Is Knock-Off Jewelry Bad for You?

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/paw_con/6847567701/sizes/m/in/photostream/">paw_con</a>/Flickr

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


It seems that every year or so, there’s a news story about lead and other nasty substances found in unexpected places—children’s toys, drinking glasses, women’s handbags, lipstick. A new report out Tuesday finds lead in cheap jewelry as well—meaning you might want to back off that faux bling.

The Ann Arbor, Michigan-based Ecology Center found that 57 percent of the 99 pieces of jewelry it test contained high levels of toxic components like lead, cadmium, arsenic, mercury and bromine. Twenty-seven percent of pieces contained more than 300 parts per million (ppm) of lead—which far exceeds the 100 ppm limit for children’s products the Consumer Product Safety Commission set last year. Forty-seven percent contained detectible levels of the “extremely toxic metal” cadmium, which is also a “probable carcinogen” according to the EPA. Thirteen percent had high levels of arsenic, and 5 percent had high levels of mercury.

The Center noted that some of these chemicals are linked to health risks like birth defects, learning disorders, liver toxicity, and cancer, or can cause allergic reactions. Jeff Gearhart, research director at the Ecology Center, called the findings evidence of a “complete failure of our federal chemical regulatory system.” The jewelry they tested came from 14 different stores, including Target, Claire’s, Forever 21, Walmart, H&M, and Hot Topic, and included products intended for both children and adults. Most of the jewelry the group tested cost less than $10.

The report even flags products like a blue, heart-shaped pendant necklace made by the Pastel Collection bought at a store called Glitter that says “Lead Free” on the package—yet the tests found high levels of lead in both the pendant and the necklace’s clasp.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission noted that current law directs the agency to set federal regulations governing lead in children’s jewelry—not for products intended people over the age of 12. Scott Wolfson, director of communications at the CPSC, also noted that as of November 2011, there is a new voluntary industry standard for other chemicals in children’s jewelry that CPSC helped create. He said that the CPSC, “has started looking into the products identified” in the report.

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