3

mance.

This certification program has received the endorsement of experts in the field of toxicology and has been called one of the finest industry programs in existence. It has been a responsive program, evolving to meet new challenges and to include more products. Most recently, in 1982, the program was expanded to include a broad spectrum of adult art and craft materials, ensuring that health and use labels are affixed where appropriate, in accordance with ASTM D-4236 and FHSA.

The Institute has a consulting toxicologist, Woodhall Stopford, MD, of Duke University and a Toxicological Advisory Board. The Toxicological Advisory Board is composed of three eminent toxicologists to act as review board on matters of toxicity and to review the criteria used by the Institute toxicologist. Product formulas for every product in the certification program are submitted by the manufacturers to the toxicologist for his evaluation as to whether a product is non-toxic or needs cautionary labeling. These formulas undergo an extensive toxicological review and testing as deemed necessary by the toxicologist. Currently over 80 members of the Institute have certified more than 15,000 art products and the process is continuing. Toxicological evaluation under this program proves that only 15% of art materials require hazard labeling and most of these already carried acute warning labels.

The Institute also conducts annual random testing of products to ensure that they continue to be as represented to the Institute. Moreover, the Institute has an ongoing record of banning or restricting ingredients prior to any governmental action and has been in the forefront of chronic hazard evaluation and labeling.

The U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) claims that children in grades K-6 are "routinely" exposed to hazardous art materials in the classroom and contends that children are using hazardous art materials. Its claim is, we believe, based on faulty data, derived from faulty methodology. The PIRG groups surveyed school purchasing officials to determine what is purchased by the schools rather than surveying children in the classroom to determine what art materials they actually

use.

The Coalition believes that the surveys are grossly misleading and challenges its assertion about the use of hazardous products by children. We do not believe that kindergarten teachers or teachers in grades 1-6 permit their pupils to use hazardous materials of any kind. Moreover, the PIRG surveys do not differentiate whether such products are used in elementary grades, secondary grades, or by teachers themselves after students have left the classroom. If toxic substances such as rubber cements, solvents, fixatives and lead glzaes are actually reaching grades K-6, these products already bear strong acute cautionary labeling and the words "keep out of reach of children."

Based on our experience, we do believe that children in grades K-6 principally use the following art material products:

For more than forty years these products have been evaluated for toxicity potential in the Institute program and found to be non-toxic. The art material industry knows of no serious injury in that period of time arising from the use of these products.

A "serious injury" under the program is one requiring medical treatment. We know that children, particularly in the pre-K and K grades, may put crayons or paint in their mouth. The products are not intended as food products but, aside from some temporary discoloration from the pigment, no child to the best of our knowledge has ever been hospitalized for the intentional or inadvertent "ingestion" of these products for acute or chronic illness. Generations of students, perhaps even members of this Committee, have benefited from the use of these products through the stimulation they provide to children's imaginations.

We also know that many elementary school districts or elementary school purchase officials specify the use of "CP or equal" or "AP or equal" for art material products. The same frequently specify pencils with the PMA certification mark or equal.

To be meaningful to the consumer, we believe national uniform labeling is paramount and, since CPSC has long regulated art materials for acute hazards, we encouraged CPSC over the years to become further involved in regulating chronic hazards. CPSC staff monitored the development of ASTM D-4236, but when we urged adoption of ASTM D-4236 as a mandatory

- 6 ·

standard to gain preemption, CPSC was unable to do so as it was required by statute to defer to an effective voluntary standard which has subtantial compliance.

On March 19, 1987, CPSC issued Advisory Opinion No. 309 which stated that household products with chemical substances that may cause chronic health hazards are subject to the FHSA. It further declared that these products must be labeled in accordance with Section 2 (p) (1); that products labeled in accordance with ASTM D-4236 comply with Section 2(p) (1); and that Section 2 (p) (1) preempts inconsistent state requirements addressing the same risk.

Regulation of potential chronic hazards in art materials by CPSC will allow the extensive toxicological evaluation and health hazards labeling accomplished by the vast majority of the industry to remain in place and not be wasted. A list of those products evaluated by the Institute under ASTM D-4236 is enclosed (Exhibit B). Large manufacturers such as 3M, Borden and Gillette, are complying with it independently. CPSC regulation will bring into compliance that small minority of art products that are not yet evaluated and labeled. It will also provide for national uniform health and use labeling and avoid conflicting state-by-state labeling. Finally, it will allow individual manufacturers to be regulated by one agency for both acute and chronic health hazards.

We have urged CPSC to develop evaluation criteria for chronic hazards, which we feel will parallel those already in use by the Institute and others certifying compliance and will provide an efficient way to monitor the remaining 10-15% of art materials not complying with ASTM D-4236, without creating an unwieldy product-by-product review. Review based on criteria

- 7

would allow for a flexible program, able to keep up with new and changing procedures for each product.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission studied the art materials industry in the late 70's, and completed a fairly broad study of art material labeling in 1981-1982. The Commission has on more than one occasion stated that it has not found any significant art material problem to justify its listing as a priority project for the Commission, despite the claims of the various PIRG groups.

CPSC has the legislative authority to act to prevent acute and chronic hazards, particularly to children under both the Consumer Product Safety Act and the Federal Hazardous Substance Act. We believe the Commission should be given an opportunity to do so. There is no demonstrable problem of national proportion to require new legislation now. At the same time, we believe that if CPSC does not act in a reasonable time to establish uniform toxicological criteria for chronic toxicity labeling, that it may be appropriate to consider national legislation to prevent the development of a hopeless conflict among State laws and regulations and their administration.

We

Any such Federal legislation should only require that CPSC be the regulating agency, that labeling and evaluation be national in scope, and that states be preempted from addressing the same risk with conflicting criteria or labeling--all things we already have under the voluntary ASTM D-4236 standard. believe that CPSC's implementation of its chronic hazards labeling program should be allowed to proceed and oppose any legislation unless this implementation does not take place. fear that any legislation introduced to accomplish what is already available might further delay this process and deprive consumers of the benefits they already have.

We