Oh Good, There’s Lead in Your Christmas Lights

Are you trimming the tree with a potential hazard to your child’s health?

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/storeyland/75377430/sizes/l/in/photolist-7Ek5S-5HsZq3-vbDq6-i5LxdN-aRahbZ-5LYqeS-48SYmt-4fEFRE-5Q5KLy-5GQF61-4gCyqA-4gyuc6-5JA1Jf-5DfXm7-5DfXGG-5DbEwR-5DbGgX-aTjEbM-isoLDN-4hPMpQ-5H8nxn-7nvdUF-aLpKan-th5Bg-88B9z-6zuLBA-uJ13e-5ZbnZn/">Storeyland</a>/Flickr

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

This story originally appeared on OnEarth.org.

It’s my daughter’s first Christmas season, and last weekend, as we were decorating our tree, she naturally wanted to play with the string of twinkling white lights that lay tangled on our apartment floor. We thought nothing of letting her pull them onto her lap so we could snap a few photos (though we didn’t let her stick them in her mouth). A coaster soon caught her attention, and we took the opportunity to wrap the string around our Fraser fir, then uploaded her pic to Instagram. And that’s when a friend told me that those beautiful strings of Christmas lights my daughter had been handling are actually coated in lead.

Lead, as in toxic. I had no idea. Sure, I’m aware that our everyday environment is full of toxic chemicals—including pesticides in our food and water, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in vehicle exhaust, and flame retardants in upholstery—and that these substances can cause neurodevelopmental disorders in children (see the latest cover story in our magazine, “Generation Toxic,” for more disturbing details.).

But on Christmas lights? Really?

Afraid so. It turns out that lead is applied to the polyvinylchloride (PVC) wire covering to keep the plastic from cracking. It’s also a flame retardant. Not all brands are suspect, but an awful lot are. In a 2008 study published in the Journal of Environmental Health, researchers from Cornell University tested 10 light sets and found lead on all of them, at levels that surpassed the Environmental Protection Agency’s limit for windowsills and floors.

Two other analyses in recent years, one by HealthyStuff.org and another done for CNN, produced similar results. The former, conducted in 2010, found that 54 percent of lights had more lead than regulators allow in children’s products. Quantex, the company that did the lab work for CNN in 2007, found that the surface lead levels in each of the four types of lights it tested exceeded the Consumer Safety Commission’s limit for children’s products (which has since been reduced).

Isn’t lead illegal, due to its well-known effects on human health, including damage to the brain and nervous system in children? Actually, it’s only been banned from certain products, including paint and gasoline. The federal government restricts the amount of lead allowed on children’s products and provides limits on acceptable lead levels in dust and soil, air and water, and waste through a variety of laws and regulations. At the state level, California requires a warning label on electrical cords that have more than 300 parts per million of lead. But selling Christmas lights coated in lead is perfectly legal.

The Journal of Environmental Health study’s researchers recommended that companies manufacturing the lights should stop using PVC. Because they’ve been unwilling to do so voluntarily, the researchers recommend putting pressure on those companies “either through legislation or consumer demands that could be expressed through boycotts.” Meanwhile, consumers should exercise precaution to reduce potential exposure, the authors say. Is the amount of exposure significant and likely to be damaging? “In the whole scheme of things, is it a huge risk? No,” pediatrician Philip Landrigan of Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York told USA Today in 2010. “But what’s bothersome about it is that it’s so unnecessary, and that safer substitutes do exist.” Christmas lights sold at IKEA, for example, are held to a stricter European standard, meaning less lead (though there can still be some).

Last year, science journalist Emily Willingham poked a bit of fun at the concern over toxic Christmas lights in her blog for Forbes. Yes, she acknowledged, studies show a potential problem. “What a first-world response, though,” she writes, “to make a special trip to IKEA, which always seems so far away, in your gas-burning automobile to buy precious, lead-free Christmas lights to plug in and power up thanks to your friendly neighborhood coal-burning power plant.”

Fair points, especially when there’s an easier way to protect yourself and your kids: washing hands with soap and water. Lead isn’t readily absorbed through the skin, so the main worry is that people will get it on their hands, then put their fingers in their mouths. Washing up after handling the lights should remove that risk, says Joseph Laquatra, a professor at Cornell’s College of Human Ecology who led the Journal of Environmental Health study.

So now that I know about the lead on my lights, am I going to leave them off my fir? No. But I’ll keep my daughter away from them from now on, and if I need to replace them in the future, I’m definitely looking for lead-free options. And hey, if anyone out there is looking to buy me an appropriate stocking stuffer this year…

 

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate