The internet perpetuates misinformation regularly - and many times, this misinformation can live forever on the internet - causing confusion and sowing doubt in the minds of consumers... when there should be none.
Last year, a blogger claimed that our cups had trace amounts of lead in the red markings on the glass.
Since I launched Tabor Place in 2019, I have posted all my legally required testing PUBLICLY.
I've only seen 1 other company do this - and no company that makes products for children. I believe that this should be the standard - all companies should post their testing PUBLICLY.
Legally, baby drinkware cannot have any lead above 90 ppm.
Tabor Place cups have always tested "BDL" - which means, below detectable level.
You can view the results here: https://taborplace.co/pages/fda-laboratory-testing.
All of these tests are legally required to be sold in the US- and they must prove that our cups don’t have lead in the cup nor in the surface coating either.
That being said, we head heard a lot of feedback from our customers that they didn't need the red measurement markings on the side of the glass bottles anyways - all of our cups have been red marking free. We didn't want people to continue to be confused and unnecessarily worried. All of our cups have been red marking free for a year.
Now a few notes about the testing itself - and how the Blogger intentionally mislead her readers:
- The blogger did this "test" using an ILLEGAL method. The use of the XRF machine on the item itself is not legally approved by the CPSC, nor any international testing agency for lead testing in surface paints alone because the XRF cannot distinguish between the small amounts of paint and what is BEHIND the XRF itself.
Per the CPSC -
"I. Acid Digestion Method: The digestion method is based on the Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) standard AOAC 974.024 (Lead in Paint).
"2. For products coated with paint or a similar surface coating, remove and digest the coating, separately from the substrate material.
3. Scrape approximately 5-100 mg of paint from the product. If it is not possible to collect this much paint, it may be necessary to combine more than one unit of such product to collect sufficient paint.
6. Dilute samples so that Pb results are within the calibration range of the instrument"
In fact, the blogger actually references the CPSC's legally approved test method - but MISLEADS her readers by failing to mention that THE PAINT MUST BE SCRAPED OFF THE CUP FIRST.
There is an approved method that can be used during manufacturing which allows an HDXRF - but that was not the machine that was used in this case.
A little bit more about how inappropriately this test was performed:
- The test was done in an unsterile environment - it was done on a bedspread & old pillow - not in a sterile laboratory.
- The person doing the test didn't wash their hands, nor did they use gloves.
- The person doing the test didn't calibrate their machine on camera - which, even when used legally, must be done in every case - if not, it can provide very high false positives.
- The person didn't test anything surrounding what they were testing - to provide a "baseline" or rule out cross-contamination as a reason for a positive result. The person didn't test the bed the test was done on, the pillow, the box, the bubble wrap - nothing else.
- The home that this lead test was done in - was actually CONTAMINATED WITH LEAD - the person who did the test wrote extensively about how her home was old and had lead, and she even SUED a contractor that apparently removed lead paint inappropriately.
- She mentions that here and here and here .
I responded to this blogger on Instagram - calling her out for her use of an illegal method as well as for performing this test in an unsterile environment. She then deleted all of those messages.
Most of the article written on Tabor Place is making fun of me, Beatrice - for not having a lot of followers on Tiktok.
In the blog post she also criticizes my company because she's unable to email me. When in fact - the blogger sent an email to AN INCORRECT EMAIL ADDRESS - and then uses this as evidence against me. The blogger knew very well that this was incorrect, because she would have received an Error email response.
She also sent me other emails, to the correct address, so she knew very well that she initially sent an email to me using the wrong address - but didn't share that information with her readers.
Ultimately, the saddest part about this entire ordeal is that I share the same mission with this person. It's an incredibly important mission - one that isn't taken seriously enough by both our government and many manufacturers.
We have a BIG LEAD PROBLEM in this country - it continues to contaminate our soil, old homes and many drinking water supplies.
We both want children to be safe from toxic contaminants in products - but it should be done with truth & transparency.
Comments
So the red paint has no lead in it? If tested properly with a 3M swab it would be negative?