PDA

View Full Version : Lead warning for GW paints



Joah_from_Alberta
29-11-2007, 18:32
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/features/toytrouble/story.html?id=37bc6639-5c61-48f2-94c3-0333f404507c&k=25290

Bear in mind that this is just one product tested.

Warning. For adults it may be okay to have lead around. For children it is not.

Melchor
29-11-2007, 18:39
Because he's is old enough to be cautious, she says she won't stop Aaron from playing with toys he enjoys (ie. Warhammer). Instead, Giesbrecht plans to provide him with latex gloves to keep the paint off his skin and tell him to be careful while he's assembling and painting them.


Eh? :wtf:
Not sure about you, but that counts as 'overreacting' in my book.

scarletsquig
29-11-2007, 18:43
Three toys were found to contain detectable levels of lead when tested by a team at the U of O laboratory: a Warhammer Battle for Skull miniatures paint set, a Pirate Playset figurine purchased from a dollar store and a puzzle cube from a dollar store.

The yellow paint colour in the Warhammer paint set had the highest levels of lead compared to the other toys, at 60 milligrams per kilogram,

*shrug*

GW has never really claimed it's products to be toys.

Interesting about the BFSP yellow paint though - that was the first trial release of the foundation paints.

*looks at his bottle of Iyanden Darksun*

Nope, no non-toxic or AP label on there at all, like there is with the regular range.

It does however have "conforms to astm d-4236 standards (http://www.artsafety.org/labels.html)" on the back.


• ASTM D4236 is a standard published by the (non-industry chaired) "artists paints" subcommittee of the American Society for Testing & Materials. As the standard itself declares, "Since knowledge about chronic health hazards is incomplete and warnings cannot cover all uses of any product, it is not possible for precautionary labeling to ensure completely safe use of an art product."
"Conforms to D-4236" on an art material label does NOT mean the product is "non-toxic." Rather, it means:

• the material has been evaluated by a toxicologist for acute and chronic toxicity;
• the label names the ingredients identified as presenting a chronic health hazard, if any;
• a product presenting a chronic health hazard comes with safe use instructions.

Guess the paint-eater, brush-licker types will have to lay off the foundation...

Wintermute
29-11-2007, 18:47
Interesting about the BFSP yellow paint though - that was the first trial release of the foundation paints.

I don't think it's in production in the main range...

Even so, aren't GW paints, both ranges, promoted as being non-toxic though. I suppose its depends what you consider toxic?

nurgle_boy
29-11-2007, 19:33
well, i guess that a higher lead content could be why the foundations taste foul :P

either way, i dont think that these small amounts of lead would be hugely damaging would they?

Melchor
29-11-2007, 19:45
Don't think so. Unless you're regularly downing loads of the stuff.
The article talks about tiny amounts. The yellow paint contains 60 milligrams of lead per kilogram. Now I'm no math/chemistry wizz, but I don't think it's that much.

That's still way below the Canadian limit (which is 600 milligrams per kilogram according to the article) and even below the limit for child's toys (90 miligrams/kg).

Also... GW products are not children's toys. ;)

Omniassiah
29-11-2007, 19:52
Key thing to remember is that the paint was one-tenth the Safe value for lead content and was two-thirds the maximum recommended safe limit that they are introducing for kids. What does this mean... The stuff is fine. There will always bee an amount of hazardous materials in most stuff you handle. What the limits mean that during normal use the potential for side effects is minimal or non-exsistant.

End result your kid painting with GW paints is fine as long as he's not drinking the stuff by the gallon. But frankly if your kids drinking the paint by the gallon may I suggest you get him hooked on Mountain Dew or Water. Either of those are probably healthier then paint in such significant quantities.

Thoth62
29-11-2007, 19:57
I think that while the paints may contain some amount of toxic products in them, the amounts present still remain below the limits provided. I find it interesting (and apparently so does GW, according to the article) that the yellow paint would have a higher lead content than the rest of the paints in the set, as they all use the same pigments. Although if it was indeed a foundation paint that produced those results, would it possibly have been just because there is a higher concentration of pigments in the paint?

sigur
29-11-2007, 20:03
...
Also... GW products are not children's toys. ;)

I assume the writers of the article thought it would be more catchy if they declared the stuff as children's toys so "concerned citizens" could scream "they are poisoning our children!!! lock them up!!! the poisoners as well as the children!!!".

Rikens
29-11-2007, 20:14
"A Warhammer Battle for Skull miniatures paint set"?

I wondered what that box was called!

Incidentally is anyone else amused by the fact that GW products are being compared to Dollar Store products, the cheapest and crappiest products money can buy?

Gaebriel
29-11-2007, 20:19
I assume the writers of the article thought it would be more catchy if they declared the stuff as children's toys so "concerned citizens" could scream "they are poisoning our children!!! lock them up!!! the poisoners as well as the children!!!".
I hope so - GW need to get what they deserve, one way or another ;)

Capone wasn't imprisoned for his most capital crimes as well :D

Norminator
29-11-2007, 20:22
It's articles like that which really annoy me - they're so sensationalist and designed to cause panic.

Put it all into perspective and it looks incredibly stupid. GW paints were tested, and found to be a fraction of the legal limit for lead content, and even though they are not a toy, a good degree lower than that limit. Yet some reporter still thinks that it's worth writing an article about how dangerous they are - why?! I don't know much about lead poisoning, but in the body of that article there isn't anything that suggests to me that the paint is dangerous, other than that idiotic mother who insists her child wears rubber gloves.

Well done, I hope she continues to find wrapping her children in bubbles to be successful.

[/rant]

Temprus
29-11-2007, 20:38
I wrote 4 or 5 drafts of a rant about just how awful the journalism in this article really is but decided better of posting any of them (most of the points were covered by other people while I wasted time writing them anyway). :angel:

Official Rant: I would have gotten an F in any of my high school or college Journalism classes for submitting this article. :eyebrows:

I feel sorry for the kids, the testers interviewed 10 families and yet they only tested 11 products. I know when I was a kid, I sure got more than one toy each year that was potentially hazardous to my health. :D

TheLionReturns
29-11-2007, 21:18
As someone who has some experience of lead poisoning I can testify that lead can be very damaging to health. The article is very poorly written in my opinion. The study found lead in some "childrens toys" but at levels below what are considered safe levels.

I believe that if lead is oxidised it can be absorbed through the skin but only very small amounts. If ingested it can cause problems but you shouldn't be drinking your paints anyway so I really wouldn't worry about the risk too much, certainly at the levels suggested.

There are too many toxic substances like lead used in everyday products however, and the cumulative exposure to several toxins which can remain in the body over time can have serious health implications over a lifetime. Manufacturers will have to wake up to this fact in the future, and it would be nice if GW took a lead on this kind of thing both for our benefit as customers and theirs as a business. There must be alternatives to lead in paints.

Omniassiah
29-11-2007, 21:20
I feel sorry for the kids, the testers interviewed 10 families and yet they only tested 11 products. I know when I was a kid, I sure got more than one toy each year that was potentially hazardous to my health. :D

Lawn Darts... nuff' said. Surely more kids were harmed throwing projectiles with sharp metal tips then getting less then a milligram of lead from touching a minature for an entire year.


@ The lion Returns: I don't want to come off trivalizing lead and other hazardous materials in products and thier effects on people. That said I do like to show that a lot of media is over dramatizing things a bit. Even at best case I would seriously doubt that you would get more then a milligram of lead in your system after painting an entire army. Once models are finished painted most people seal them reducing or eliminating the transfer of lead into you body from the general handling of the models over the course of a lifetime.

starlight
29-11-2007, 21:36
Especially considering that the metal in GW (and most other) metal models is tin, lead having been replaced years ago...:eyebrows:

OT: shoddy, sensationalist *journalism*:rolleyes:

Khorghan
29-11-2007, 21:38
childrens toys

dollar store figure
dollar store puzzle
Games Workshop's battle for skull pass paint set colour "Iyanden Darksun"


interesting product selection

Finn Sourscowl
29-11-2007, 21:43
childrens toys

dollar store figure
dollar store puzzle
Games Workshop's battle for skull pass paint set colour "Iyanden Darksun"


interesting product selection

Yeah, I wonder how on earth they came up with that...

very strange to equate cheap childrens toys with GW paints which are neither!

starlight
29-11-2007, 21:52
Actually, it was the paints that came in the BfSP set, not isolated paints. Since they are considered a component of the finished toy (and more likely to end up inside a kid than paint from something pre-painted) they were tested as one of the many components in the kit.

TheLionReturns
29-11-2007, 22:02
Even at best case I would seriously doubt that you would get more then a milligram of lead in your system after painting an entire army. Once models are finished painted most people seal them reducing or eliminating the transfer of lead into you body from the general handling of the models over the course of a lifetime.

I'm not suggesting that the GW hobby is harmful because of the lead levels. I'm talking more generally about the levels of toxins we encounter in our everyday lives from the totality of the products we use and the atmospheric pollution we encounter. At present there is a health and safety model based around a singular incident/product/dose. We are discovering more about our immune systems and finding that repeated low level exposures to a variety of chemicals can cause health problems. The problem is not so much the actual chemical itself but the burden placed on the body from repeatedly having to deal with a variety of toxins. Once this is more fully understood and popularised this model will shift towards companies having a wider responsibility to societies health, much in the way we now see companies trying to reduce their carbon dioxide output despite them alone not being responsible for climate change. Their contribution to our total toxic burden will come under inspection rather whether their products are poisonous on their own.

Personally I find the type of journalism we see in the linked piece as infuriating. This type of poorly worded and poorly researched scaremongering is not what is needed. It either scares people away from products they should have no fear of or gets people to ignore the issue as they see just how ill informed the piece is. What is needed is decent balanced discussion of the issues without trying to exaggerate one way or another to get ones point across.

I must repeat for clarity, I do not believe using GW products to be dangerous to ones health in the slightest. However, I would like to see all companies, and that includes GW look at ways to avoid using any toxic substances, or at least minimizing them as much as possible, to allow us to reduce our total exposures without having to completely change our lifestyles. This issue is far more serious and urgent in the fields of cosmetics and cleaning products that the modelling hobby.

Ivan Stupidor
30-11-2007, 00:26
I believe everyone is missing the good part of this news: GW yellow paint is adequate protection from 60 milligrams per kilogram of Superman.

On the subject of the lead in the paint, a quick Wikipediaing brings up that chrome yellow (http://webexhibits.org/pigments/indiv/overview/cryellow.html) is still used in some yellow paints. I'd wager that it's the source of the lead content, if it's not due to factory contamination*. Apparently, cadmium yellow (http://webexhibits.org/pigments/indiv/overview/cdyellow.html) is its common replacement.

_
*However, this makes me raise an eyebrow a bit at the GW rep's response. If it is the pigment causing the reading, of course it wouldn't show up in other paints in the Battle for Skull Pass paint set - there's only one yellow!

swordwind
30-11-2007, 00:32
You probably ingest more toxins and chemicals just walking down the street than you do from GW paint. :rolleyes:

great_wolf_1283
30-11-2007, 05:42
Speaking as a professional chemist (sorry, got to quote my credentials for this one), this kind of article really raises my hackles.

This article is being completely sensationalist. The GW paint contains 60mg/kg, which is below even the industry limit set for children of 90mg/kg. You will find that this lower limit is set due to the fact of the age of children (they'll be exposed for longer than adults, they're growing, and tissues are more prone to damage last time I checked). You'll also probably find that the systems for getting rid of Lead in the body are better developed in adults. Now consider the fact that we're exposed to other harmful metals more from other sources. I remember the brew-ha-ha over Nickel in kettles leaching into the water over time, and how the media portrayed it. Turns out, all you needed to do to stay safe is change the water in it on a regular basis.

I will also quote a study done on the Lead content of people from both ancient times and modern times, simply done to see whether we were absorbing more lead now. Know what they found - that people today had the same level of lead in their bodies as the ancient people, despite there being more sources of exposure now.

So now, a simple few tips to not ingest any supposed lead from GW paints:
(a) Don't drink the paints (they don't taste nice anyway, so don't know why anyone would want to).
(b) Don't paint yourself (if you must do, use nail varnish/body paint)
(c) Wash your hands after painting (which I do anyway, get's any small bits off)
(d) Varnish your models.

PS. Hope your all not wearing any Gold rings - after all, that goes through the lipid layers of the skin and can kill you. Wouldn't want you all to hurt yourselves now would we.

IJW
30-11-2007, 09:39
So now, a simple few tips to not ingest any supposed lead from GW paints:
(a) Don't drink the paints (they don't taste nice anyway, so don't know why anyone would want to).
(b) Don't paint yourself (if you must do, use nail varnish/body paint)
(c) Wash your hands after painting (which I do anyway, get's any small bits off)
(d) Varnish your models.
And...

(e) Don't lick the brush.

Remoah
30-11-2007, 10:37
Someon PLEASE pull out your Skull Pass set and check the age rating, i'm sure it's like 12+ anyhow because of the essential sharp components.

brother malthius
30-11-2007, 13:16
Someon PLEASE pull out your Skull Pass set and check the age rating, i'm sure it's like 12+ anyhow because of the essential sharp components.

Oh god I have scars from my goblin spearmen that came in that set.
Did more damage to me than they ever did to any enemy.

starlight
30-11-2007, 18:35
Actually most GW stuff that I have says *Not for 0-3*, whereas it *used* to say 12+...

Ivan Stupidor
30-11-2007, 19:43
Actually most GW stuff that I have says *Not for 0-3*, whereas it *used* to say 12+...

Unless they've changed the packaging since my last purchase, they actually say (emphasis added):
"Not suitable for children under 3 years due to small parts and essential pointed components. Citadel miniatures are fine scale models designed for gamers and collectors. Retain packaging for future reference. Games Workshop recommends this product for ages 12 and over."

starlight
30-11-2007, 19:45
I think it depends on the era, as some of mine (now that I look at more packaging) has that, while others don't...

dabiggrotsboss
01-12-2007, 02:18
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/features/toytrouble/story.html?id=37bc6639-5c61-48f2-94c3-0333f404507c&k=25290

Bear in mind that this is just one product tested.

Warning. For adults it may be okay to have lead around. For children it is not.

I don't usually log in and respond to Warseer threads, but I feel I have to on this issue.
The article is typical of poor sensationalist reporting - typical of American news outlets such as Nancy Grace, Perez Hilton, or Ann Coulter, but certainly shocking to appear on a Canadian outlet.
The parts/million is so low, it is 10% of the current acceptable level, and only 67% of even the new proposed limit.
There is no story here. None whatsoever.
The possible story here might be "Games Workshop shifts production of paint to China from France, lead found", but that wasn't the story.
Also, with other production shifting to China, such as army books and codices publication, Games Workshop must be aware of the potential negative repercussions of offshore production.

Ivan Stupidor
01-12-2007, 02:40
I think it depends on the era, as some of mine (now that I look at more packaging) has that, while others don't...

I got it off a Scout Sniper box, which would be pretty new (2006, according to the box). It's also on all my IG tank boxes (2004). The blister packs I can find (2000, 2002) lack the sentence about 12-year-olds. The GW 3-brush set (2000) says that it's not recommended for children under 8, and unlike the unhappy 0-3 face on the other packages, has a happy 8+ face.

...I'm going to end up obsessing about this. I guess I'll go to GW tomorrow and get more odd looks from the staff as I compare the new release boxes with the older stuff.

Cruentus
01-12-2007, 03:11
You probably ingest more toxins and chemicals just walking down the street than you do from GW paint. :rolleyes:

This is probably closer to the truth than you think. While the journalism may be pretty bad, there is plenty of information out there that the levels of toxic chemicals are high in things all around us (toys, cosmetics, everyday appliances). Take a look at:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16616951

The interview is particularly interesting. The US doesn't force businesses to list hazardous chemicals in its products (nor minimize them), unlike the European Union. As a result, many products made with hazardous materials are sold in the US, rather than in the EU.

I think every company (and GW should be one of them) should insure that their products don't include lead or any toxic chemicals.

fwacho
01-12-2007, 08:28
I think I should point out that lead is a key ingrediant for making a yellow pigment this is why yellow color will have a higher concentration of lead than other colors.

trigger
02-12-2007, 12:43
why is this important,
i mean you by paint to paint with, NOT to eat

I have whole armies made of lead, from what i understand your more likely to get lead poisoning from useing a hb pencil than GWs yellow paint from the gooo range.

Another example of jernolisum gone stupid:p

Atrum Angelus
04-12-2007, 01:21
I think I should point out that lead is a key ingrediant for making a yellow pigment this is why yellow color will have a higher concentration of lead than other colors.

Except not in GW paints. GW uses non-toxic ingredients.
We got a press release from the UK office that said that the problem was with the plastic containers in the Battle for Skull pass. GW uses recycled plastic for its containers and there was lead in the plastic, residue from its previous contents. A small quantity, but some none the less. It leached into the paint. The batch of plastic ended up with small amounts of lead, however, since its still FAR below the standard. It was let through. The paint isn't made from lead, yellow or not.

hereticdave
05-12-2007, 22:39
certainly shocking to appear on a Canadian outlet

Blatant sensationalism in the article, ultimately about nothing, to be sure.

However most news is die hard Liberal in Da Republik of Kanuckistan, which tends to taint things a little.

Flame Boy
20-12-2007, 23:16
I hope that reporter's poor child is taken into care before the reporter lowers him into an industrial laminating machine to prevent him getting exposed to germs or toxins. By the time she's decided whether it's safe enough to cut airholes in the laminate to allow him to breathe, the poor lad will have already suffocated!

If a product is deemed safe within reasonable limits, and then the limits are tightened, and the product still falls within safe limits, what is the issue? Is it a "if the legislation changes a couple of times more it may be deemed unsafe" kinda thing?

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I just hope the kid isn't allergic to latex gloves. She'd probably try to ban them, too. (I'd imagine the knock-on affect in some industries like catering would be causing problems elsewhere! :p )

Templar Ben
23-12-2007, 12:21
I have whole armies made of lead, from what i understand your more likely to get lead poisoning from useing a hb pencil than GWs yellow paint from the gooo range.

There is no lead in pencils. Pencils use graphite to mark.

Norminator
23-12-2007, 12:50
There is no lead in pencils. Pencils use graphite to mark.

That's one thing that infuriates me - the amount of busybody teachers (particularly at primary school level) who insist that you can get lead poisoning from pencils. :p

GideonRavenor
23-12-2007, 17:29
I can't say I'm an expert, but isn't lead poisoning a little overhyped? In the past, far more products were made out of lead, or contained far grerater amounts of lead, yet somehow the human race managed to survive.

I'm not saying that we should return to mass production in lead, but surely there are far more dangerous chemicals and influences out there...

TheLionReturns
24-12-2007, 15:16
I can't say I'm an expert, but isn't lead poisoning a little overhyped? In the past, far more products were made out of lead, or contained far grerater amounts of lead, yet somehow the human race managed to survive.

I'm not saying that we should return to mass production in lead, but surely there are far more dangerous chemicals and influences out there...

Lead poisoning causes some severe gastric symptoms, and causes damage to the central and peripheral nervous system and in large doses coma and death. However, it is important not to over-exaggerate the risk. The gut lining is a key defense against things like lead as it is not well absorbed. I think the reason more is made of it now is that there is a growing body of evidence suggesting that lower doses than appear toxic can cause learning difficulties if the exposure occurs at a young age.

But yes there are far more toxic substances, mercury for one. I think part of the focus on lead is because in the past it was very widely used, in paint for example. I think a large proportion of lead poisoning cases in the past were from children eating flaked paint off walls.

theunwantedbeing
24-12-2007, 15:43
I dont see the problem.
If your child is stupid enough to suffer ill effects from well within the limits of toxicity paint then no amount of brain damage they may suffer as a resulty of it is going to cause any noticable effect in the long term.

Killgore
24-12-2007, 15:59
Guess the paint-eater, brush-licker types will have to lay off the foundation...



thats me buggered then :(

Norminator
24-12-2007, 16:04
But yes there are far more toxic substances, mercury for one. I think part of the focus on lead is because in the past it was very widely used, in paint for example. I think a large proportion of lead poisoning cases in the past were from children eating flaked paint off walls.

:wtf:

If children are stupid enough to eat paint off the walls they deserve the consequences IMO....

efarrer
24-12-2007, 16:39
:wtf:

If children are stupid enough to eat paint off the walls they deserve the consequences IMO....

You don't have any children nor have you been exposed to any children. Babies and toddlers explore the world through every sense they have, because they don't know better. Not stupidity, just lack of knowledge. Kinda like what you just displayed.

Norminator
24-12-2007, 16:45
You don't have any children nor have you been exposed to any children. Babies and toddlers explore the world through every sense they have, because they don't know better. Not stupidity, just lack of knowledge. Kinda like what you just displayed.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I know how inquisitive kids can be, especially those of two and under. I just can't imagine them deliberately peeling paint off the wall (not the easiest thing to do, I'd need a screwdriver) to eat it. Unless of course, the paint is already peeling, but that would lead to the obvious problems of choking, so parents should be aware of that anyway.

Either way, my initial reaction when I wrote the post was to think of children = 8 years old or so (as opposed to toddlers).

TheLionReturns
24-12-2007, 20:02
Obviously my post was referring to younger children primarily and its not so much toddlers stripping paint of walls but where it has naturally chipped and come loose. It really isn't a major problem anymore because lead paint is not used now, so its only really very old houses where this is a problem. It used to be however. It was this kind of thing that led to the introduction of lead-free paints in the first place.

old guard
24-12-2007, 21:25
This kind of crap really gets on my manboobs, more nanny state nonsense along the lines of lets kill 99.9999% of all germs (with an airfreshener!!:wtf:- latest stupid advert on the telly- are there really people out there that are that stupid!?!) so that our kids immune system can't handle the slightest little bug. Add to that the influence of the media and GW will find themselves side by side with Union Carbide as industrial scale murderers. GET A ******* life people! and get with the truth. Risk surrounds you You cannot be risk averse Believe me I do this for a living (safety consultant) and it frustrates the cack out of me when some little (pick your favourite name) tries to make a name for himself by trying to scare everyone. Non toxic or not every product/subtance out there natural or manmade WILL kill you if you indulge in to much of it including water and oxygen. YOU cannot avoid risk! all you can hope for is recognition and management of it which means you gather the facts and you make up your own mind. Bah bloody Humbug.

Norminator
24-12-2007, 21:31
I think the best show of what you are talking about Old Guard is the hilarious Dihydrogen Monoxide scare (IIRC a city in American even banned the 'deadly substance'). All the facts about it (excessive consumption can cause death, inhalation can be deadly) were true, but in a scaremongering context made it sound as though they were describing some terrible toxin.

Huw_Dawson
24-12-2007, 21:46
your more likely to get lead poisoning from useing a hb pencil than GWs yellow paint from the gooo range.

Graphite is a form of carbon. It isn't lead.

This is a horribly written piece - it is vague, fails to give fair comparisons and is most likely intended to be a filler article for a dull day.

- Huw

EDIT: Ah. Mental note. Read rest of topic before making smart remark. Darn you Norminator. :p

god octo
24-12-2007, 21:57
Wouldn't you die from over eating rather than Lead poisoning if you consumed "a dangerous" level of GW paint?

Ah, I'm surprised that something hasn't happened over here in the uk, where children are almost banned for playing with vaguely hard things.