The new round of "Shrek" glasses recently sold by McDonald's in conjunction with the release of the latest "Shrek" movie are being recalled due to the discovery, in the wrap used for the "Shrek" decoration on the glass, of a level of cadmium which was slightly above the level which the Consumer Product Safety Commission designates as safe in recommendations it is currently developing.
AP story by Justin Pritchard: McDonald's pulls cadmium-tainted 'Shrek' glasses
"In the case of the Shrek-themed glassware, the potential danger would be long-term exposure to low levels of cadmium, which could leach from the paint onto a child's hand, then enter the body if the child puts that unwashed hand to his or her mouth."
Instructions for receiving refunds are not yet available, but are scheduled for publication on the McDonald's website next week. At this time, the company is advising families to stop using the glasses. The best course of action for participation in the recall would be to pack them into a labeled box in order to avoid accidental usage or breakage, and store them in a safe place until further instructions are available.
This is a voluntary recall. The U.S. made glasses are being recalled as a precautionary measure, due to the company's concern over handling by children leading to risk of exposing them to cadmium.
According to the story, "A very small amount of cadmium can come to the surface of the glass, and in order to be as protective as possible of children, CPSC and McDonald's worked together on this recall," said CPSC spokesman Scott Wolfson.
While the story does not say how much cadmium was involved, Mr. Wolfson did state that the amount was much lower than the children's jewelry recalled in this Spring by the CSPC.
January 11, 2010 AP article by Justin Pritchard and Jeff Donn: US Agency Goes After Cadmium in Children's Jewelry
This article describes the circumstances that led to the recall of jewelry manufactured in China to be sold by several U.S. retail chains. Following the crackdown by Congress on the use of lead in children's toys, manufacturers sought substitutes for red and yellow pigments. Cadmium is regulated in toys, but not jewelry, and cadmium is relatively cheap, as demand has reduced greatly after use in rechargeable batteries steeply declined when the Lithium Ion battery took over the market. (Ni-Cad batteries came with the inconvenience of needing to be fully drained of power before recharge, to avoid having the battery develop the issue of only reduced capability. Lithium Ion batteries do not have that issue, a characteristic which made them preferable to Ni-Cads.)
From the article: ""There's nothing positive that you can say about this metal. It's a poison," said Bruce A. Fowler, a cadmium specialist and toxicologist with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. On the agency's priority list of 275 most hazardous substances in the environment, cadmium ranks No. 7."
CSPC links regarding jewelry:
Winter and Holiday-Themed Charm Bracelets with High Levels of Cadmium
Claire's Recalls Children's Metal Charm Bracelets Due to High Levels of Cadmium
What is Cadmium?
Cadmium, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cadmium is a metal with similar characteristics to Mercury and Zinc, including a low melting point. The human body has no nutritional use for any type Cadmium compound (unlike with Zinc), and as with Mercury, the metal can have toxic effects with repeated, long term or high level exposure. From the Wiki: "In paint pigments, cadmium forms various salts, with CdS being the most common. This sulfide issued as a yellow pigment. Cadmium selenide can be used as red pigment, commonly called cadmium red." These are the two compounds in question in the McDonald's "Shrek" glasses.
Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry Toxic FAQs for Cadmium
This article has concise statements on several points regarding Cadmium and human health, including Cadmium's carcinogenic nature, long-term exposure effects, effects on children, exposure risk and the reduction thereof, EPA recommendations, and this contact information:
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Division of Toxicology and Environmental Medicine
1600 Clifton Road NE, Mailstop F-62
Atlanta, GA 30333
Phone: 1-800-CDC-INFO • 888-232-6348 (TTY)
FAX: 770-488-4178
Email: cdcinfo@cdc.gov
More information on cadmium exposure:
American Heart Association Journal News report, by Carole Bullock, published in June 2004, 'Safe' levels of lead, cadmium
One point made by the article: Even at levels considered safe in 2004, cadmium had been shown to contribute to the development of Peripheral Artery Disease (PAD).
Health Line article by Samuel Uretsky Pharm.D
Cadmium Poisoning
This article states that cadmium is dangerous if swallowed or inhaled, but does not mention skin exposure, further confirming the CSPC and McDonald's statements that the concern specifically involves the substance getting into the mouth following skin exposure.
Also included is the warning that chronic (long-term) exposure can be damaging to the liver and kidneys. Symptoms of acute (short-term, high exposure) poisoning are also described, along with the conditions under which this normally occurs.
Conclusion
The McDonald's recall is not cause for immediate alarm if your family has been using the glasses following purchase, but evidence definitely encourages participation. The danger involved with low levels of cadmium is from long-term, repeated exposure.
The glasses have not been available for enough time to cause significant exposure, but continued use could pose that risk, as the cadmium compounds can leach out of the paint and onto the skin of the hand, and subsequently end up in the mouth.
It is inadvisable for anyone to keep the glasses, even if there is no risk of use by children in the house. Participation in the recall is recommended. The option of simple disposal of the glasses may be more convenient for some, but may be improper due to regulations on the disposal of cadmium, as mentioned in the above AP article on the CPSC action regarding cadmium in children's jewelry earlier this year.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 55 ( 14 removed by ℐґṽїᾔℊ ϟᾔø⊥ρ☺¢к℮тṧ )
Having all ready purchased 3 of the glasses, my immediate response to seeing the news of this was the thought that as many people as possible should be informed about it.
Thanks for the share!
Of course, by doing the right thing, they've just put a huge target on their foreheads. I can all ready see the "evil corporations must die!" crowd gearing up to accuse them of deliberately or carelessly poisoning kids.
Oh, well. Can't win 'em all. XP
I bought mine in the city of Dayton. I bet if I'd gone North about 7 miles to the Dayton suburb of Englewood or maybe Oakwood, the cups would have cost more.
This is a sickness here in this practice in America. Give a bunch of toxic junk that creates sickeness from where the take it out of the Earth to where they have dump it back in, and all the branches of where these chemicals and this garbages touches while it is in transit.
When I was a kid, we have very few, but good toys. Blocks, model airplanes, tools, cars, bicycles, soldiers of course, erector set, Lincoln logs, Tinker Toys, stuff that lasted, stuff that stimulated the mind instead of neurotoxically attacking it.
I used to play with blocks a lot. Then I got to Jr. High, and took architectural drawing and drafting and found that I could manipulate things in space way better than about anyone else in the class, I could see things in space.
A culture where we have to create useless meaningless toxic junk to give everyone a job and parade around for creating more of the same is not a culture that can last that much longer in this world.
Plus, McDonald's does this because the toys, sugar, bright colors creates a very strong psychologicl bond that lasts a whole lifespan and can cause many human beings to eat stuff that is really bad for them for reasons they do not understand, that lead to a lot of disease unhappiness and trouble thinking.
Lord knows, we need some thinking people in this country right now.
You are not seriously telling me that you think the toys you grew up with didn't have toxic substances in them, are you? That's hilarious! Back then, games had pewter game pieces, wood was treated with a preservative containing arsenic, and paint had lead in it. Here, we're talking about a recall on an item (which, by the way, is not a toy) that the regulatory authority has stated is not toxic based on the level of the element in the paint, but the company is recalling it any way just to be on the safe side... it's amazing the way people will twist their perception of an event to fit their own agenda so that they can leave some of the comments I've seen under this post!
Anyway, we have thinking people in this country. It's just a matter of how many, who bothers to listen to what they have to say, and whether or not individual members of the general public can sort thorough all of the various statements of opinion as those contribute to the formation of their own.
Its amazing how you are twisting something I did not even say, you are spinning a impication you yourself made. Cadmium and some of these other heavy metals were not in abundance back when i was a kid as they are not, and there were less of them too. I did not have that many toys, not a new thing every hour.
That is quite a naive outlook.
Lead awareness goes back for awhile, but Cadmium was its replacement. It's been used longer than you think.
My son doesn't get a new thing every hour, either. In fact, most of what he has was not new when he got it, and that includes birthday and Christmas presents.
He does, however, have a large number of books, as that is how I spend my Gather points.
No, it's not, but you are awfully defensive. The other difference is that now we know much better. The European union bans a lot of the toxic metals in toys, but companies can make money by using them, so for example in China they have two assembly lines, one for Europe and one for us, because we refuse to regulate anything.
Oh, but I must be naive because I read a book on the sub ject: Exposed: The Toxic Chemistry of Everyday Products and What's at Stake for American Power (Paperback) Mark Shapiro.
Hey, but go ahead, call me some more names.
Why do write the post if you don't want people to comment, or maybe next time you can email me what you'd like me to say that you won't fly into a tizzy about.
Go through the aisles of Walgreens, Longs, most store have lots of junk toys that would not be there if they didn't sell, and they are not the kind of toys that are helpful developmentally to a child.
Again, you fail to address part of the comment. Are you telling me that the book you mention was not marketed to you and is not based on a point of view? I do not find such an idea credible.
Explain what name I called you. Find it in my comment. It has to be a noun, because nouns are names, while other parts of speech are not. There isn't one, but I am sure I have figured out the manner in which you are stretching the truth in order to justify to yourself that you should make such a statement.
Nothing has been said indicating that I do not want anyone to comment on my post. However, the right to make a comment does not give you the right to speak unchallenged. By putting your point of view here to be seen, you give permission to others to disagree with it and challenge your statements. You are guilty of the very thing you accuse; desiring to speak with impunity.
Your last paragraph makes my point, not yours; they are only there because people are interested in buying them. These companies aren't enforcing these purchases. The customer makes that choice.
I call that name-calling.
> It's been used longer than you think.
You have no idea what I think, and instead of trying to talk about it, you have to call me naive.
And then there's the stupid little image you posted in your comment - I suppose that is to nurture better conversation?
Your idea of having a discussion seems to be challenging people with unpleasantness and drawing conclusions about them you make up. Hey, forget it, fine with me, blab away.
I call that name-calling.
If you call a tail a leg, your dog still only has 4 legs, Bruce. Taking a single sentence out of the specific context which defines its meaning in order to justify an accusation of name-calling, and then singling out an adjective I used in the statement to describe a single opinion you previously stated, and then responding as if that adjective applied to your statement was used as a noun applied to your entire personality... is dishonest. Since you want name calling, yes: I'm now calling you a liar. I'm calling you that because I don't believe your claim that you honestly took my statement that way.
And then there's the stupid little image you posted in your comment - I suppose that is to nurture better conversation?
No, Bruce. It's to save 1000 words, and I think it did exactly that.
Now you're mad because I pointed out what you were doing. No one challenged you with unpleasantness. I simply pointed out the fallacy in your statement. If you can't take it, then go spew rhetoric on someone else's post.
I am delighted to say that at least 2 mcDs in my area have closed due to local parents deciding not to allow their kids to eat their products.
Now, if only we could see the same thing with Starbucks....!
I also dislike Starbucks - when we have so many wonderful, Italian coffee shops locally, why on earth buy their oversweetened, crappy over-roasted stuff?
This is a kind of meaningless comment. But McDonalds was caught using beef tallow in its french fries back when they claimed to be using vegetable oil. They used beef fat because that starch, fat, salt,sugar combination is like a drug, and they do millions of resarch to bypass their consumer's conscious mind to get them hooked.
The toys and the bright colors, Ronald McDonald and the TV commercials are all part of this strategy. Commercials aimed at kids should be banned.
Check out a movie called "The Corporation" to find out how they us technology to do this.
Coffee shops depend on repeat customers, just like any small business... the best way to support them is to shop there. There was a wonderful place in the town where my hubby and I wanted to live... great atmosphere, and really nice people... but it is gone now.
Bruce: Meaningless? When you only quote half and take it out of context, possibly. When you read the entire thing, and the comments to which it refers, then no, it's not. It all depends on how much you are willing to ignore in order to maintain your point of view.
Beef tallow was not the frying oil. It's a flavor added following cooking. It was used because it tastes better than vegetable oil. The brouhaha over the fries was religion based, and I would liken the argument to the idea of Jerry Falwell going into a strip joint for a glass of water and then complaining about being religiously offended by the waitress's racy outfits. It bypasses the consumer's mind only insomuch as the nice flavor of chocolate in a Hershey bar. No one has ever claimed that McDonald's fries were health food. Treating their sales as if they were some type of scam is dishonest.
Most commercially used vegetable oil isn't healthier than beef fat because it is hydrogenated, which basically makes it artificially saturated fat. It looks better, but it's not.
Kids shouldn't be permitted to control household decision making. Unlike most parents, I know how to tell my kid no just as well as I can say yes.
As for movies and marketing, do you think that movie was not marketed to you in order to convince you of a point of view?
What a concept! NOT letting kids be incharge....
Unlike most parents, I know how to tell my kid no just as well as I can say yes.
I wonder if this is a genetic trait....
When we have wonderful coffee shops (you'll see them when you visit soon) - why accept the crappy, over-flavoured, over-roasted stuff from Starbucks? But, many of our youngsters are so enamoured of the 'foreign' chains that we see more and more of them proliferating throughout the UK.
I am SOOO grateful that my children disliked the McD/BurgerKing/KFC offerings when they were children - preferring to eat at places like Valvona and Crolla (forgot to tell you about their tea-room and newish restaurant!)
and round and round we go...