpretation of those findings -- has again pitted a forensic toxicologist against veterinarians and others in the pet industry about what are safe and acceptable levels for lead and heavy metals in toys for dogs and cats.

The results also illustrate why many in the pet industry want “acceptable national levels” for lead and other toxins -- specifically for dog and cat toys.

Here’s the latest development in this debate, which surfaced in the wake of recent ConsumerAffairs.com story.

Illinois findings

The Illinois Department of Agriculture’s lab released its findings late last week on the 24 dog toys Nancy had tested for lead.

All the toys had lead levels that fell within that state’s acceptable limits for lead paint in children’s toys, according to the lab.

The levels also fell far below the amount of lead paint in children’s toys that’s allowed by federal law – 600 parts per million.

The lab found the highest levels of lead in a PetSmart tennis ball -- 335.7 parts per million. It detected the lowest levels of lead in a Hartz Rubber Percival Platypus – 0.02 parts per million.

“These are all within the acceptable limits for lead content in children’s toys in Illinois,” said the lab’s director, Dr. Gene Niles. The veterinarian is a Diplomate of the American Board of Veterinary Toxicology (DABVT). “There are no levels for lead content in pet toys. Are these numbers high or low? All I can tell you is that in Illinois, the state allows up to 600 parts per million for lead in kid’s toys and these are all within that guideline.”

But the lead levels in the PetSmart tennis ball are 335 times higher than the amount of lead a Texas laboratory -- hired by ConsumerAffairs.com to analyze four Chinese-made pet toys for heavy metals and other toxins -- found in one of the products.

That product -- a latex dog toy that looks like a green monster -- had what the lab’s forensic toxicologist called elevated levels of lead -- 907.4 micrograms per kilograms.

“That’s almost one part per million,” said ExperTox’s director and forensic toxicologist Dr. Ernest Lykissa, Ph.D. “With that kind of concentration, if a dog is chewing on it or licking it, he’s getting a good source of lead.”

The green monster toy also had what Dr. Lykissa considered high levels of chromium -- 334.9 micrograms per kilogram.

“With that kind of chromium in there you have what can be an extremely toxic toy if they (animals) put it in their mouths. And dogs put things in their mouths. If a dog puts this in his mouth, he runs a big chance of getting some type of metal toxicity that may shorten his life.”

The lab also found other toxic metals in the green monster toy.

“There’s cadmium, arsenic, and mercury in there,” Lykissa said. “This is not a clean toy. This is toxic. Bank on it.”

ExperTox’s tests also detected what Lykissa called “worrisome levels” of cadmium in a catnip toy -- 236 micrograms per kilogram.

“That’s a big number,” Lykissa said. “It’s a good dose of cadmium.”

ConsumerAffairs.com purchased all four pet toys it hired ExperTox to test at a Wal-Mart store in Kansas City, Missouri. All the toys had a tag attached that read “Marketed by Wal-Mart stores and Made in China.”

Wal-Mart attacks

Wal-Mart has attacked ExperTox’s finding and said Dr. Lykissa “severely misinterpreted” the results.

“The conclusions drawn in this article appear to have been based on incorrect interpretations of the data, and based on the opinions of a person (who is) not an expert in consumer product testing,” Melissa O’Brien, who identified herself as representing Wal-Mart’s corporate communication, wrote us in an e-mail. Other news organizations said O'Brien told them she worked for a public relations firm called Edelman.

“After reviewing these test results…the results of these tests actually prove the products are VERY safe," the hired publicist said.

“If these measurements are in fact the results, as you have reported, they have been severely misinterpreted by the director of ExperTox’s lab, if he is reporting these levels to be ‘high’ or ‘dangerous,’" O'Brien argued. To the contrary by this lab's own report, these levels are considered very low and actually much lower than what is acceptable by regulatory bodies in the U.S. and Europe for products, including children’s toys.”

O’Brien referred to the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s (CPSC) limit of 600 parts per million for the total lead in surface coating.

“By comparison, the highest concentration of lead found in any of the ExperTox tests is a very low 907.4 parts per million… more than 600 times less than the CPSC limit for surface coatings.”

Two veterinarians who reviewed ExperTox’s findings said the levels of heavy metals found in the chew toys do not pose a threat to dogs or cats. Whether the chew toys ExperTox tested are a hazard to children and adults who handle them is unclear.

“I don’t see any of those numbers being a toxicity concern for dogs or cats,” Dr. Mike Murphy of the University of Minnesota’s College of Veterinary Medicine told us. “Latex paint can contain one-half to one percent of lead, which is 10,000 parts per million. What he (Dr. Lykissa) is saying is that one part per million is a risk. But latex paint is 10,000 times higher than that and we don’t recognize latex paint as a toxicity risk to dogs and cats.

“I disagree with the interpretation that’s being made (by Lykissa),” added Dr. Murphy, who holds a Ph.D. in toxicology. “I consider these to be extremely low numbers and they are not a toxicological concern for pet owners.”

Dangerous? It depends

Dr. Fred Oehme at Kansas State University’s College of Veterinary Medicine said the risks to dogs and cats from these toys depends on how much of the heavy metals are absorbed in their bodies.

“Could they be harmful? The poisoning depends on how much is taken into their systems. Most animals require 30 parts per million of their total daily diet before you get into a problem with lead. Cadmium is more than that.

“I’m more concerned about the lead than the other two (heavy metals),” he added. “Lead accumulates and if it gets into the body, it builds up.”

Dr. Niles, at the Illinois Department of Agriculture’s lab, agreed that one part per million of lead is not a health risk to pets.

“That’s my personal opinion, not the opinion of the Illinois Department of Agriculture,” he said. “You’d find very few things that you would let anybody play with if that (one part per million) was your benchmark.”

Lack of standards

PetSmart told us earlier this week that it routinely tests its products -- including dog and cat toys -- for lead and other toxins.

The company’s spokesman reiterated those safety protocols today.

“The products we sell must meet a variety of safety and quality standards and protocols,” said Bruce Richardson, the company’s director of external communication. “These are based on federal regulations and standards (such as those found in the Code of Federal Regulations), state and provincial regulations, as well as commonly accepted standards established by highly respected institutions such as the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI).

"In addition, we have established our own stringent standards of quality and safety for areas not necessarily covered by those groups named above,” he said.

Richardson took exception with our comparison of the levels of lead in the PetSmart tennis ball to those found in the green monster toy.

He said it’s not fair to use ExperTox’s “benchmark” of one part per million as a safety measure for lead or other toxins in pet toys.

“The terms ‘high’ and ‘elevated’ are relative terms and must be used carefully and given proper context to avoid confusion and alarm,” he said. “It’s not fair to pit a (forensic) toxicologist against a veterinary toxicologist on this issue. I don’t think he (Dr. Lykissa) has a leg to stand on. He’s not a veterinary toxicologist and has no point of reference when he talks about elevated levels. Elevated against what? I don’t think his results bring any value to this discussion. And his comments will not change anything we’re doing.”

Richardson added: “To our knowledge, we are not selling any products that have compounds that have tested above levels of toxicity established by the various entities named above and are not posing any health threat to pets or humans.”

ExperTox isn’t swayed by its critics.

The lab stands by its findings and calls them “rock solid.”

The lab’s manager also disagrees that the levels of lead in PetSmart’s tennis ball are safe.

“Those are a lot higher levels than what we found in the green monster toys, and I don’t see how 600 parts per million is acceptable,” said ExperTox’s Donna Coneley. “We don’t agree that (335.7 parts per million of lead) is a safe level.”

Coneley -- who pointed out that ExperTox and Dr. Lykissa are experts at consumer product testing -- said she wouldn’t let a dog chew on a toy that had those levels of lead.

“Not from what I see here at the lab. We have differing opinions on what is safe and acceptable.”

ExperTox, however, doesn’t look at CPSC or ASTM limits during its testing procedures, Coneley said.

“We simply pour out our results as we receive them,” she said, adding her lab uses state-of-the-art technology. “We don’t look at the limits on products.”

Coneley questioned the validity of using the same “acceptable levels” for lead and other toxins in pet toys that are used in children’s toys.

“Weight is always a factor,” she said. “If you’re dealing with a teacup-size dog you can’t assume that what’s safe for a 20-pound child is safe for a three- to ten-pound dog. Cats are light as well. Their little bodies are not able to spread out the toxins. Animals also tend to chew things off more aggressively than kids.

“Everyone seems to concentrate on humans with this type of testing, but maybe more scrutiny is needed on what limits are safe for pets.”

That’s the one point where nearly everyone involved in this debate is on the same page.

"Huge question"

“There clearly is an absence of regulations for pet toys,” Richardson said. “Maybe the guidelines…the levels…for human standards are not so good based on the exposure for dog (or cats). That’s a huge question that needs to be addressed.”

PetSmart, he said, would not object to having national “acceptable standards and levels” for lead and other toxins in pet toys.

The president of the American Pet Products Manufacturers Association said his members -- who represent more than 900 pet product makers, importers, and livestock suppliers worldwide -- would welcome such standards.

“They’re looking for a benchmark that everyone can follow,” said Bob Vetere, president of the non-profit organization. “Maybe what we need is to have everyone sit down at a table and talk about what makes sense.

"It’s not going to be easy to find an answer, but it’s a process that has to start. The CPSC is certainly somebody that needs to be sitting at that table, and we’d (APPMA) certainly be willing to work with them and help them on this issue,” he said.

The CPSC, however, said its agency currently has no regulatory control over pet products.

“We only have jurisdiction over a pet-related product (that is not food), if evidence is presented that the product has put the safety of consumers at risk,” said spokesman Scott Wolfson. He did not address the potential danger to children and adults exposed to the pet toys.

Dr. Niles with the Illinois Department of Agriculture joins those who favor national “acceptable” levels for lead and other toxins in pet toys.

“We have to use human data now in the absence of pet data,” he said. “Work needs to be done to get standardized levels for pets. But you have to have the data. And I’m fully in favor of scientific data to support those guidelines. Once we get those guidelines, we can interpret this data in relationship to animals instead of humans.”

Until that happens, Vetere said members of the APPMA will triple-checking their products to be sure they’re tested for lead and other toxins.

That action, he said, is the result of our story that revealed what Dr. Lykissa said were elevated levels of lead, chromium, and cadmium in the two pet toys sold at Wal-Mart.

“Everyone (in this industry) is well aware of your story,” Vetere told us. “And the reaction from virtually everyone I’ve talked to about the story is: ‘Wait a minute. We didn’t know about this. Hello, what’s going on?’ And they’ve called their vendors and suppliers to be sure they’re testing the products.

“It’s good that you got this out there so they (our members) could know, and they are pushing very hard on their vendors now to get those test results. If nothing else, everyone is now aware of this in the industry.”

No U.S. toys?

Meanwhile, Nancy told us she’s relieved by test results on her dog toys.

“Dr. Niles convinced me that these are all within safe limits,” she said. “My first reaction when I heard these results was a deep sigh of relief. I had lost dogs and then I thought ‘oh, no, they’re chewing on toys that may be dangerous.’ So when I found out these results, I was relieved that these toys are safe.”

Nancy, however, is still troubled that she can’t find pet toys made in the United States.

“What amazes me is that all these toys are made in China. I was going to dump out all my old toys and buy only ones made in the USA. But I couldn’t find any that weren’t made in China. So I thought that if that’s all I can get, I’m going to make sure they’re safe. And the lab told me these toys are safe.”

Whether pet owners agree or disagree with that interpretation, ExperTox’s Coneley said this debate has given them the tools to make more informed decisions about the products they give their dogs and cats.

“That’s what this is all about, giving people more information that I feel will help them make a better choice. If a vet says he think our results are extremely low numbers than people can take that information and balance it against what Dr. Lykissa said to make a better decision.

“This has opened a Pandora’s box and it’s good that people are now talking about this issue.”

Report Your Experience
If you've had a bad experience -- or a good one -- with a consumer product or service, we'd like to hear about it. All complaints are reviewed by class action attorneys and are considered for publication on our site. Knowledge is power! Help spread the word. File your consumer report now.