Car Seat Rankings by HealthyStuff.org

LISmama810

Admin - CPS Technician
HealthyStuff.org has released updated results for car seats based on toxicity.

Here is the summary: http://www.healthystuff.org/departments/childrens-products/about.findings.php

And here is some additional info: http://www.healthystuff.org/departments/childrens-products/press.releases.php

And some graphics:

Best and worst overall: http://www.healthystuff.org/pressimages/rawimages/2011-best-worst-overall.jpg

Best and worst by type: http://www.healthystuff.org/pressimages/rawimages/Best-Worst-Car-seat-list.jpg

Sorry, I'm on my phone or I could have saved and posted the graphics themselves. Maybe someone else can do that.

What's interesting to me is I didn't realize there were different options for flame retardancy. (Well, I mean, not ones that can be used practically in car seats. Even wool needs to have silica added to be flame-retardant.) I thought they all used the same chemicals, but maybe some used more of the chemicals than others. I didn't realize there were some practical, widely used, less-toxic alternatives.

Anyway, discuss, or at least be aware of this study in case people bring it up.
 
ADS

bnsnyde

New member
I find this interesting.

I actually just bought my third crib mattress (others in use for toddler beds) that is organic and nontoxic. Now, it does not have the wipe clean cover but that's OK. (Some had organic cotton INSIDE a vinyl cover, which made no sense). I don't think the kids have ever wet or spilled on any crib mattress. We have an organic cover that's waterproof, too, just in case. The prices have come down so it cost no more than a regular mattress.

There is lead in the clip of my Advocate CS70? What clip? I don't like that. A clip that my child and I touch daily? Lead is one thing I cannot forgive. Especially if we touch it.
 

BananaBoat

Well-known member
Can anyone find the results for ALL the seats they tested? I'd love to know how the TF covers ranked.
 

SafeDad

CPSDarren - Admin
Staff member
They have sub results for every chemical they measure, but only specify "Seat", "Base" or "Clip" as for the location where they found it.

For example, you can find the results of the Orbit Baby G2 here:

http://www.healthystuff.org/departments/childrens-products/product.details.php?getrecno=22299

With detailed results here:

http://www.healthystuff.org/departments/childrens-products/popup.allchemicals.php?getrecno=22299

Orbit says this about their G2 fabrics:

All Orbit Baby products comply with the government's requirements for flame retardancy (NHTSA FMVSS 302, CA TB117) without the use of toxic brominated and chlorinated chemicals, like PBBs and PBDEs. Many of these chemicals are mentioned in the study discussed above as potentially harmful substances.

We go above and beyond to certify that there are no dangerous flame retardant chemicals in our fabrics. All Orbit Baby G2 products use fabrics certified by the International Oeko-Tex® Association to be completely free of PBBs, PBDEs, TRIS, TEPA, HBCDD, SCCP, and TCEP. Most fabrics and foams require treatment with some flame retardants in order to meet federally mandated car seat requirements. Of our fabrics that have been treated, they contain non-toxic flame retardants that have been extensively tested and thoroughly analyzed by the Oeko-Tex® Association. This Association’s toxicologists approve only a short list of flame retardants because all of these substances have undergone a thorough assessment by Oeko-Tex® from a human-ecological point of view. Oeko-Tex® has toxicologists in Germany and Switzerland review literature, history, test data, and toxicology reports before approving that the substance is harmless to human health.

I note that the study did find moderate levels of "Bromine" in the G2 "Seat". Hard to know what to make of their results, given the differences among essentially identical seats coming out of the same place in China.

http://carseatblog.com/11035/is-your-carseat-toxic-dont-panic/
 

mavmakmar

New member
Why is there lead in my clip? (advocate cs & roundabout cs) but there is no lead in the chaperone? Why are the clips different? & What do I do about this?
 

mama_katz

New member
Thanks for the blog post, Darren! I just linked to it on the Parents Magazine Facebook page since they posted about the study as well (completely with stock photo of improper seat usage!).
 

Admin

Admin - Webmaster
There are a couple good comments on our blog on the topic of toxic child restraints, I'd like to repost them here for reference and discussion.

Comment #1

I don't think anyone is suggesting that we do not use car seats for our children. The point is that these chemicals, some like the brominated/chlorinated flame retardants that are deliberately added for a specific purpose, or others like phthalates (plasticizers) and lead (which are component ingredients) have serious health risks attached to them and really they should not be used in products aimed at young children, who are going through very specific developmental stages.

So I think we should be grateful for this information and use it to develop car seats and other products which do not include harmful chemicals. The study is not peer reviewed or published because its aim is to detect the presence of certain compounds not establish a scientific outcome (which would be the only reason why someone would publish a study.) It is unethical to deliberately perform tests on children, but there is huge body of data for animal and epidemiological studies showing significant effects.

Routes for exposure include inhalation and skin absorption, so sitting in a seat, especially for long periods of time, could result in higher levels of these chemicals in the body and that is horrendous. The fact that there are other chemicals present in a car still doesn't not make it right to have these chemicals present in car seats. Also it shouldn't be the role of a non-profit organization to test levels and how much is being absorbed - surely that is something manufacturers should be across. Studies like these are hugely expensive and it is their product.

One quick note about lead. It is extraordinarily toxic to the brain, especially for fetuses and very young children. Lead can be absorbed by the skin where it will go directly to the blood stream, which will travel to the brain. There is no difference in routes into the body - inhalation is as bad as eating substances with lead present. Lead is also stored in our bones, so at times like pregnancy where there is a great demand for calcium, lead can be leached back into circulation. The CDC has confirmed that there are NO SAFE LIMITS for lead exposure.
http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/
Here's a good resource for general FAQs on lead
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tf.asp?id=93&tid=22

5 years ago people would have scoffed at the issue of chemicals and how they affect the health and development of children, but the weight of scientific evidence has swung opinion. In the past 6 months, the American Academy of Pediatricians has joined the American Medical Association in calling for stricter regulation and greater awareness of chemicals of concern.

Thank you for mentioning the use of Oeko-Tex certified fabrics- That's great to know and I haven't heard that info anywhere. You guys sure know your car seats :)


-Written By PJC

CarseatBlog Reply:

Thank you, PJC, for your comments. There is a more likely reason that many studies and "white papers" relating to health are not published and peer-reviewed in a respectable scientific or medical journal. The reason is that they do not use scientific method, do not have statistically significant results or would otherwise not hold up to the scrutiny of other researchers in the field. For example, let's simply take this study for what it is. Do you know? It's a single measurement per item of base atoms (not molecules or compounds) in the surface of a solid material. Read the little information they do provide about their methods. You should find some additional answers. How many samples of each item did they measure? How many samples of the same item did they measure? Can the results be verified independently? What is the margin of error for each measurement? What are the rates of false positives? False negatives? Did they use procedures to minimize sample contamination? Does the equipment discern toxic molecules containing a particular atom vs. non-toxic ones? No one is scoffing at the presence of toxic chemicals that can affect the health of children.

The problem is that this study doesn't seem to really tell us anything, given all the flaws and omitted information. Yes, it shouldn't be on the shoulders of a non-profit organization to do this. But just because this is the only data available doesn't necessarily make it good data. One last note about lead. It is toxic, as you say. It is also very important to know the route it takes into the body and in what material it is contained. In some materials, it simply won't migrate out in any significant quantity to have an adverse affect before the body removes it. In others, it will be readily absobed. This study does little to tell us any of this critical information. As a concerned parent, which I am, I would definitely want to know far more than this study offers if I am trying to find a way to protect my child from chemical hazards while still keeping them safe from the #1 killer of children (motor vehicle crashes). Certainly, it is still better to have zero lead in an item that can be contacted by a child. The problem is, I'm not convinced that these results are conclusive enough to tell us even that, given the wide discrepancies in the results for essentially identical products. If you do select a product that had a "zero" result, regardless of how well it might fit your child or vehicle, do you really trust this study enough to think that another sample will also have "zero"? Look at all the details for each model and similar models made at the same location and then decide if you trust their methods and statistical information (which are not readily published like they would be in a peer-reviewed paper). Aside from the "Clip" measurement, we really don't have any information on where a toxic atom was found. Some parts of a shell or base are not likely to be contacted at all and unlikely to outgas volatile molecules (something this study doesn't identify).

This study has incomplete information that is cause for a lot of panic, with little actual information for a parent to know what to do to minimize any actual risk. That is the worst kind of study.

-Written by CPSDarren

Comment #2

The Methodology is addressed here: http://www.healthystuff.org/departments/childrens-products/about.methodology.php. As a parent, I like to work with whatever "good faith" and reliable information I can find, which is why I was happy to find such useful recommendations on the car-seat.org website. I basically combined the recommendations I saw there with the information I found on HealthyStuff.org to select a seat. There is a health side as well as an environmental side to the rankings presumably (given the link to the Ecology Center), and I for one am concerned about both.

I find your analysis interesting but troubling, because you seem to be throwing out the results completely. Until better information is available (and I don't think the manufacturers are going to address this unless there is pressure on them to do so), I am happy that someone is doing some kind of analysis on the chemicals present in car seats, even if the analyses are imperfect. Peer-reviewed studies are no guarantee of perfection either. I want to know more, not less, and this study is a start.

As for your comment that many of household items contain these chemicals, I don't understand how that makes it acceptable
.

-Written by Genevieve

CarseatBlog Reply:

Hi Genevieve,

I invite you to look closely at their "methodology" of how they measure the presence of base atoms in materials (not compounds or molecules). That major limitation means they only infer that such toxic compounds are present in dangerous forms, much as Chlorine can be present in a completely safe molecule like table salt that I mentioned previously. The XRF is very limited in this regard. A sound testing program would include multiple types of instruments for this reason. Also, some important toxic chemicals cannot be detected at all with their device, as they very clearly admit. Not considering Chlorinated flame retardants is a major bias! You could be buying a seat with a top rating that actually contains an equally hazardous and common Chlorinated flame retardant substance as the one they did try to test. I would not feel safe with their results just knowing this alone!

Simply stating what instrument you used and how you used it is not a methodology. In fact, they even state in your link that they followed procedures contrary to the industry standard of using the instrument, such as in how long they subjected a sample to measurement! At minimum, a respectable study could have had another laboratory verify their results independently! A complete methodolgy would include important statistical information and a full disclosure of potential flaws and biases, which they do not discuss. For example, they simply do not address things required in a peer reviewed scientific paper, such as margins of error or statistical significance. That means they don't report at all on the variability of their results. Why?

Most likely because they readily admit that in most tests, they did not even bother to take multiple or repeat samples. That in turn means those results have no statistical signifcance at all! None! When they did take repeat samples in an area, they did not publish the results! That is most likely why some nearly identical products have so much variability. If you have looked at the individual results, I don't think you would trust that top rated products with "zero" levels would have the same top result if they purchased multiple quantities of the same items from different batches and re-tested them in a manner consistent with the industry standard for using an XRF scope that is properly calibrated with another scope for verification. Heck, the products they did test that are essentially idendical varied considerably, so much so that their results seem meaningless. From their results, how do you know the factory in China didn't vary their composition from one month to the next or if the supplier of the chest clip changed over time or one of many normal variations in manufacturing? Yes, it is very expensive to do such comprehensive sampling, but that is how quality studies are done.

The problem with bad science is exactly what you describe. It is likely to taint the reader if it is the only data available, even if it is completely useless for the intended purpose. No, I am not saying that it is acceptable for household items to contain hazardous materials. I am saying that the risk is minimized if the materials have no way to be absorbed by the body. Do you have fine crystal in your house? It likely has a signifcant amount of lead in it, but if your child doesn't drink something stored in the crystal container for a long period (like alcohol stored continually in a decanter) that can leach out the lead over time from the crystal, then it really is not a hazard to them! (The amount of lead leeched out over a couple hours in a glass is typically much less than what you get in a normal diet).

So, yes, I am throwing out their results, because they didn't bother to follow the recommended procedures and didn't include sufficient statistical information that would be acceptable to any respectable, peer-reviewed journal where quality studies are published. It's not unlike the "data" you find in an infomercial or a "white paper" or other compelling advertisement. It might be correct. It probably isn't. There is just no way to know.

Yes, these are things that aren't necessarily obvious to a casual reader. I admit that as a test engineer, I like to look a little farther into reports like this, especially when they have not appeared in a respected medical or scientific journal that has a reputation at stake. We at CarseatBlog are very concerned about toxic hazards to children, but we simply can't suggest that this study is an acceptable way to determine if one carseat is less toxic than another. The study is certainly a wake up call, because it does seem to indicate that potential hazards may exist in carseats. It does not, however, give any information that is useful to compare one carseat to another.

Apologies for the long-winded response, but I feel your comments deserved a good explanation of our stance on this topic.

-Written by CPSDarren
 

Mags462

New member
I just looked at the "best and worst" overall summary and find it very interesting that most of the "best" were infant bucket seats.

Also interesting that most of the "best" are lower end price point wise while the "worst" are all high end seats.... barring of course the few graco's on there......
 

Admin

Admin - Webmaster
Its funny, because many convertibles and combo seats are still made in the USA, where standards and laws are far stricter and manufacturing is far better regulated than in the far east in regard to toxic materials. Yet, I think all but one (Peg Perego) or maybe two infant seats are made in China.

Another discrepancy, Orbit Baby, one manufacturer that touts that it doesn't use Bromine and adheres to an independent standard for such hazardous chemicals didn't get the top ranking!

Really, even given the limits of their testing with the XRF system, they could have done it credibly by purchasing multiple carseats made over a period of time, taking multiple samples at each location and having some samples verified by an independent lab. Though the results would still have various flaws inherent to the XRF device, the statistical issues regarding margins of error and significance of the results would be greatly reduced.

So why didn't they do this? Cost is the major issue. But that's not a justification for lack of scientific method. It's the old saying, if you can't do it right, don't do it at all. Especially when the life of a child may be at stake!
 

Kat_Momof3

New member
what I find interesting is that the recaro probooster in misty morning is not one of the worst, when the same pattern is on the prosport...

I get that different patterns use different fabrics... so that's why that one through me... same with blue opal... if it's the "worst" on the probooster, why not on the other recaro seats of the same pattern?
 

DaniannieB

Ambassador - CPS Technician
At KIM, one of the car seat manufacturers, when asked about the "toxic car seats study" referred everyone to the Car Seat Lady's blog and also stated that the study results changed from last year without any changes to their seats. IMO the study isn't any more scientific than CR's crazy infant seat crash testing and therefore the results cannot be relied upon to be valid.
 

bnsnyde

New member
So do organic covers too need to have flame retardants? I know those are new to some seats.

I always like to play it safe. I buy all sleepwear without flame retardants. Green or as least toxic as possible for all stuff.
Bought new crib mattresses that are natural (but they DO have flame retardants by law). So there is no perfect answer!
 

SafeDad

CPSDarren - Admin
Staff member
what I find interesting is that the recaro probooster in misty morning is not one of the worst, when the same pattern is on the prosport...

I get that different patterns use different fabrics... so that's why that one through me... same with blue opal... if it's the "worst" on the probooster, why not on the other recaro seats of the same pattern?

That's exactly the point I made above in the replies at the blog. They simply didn't measure enough products or take enough samples of each product to eliminate variations like that. With no stated margin of error, there is essentially zero confidence in the results.

At KIM, one of the car seat manufacturers, when asked about the "toxic car seats study" referred everyone to the Car Seat Lady's blog and also stated that the study results changed from last year without any changes to their seats. IMO the study isn't any more scientific than CR's crazy infant seat crash testing and therefore the results cannot be relied upon to be valid.

Funny story. Right before that session, the same representative was telling Kecia and I that she loved CarseatBlog's concise comments about toxic carseats and told us they were referring parents to it when they called. I know CarseatLady expanded on all the same points we made in our blog, so the representative must have felt it was more technical and therefore more suitable for conference attendees than ours. Plus, Carseatlady was sitting in the front row, while Kecia and I were invisible:)

I told Kecia she would be less invisible if she went to med school...

So do organic covers too need to have flame retardants? I know those are new to some seats.

ALL covers must meet the same flame retardant specification. Some types of materials do not need a flame retardant treatment to meet the specification. So, "organic" does not give you enough information by itself. Organic cotton would likely still need a typical flame retardant treatment. Other materials, like hemp, for example, tend to have some inherent flame retardant properties. So, organic hemp may not need such a treatment or at least a far less toxic one. It all depends what type of organic material they use!
 

DaniannieB

Ambassador - CPS Technician
Darren... I bet it was because Alisa was up front and center. (Having gone to medical school doesn't hurt, though.)
 

LISmama810

Admin - CPS Technician
Re: "organic" covers, like Darren said, everything needs to pass the flame-retardancy tests. I don't know about car seat covers in particular, but I did learn a bit about this while researching mattresses.

Organic mattresses still might have flame retardant chemicals on them. You take organic cotton, then add a bunch of stuff.

Another option is wool, which is naturally flame-resistant. However, in itself, it is not flame-resistant enough to pass the test (at least in Calfornia), so silica is added to it. When silica meets a flame, it sort of turns to glass, which protects the rest of the material. Although considered less toxic than some chemical methods, silica concerns some people, too.

(FWIW, we got a prescription for a barrier-free mattress. It's not likely that option will be available for car seat covers, though. ;) )
 

creideamh

Well-known member
The whole mattress-flame-retardant shebang is why Babesafe covers are becoming so popular. You just can't buy a truly chemical-free mattress, so the cover pretty much suffocates the mattress :p

The variations in the study make me really wary of the results. I think this just scares people into buying something that may not be what truly works for them (i.e. a seat that works the best in their car, etc.) There's bad stuff everywhere, but kids shouldn't be living in car seats anyway.
 

Car-Seat.Org Facebook Group

Forum statistics

Threads
219,655
Messages
2,196,895
Members
13,530
Latest member
onehitko860

You must read your carseat and vehicle owner’s manual and understand any relevant state laws. These are the rules you must follow to restrain your children safely. All opinions at Car-Seat.Org are those of the individual author for informational purposes only, and do not necessarily reflect any policy or position of Carseat Media LLC. Car-Seat.Org makes no representations as to accuracy, completeness, currentness, suitability, or validity of any information on this site and will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use. All information is provided on an as-is basis. If you are unsure about information provided to you, please visit a local certified technician. Before posting or using our website you must read and agree to our TERMS.

Graco is a Proud Sponsor of Car-Seat.Org! Britax is a Proud Sponsor of Car-Seat.Org! Nuna Baby is a Proud Sponsor of Car-Seat.Org!

Please  Support Car-Seat.Org  with your purchases of infant, convertible, combination and boosters seats from our premier sponsors above.
Shop travel systems, strollers and baby gear from Britax, Chicco, Clek, Combi, Evenflo, First Years, Graco, Maxi-Cosi, Nuna, Safety 1st, Diono & more! ©2001-2022 Carseat Media LLC

Top