GoodGuide Clarifies our Toy Testing Methodology

We have been overwhelmed by the media response to our testing of toys this year, and in particular to the results of our tests of the Zhu Zhu Pet Mr. Squiggles Toy Hamster.

We would like to clarify our testing methodology and results since there has been some confusion about our research.

As we explained in our original press release, we tested the Zhu Zhu pet using a NITON XL3t series X-ray fluorescence (XRF) analyzer.

XRF technology is a method for determining levels of elements found on the surface of a toy. This is a non-destructive testing method that measures the “total” contaminants present on the surface of the toy.

We did not test these toys using the new government standard for toy companies to determine the “soluble” level of contaminants in a toy.

The federal standard for antimony is 60 parts per million soluble. We found antimony between 93-106 parts per million total on the surface of the toy.

While GoodGuide considers the presence of any antimony on the surface of a toy to be a concern, we want to clarify that we used a testing methodology to evaluate the toys that is different from the testing methodology incorporated into the federal standards.

Here is our official statement on this issue.

About Dara O'Rourke

Associate Professor at UC Berkeley and Co-Founder of GoodGuide.
This entry was posted in Home and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

158 Responses to GoodGuide Clarifies our Toy Testing Methodology

  1. Sally F says:

    Mr. O’Rourke,

    The manufacturer of Zhu Zhu should sue you for misrepresenting their product to the press as unsafe.

    You should not just hide this on a separate page, but issue a clear retraction of the allegations, notifying all the media outlets that carried the story in the first place.

    You claim to be a "reliable source of information on the health". It appears to be misspelled. "UNreliable" would be correct.

    Sally

  2. jackie says:

    Is there going to be a recall?

  3. Wayne Krejci says:

    You are confusing the public. To avoid this you could publish test results obtained per the government methods along with results obtained by your methods.
    Also, are you confusing the public again by comparing your results of 93-106 ppm "total" to the government standard of 60 ppm "soluble"? What is the difference between "soluble" and "total"?

  4. deadpuppy says:

    FAILED FAILED FAILED – I want my child’s toys to be cut up and melted in acid and the lead levels measured the right way.

    LOL…surface test on a toy, what a bunch of morons! goodgudie – "did not test these toys using the new government standard for toy companies to determine the “soluble” level of contaminants in a toy" then you only did WTF? a "surface test" on Mr. Squiggle’s nose which is also a "CONTROL BUTTON" that you morons most likely touch and played with a few times before your FAILED test.

    I hope the makers of Zhu Zhu sue you retards for every penny you have and force you work the rest of your life paying them a settlement.

    One would think a bunch of teachers would get the facts before ran out to the local pawn shop and bought a XRF tester and think they could make millions with it. XRF was made to x-ray leads in fuels not how much lead is "IN" a toy.Wow get the facts – XRF is a surface test and is failed when testing real products.

  5. jw says:

    Can you clarify how you convert your measured surface concentration to compare against the "soluble" level on which the federal standards are based? Are you implying that the toy is in violation of federal standards? Is antimony a contaminant that is more likely to be found in higher concentrations at the surface rather than the bulk of the material?

  6. David Cochran says:

    It sounds more like a plott to bring the price back down so one of your employees can buy it at a decent price. Maybe you are being tempted by a competing toy company that is losing business. Whatever it is, it smells of something not right.

  7. Andrew says:

    Isn’t it interesting that antimony just happens to be a component of the new "lead-free" solders that are being foisted on the public in the name of the Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive (RoHS) implemented in Europe a few years ago, and now worming its way into products sold in the U.S.?

  8. Lisa Kennedy says:

    I also would not trust a "teacher" website that cannot even spell HAMSTER propery!!
    OMG 60 minutes, where are you when I need a real investigative report????

  9. Victoria says:

    I don’t understand how you all can live with yourselves. You run a test on the most popular & hard-to-get toy of the season using substandard equipment that can’t even do an accurate test. You then run to the media with your unsubstantiated "test results". The media, of course, doesn’t bother to do due diligence, as they should have, and runs the story all weekend. You, with the collusion of the media, terrified every parent who stood in freezing cold lines to find this toy (since that’s the only thing their child asked for from Santa). Consumer watchdog groups used to be the "good guys" but I’m convinced now that they’re just publicity hounds who like attention and the chance to get some free publicity. You should be ashamed of yourselves…not only did you defame a company (Cepia LLC) that did nothing wrong, but you also caused a tremendous worry for parents who are already stressed enough this holiday season!

  10. Gee Vee says:

    So, let me get this straight. Anyone, who has some sort of "credentials" can conduct a test using their own parameters (which has not standardized), get some result and publish it as if it is real. Confuse the public may be bring a company or two down and make a name for themselves. I agree with the comment that he should publicly retract the findings and may be send the samples to a reputable testing agency who follow appropriate methodology to test the samples.

  11. arnold ziffel says:

    I wonder if someone was looking for a little publicity. no one ever even heard of this lil hole in the wall site. now it’s blown up since it hitched itself to the hottest toy of the season with skewed and questionable test results and practices. hmmm.

  12. Tim says:

    The soluble method that is used when determining the prohibited amount of nine heavy metals in accessible paints used on toys, simulates human consumption, by disolving the paint in an acid, while the flask is clamped into a shaker bath at 98 degrees F. The paint is filtered and the remainder is analyzed by an ICP. The method that GG used was an XRF, which is very very unreliable and I wouldnt be surprised if even their XRF findings are way off. The methods couldnt be anymore different from one another. There is a reason that soluble methodology has been used and not an XRF. The hand held and table top XRF was a great solution for manufacturers, unable to afford the proper equipment following the Mattel recalls in 2007. We use it in our QC practices, but allow a huge tolerance in our pass/ fail criteria, because it is not reliable. In actuality, the only way that anyone would ever be satisfied is if every single paint/ material on every shipment was tested using the CPSC prescribed methods, but it is not financially possible for comanies to do this. Up stream quality management and proper training/ checks & balances are the only true way to monitor and control the chemicals used in toys. If you purchased your Zhu Zhu pet at Wal-mart or Toys "R" Us, dont fear….they have been tested well above any other safety standard in the world, including the federal requirements. They have set the bar high for other retailers. In addition, these products are typically made at the same place, so if consecutive batches pass the stringent retailer testing, there is little, if no chance that it would fail any lead, phthalates or soluble heavy metals limits in the CPSIA of 2008.

  13. Jonathan Birchall says:

    Shouldn’t this clarification be on your Press & Media page? It’s rather hard to find.

  14. I am glad to see that you are correcting your mistake, but how could you repeat to every news outlet that Cepia (Zhu Zhu’s manufacturer) violated a current standard when you had NO such information. You cannot raise an alarm using XRF for a standard that is a soluble standard.

  15. SmellChecker says:

    To Lisa Kennedy,
    If you live in a glass house, perhaps you shouldn’t throw any stones?
    You may be able to spell Hamster, but you can’t spell ‘properly’ properly. Did you see what I did there?

    Freddie Starr should be most worried!

    Ha ha.

  16. SHAME ON YOU!

    Your retraction statement should be front page on your main page, not burried in your blog somewhere… And your press release "apologizing" should be disseminated like your initial bogus test results.

    You should be sued for the wave of negative publicity you unleashed unecessarily. This was not a "mistake". I am not sure if your intention was to gain publicity for your idiotic website at the expense of an actual product manufacturer or if you just got paid off by competing large corporate interests to do this.

    That said, there are several problems with your test:

    You subcontracted someone to use an unproven method (Handheld Niton XRF Analyzer) to test the product while the company had passed several of the OFFICIAL CSPC-mandated requirements (ICP-OES tests) that are FAR more accurate.

    This was not a controlled test: Antimony might have got on the skin and nose of the hamster while the hamster was sitting around in your house or office or on the store shelf or a warehouse along the supply chain. When you tested it, then it popped up a false positive. That is because the handheld XRF device is just throwing an X-ray beam on the item and measures “total” substance on the surface of the item.

    The Federally mandated tests by the CSPC require tedious chemical analysis of the toal actual material and they are by far more accurate and superior, that is why the CSPC has that standard vs. using an XRF Analyzer. BTW, the CSPC has not determined as of yet whether it’s reliable to use XRF Analyzers for LEAD (Pb) testing in paint, let alone Antimony in toys…. See this report here: http://www.cpsc.gov/ABOUT/cpsia/leadinpaintmeasure.pdf

    Also, based on your testing methodology here: http://www.goodguide.com/about/toys_methodology
    Your XRF Analyzer was NOT Calibrated for antimony (Sb) before the test (just other elements) so how can you claim that it popped a positive result on Antimony. Could it have been that it was NOT calibrated properly for measuring that element? The documentation from Niton (a.k.a. Thermo Electron) does not specificy that their XRF Analyzer is accurate for Sb readings…

    Finally, after you unleash a media storm of bad publicity worrying thousands of households and jeopardizing thousands of jobs of people who actually MAKE a product (as opposed to selling air on their blogs), you go out and you issue a "fine print" retraction statement:
    http://blog.goodguide.com

    and a press release (see here)
    GoodGuide Issues Correction About Its Toy Testing Methodology
    http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Goodguide-1086822.html

    saying you are "sorry"???

    Oh, and my kid gets more exposed to harmful substances every time I refuel at the gas station than when playing with his Zhu Zhu pets… Should we also stop driving?

  17. Steve says:

    Goodguide is a SHAM

  18. Samantha says:

    Coming from someone who works in product safety, the claim that you used an XRF device to analyze the "total" antimony content on the surface of the toy is further proof of the lack of care with which you approached this situation. There is no way that you were able to get reliable enough data behind your assertions to validatae your claims of the product’s safety.

    Had you been concerned about the integrity of your claim and your site, you would have spent the (minimal) amount of money to have the product tested with a third party laboratory according to F963-08, the U.S. toy safety standard, before going live with these accusations.

    XRF is a great tool, and if you had scanned a piece of plastic that has a standard reference material available, we would have all been behind you when you announced your findings because in that case they would have been credible. AND CREDIBILITY IS EVERYTHING.

    It’s incidents like these that really make it difficult for the rest of us to advocate for safer, healthier products.

  19. Carl says:

    I am surprised that a research scientist made this kind of mistake, especially when he knows that this kind of story would spread like wildfire…nothing the media likes more than deflating something popular.

    It really is simple…if you’re going to claim that something is or isn’t up to federal standards, you have to ensure that you’re using a qualified test method. One wonders if they chose this test method in order to have a high enough number to make the claim and get in the news.

  20. Davis says:

    My Xmas wish for you is one great big lawsuit for trade libel and slander.

  21. James Beranis says:

    I hope you people suffer tenfold any negative consequences that the makers of zhu zhu pets does. Supposed do good companies like you are often just a bane to society.

  22. Chris says:

    I seriously can’t believe that you publish these standards using a different method of testing. You compare two different testing methods and then claim it fails. Are you kidding me! Your company fails the test of knowing what you are doing.

  23. Dude says:

    GoodGuide,

    You guys are a joke. I hope you get sued by Cepia since that would seem to be their only recourse in dealing with you. If you are so "sorry" for YOUR error, then why don’t you change the rating of Mr. Squiggles (5.2) and Cepia, LLC (5.6) on your website. As it stands, your only clarification for someone trying to find out what is going on is buried in a blog page. Nice.

  24. CC says:

    I am still confused. As a parent who has purchased Zhu Zhu pets, am I still to be concerned that chemicals were found, even if it wasn’t the same test the government uses?

  25. terry says:

    wouldn’t it be ironical – the cepia maunufacturer/distributor could make more out of suing these GG morons than they make out of the toy itself!

  26. david says:

    Shame on the whole lot of you people, Good for nothing you are. Alarmist eco freaks just like the rest. Maybe you could draw a connecting between this toy and it causing global warming!!!! Get a life

  27. Dan says:

    Besides GoodGuide’s lack of knowledge of testing standards, your web site has some ethical issues detailed here:

    http://www.theupperdeck.com/?p=401

  28. Sara says:

    GoodGuide is one of the only reliable sources informing all of us about dangerous levels of contaminants in toys & products. I’m glad they test the surface of toys, rather than testing the "soluble" level that the government tests – it’s a stricter test that will be more protective for us consumers. The government standards don’t adequately protect us — they allow toy companies to use levels of dangerous substances in toys & products so the companies can save money, putting all of our health at risk. Thank you Good Guide.

  29. Jeff Hunter says:

    Bad Guide would more accurately describe you Mr DARA O,Rourke. As an academic you should be ashamed to claim to represent any consumer group and produce such dribble.
    Your totally Mickey Mouse technology and testing are an embarrasement but worse is pathetic refusal to clearly apologise and display your error in a clear consumer message which everyone can understand.
    You have attacked a product to put your own self importance and crummy little website in the spotlight. I hope you get sued for plenty by Cepia .
    Just say I am sorry , I got it wrong.

  30. Jim says:

    I heard about this on NPR. GoodGuide, which "provides the world’s largest and most reliable [sic] source of information on the health, environmental, and social impacts of products and companies," appears to be a sham.

    I support a continuous examination of products and companies, especially as they involve children, but this is an embarrassment. How will this effect any other future investigations which may be warranted? The company SHOULD sue you……

  31. Danielle says:

    What kind of morons would bring this kind of attention to THE most sought after toy this holiday season without dotting their i’s and crossing their t’s? You people HAD to know the firestorm your report would cause….why wouldn’t you make sure your methods were accurate or at least the testing differences clarified before breaking the news? All you have managed to do is ruin your website’s reputation in a matter of days. You should have your "clarifications" (and I use that term lightly since a RETRACTION is warranted) on the FRONT page of your website. I hope the major media giants catch wind of this soon and drag your name through the mud because that is what you deserve for slandering a company that has done nothing wrong save for being genius enough to create a popular toy. If that toy company is REALLY smart, they will become a whole lot richer by suing you idiotic fools.

  32. Anncarter says:

    Good guide, welcome to Missouri The Show Me State!
    We do not care for companies such as yours that obviously have their facts wrong. The real question is who paid you off to sabotage a small company that came out with the "must have toy" of the season? You are a for-profit company and it is clear that your "David and Goliath "attitude will not work in Missouri. Eat your words loud and clear. The little guy does win in the end!

  33. George says:

    Looks like the brainwashed corporate crowd has hung itself out on your web site. I don’t think you should have apologized for any of your findings. Fact is that a deadly chemical is in this little toy and parents should know. Who else is going to say it if not you?

    These people must be on drugs. They don’t care whether their children are contaminated with this crap. Their motto: Don’t worry, don’t question – be happy and die!

    I live in a very dangerous world of war and soldiers, but I don’t like it when these brain dead yo-yos can’t think for themselves! They care more for the corporations than their kids!

  34. Qwilla says:

    You folks are a crock and the fact that you are NOT retracting your "test" results on the front page of your website is downright irresponsible. I do hope Cepia sues you. It’s too bad that your lack of thought and verification has killed the potential "good" that your site could have offered to consumers.

  35. Sue says:

    Zhu pets a child needs to consume to receive any dangerous level from this toy. Please also let the american public know that the substance you claimed to be dangerous would be more likely to be found in a simple plastic water bottle.

    Who funds your organization and what senators or represenatives on capitol hill support you so the American public can make informed voting decisions

    Thank you

    Joe

  36. Joni F says:

    I cannot believe this loser of a so called company can hide their admitting to the lies they made up. Why cant they go to all the news media like NBC, CBS, Fox etc etc etc to admit their lies? No, they would rather not get the truth out, because it only makes them look bad.

    I have been spreading the truth on Ebay boards all evening since I found the worthless " apology " on the web. I hope the company that makes these sue this worthless " company " for everything they have for the lies they have told. That will be the only justice they can legally get from these worthless people.

    Heck, these people think mouthwash and legos are going to kill you. Quite frankly, Id have to call them the biggest losers since they have to sit around tables thinking up lies about items.

  37. Marc says:

    If there is any doubt that your site serves any purpose other than to gain pr from false accusations and fear mongering, I am missing it. For sake of full disclosure, I license the Zhu Zhu Pets iPhone App, I have known the people at Cepia well before Zhu Zhu became a blip on the map, Russ and his team have not taken short cuts to bring this terrific toy to market, nor did they short sheet on product safety testing as was shown clearly today. Your attempt at riding the excitement today did serve to show that toy companies have been responsive to the issues on safety that need all of our attention and that great product can still WOW kids safely! And, luckily the kids and parents got the message in time for the holidays. And By the way. Stating whether you are or are not a non profit would be appropriate. As would NOT having a link to AMAZON to show people where to buy toys that you claim are unsafe!!!!!

  38. morons says:

    Tree hugging, Crack-headed, Hippy SOBs. What the hell is wrong with you? Maybe instead of crying wolf you should make damn sure there is a wolf first. Bunch of dumbasses.

  39. chaz says:

    Your press release from Saturday mentions the toy’s name three times. But in your "correction" today the name is not mentioned once. Nor is there any sort of apology to the manufacturer or the buyers of the toy. Just a cold "We regret this error". I bet you have regrets. Regrets that you’ve been exposed as arrogant, look-at-me, eco babblers that make efforts tougher for legitimate consumer and evironmental advocates. Instead of admitting that you were sloppy and irresponsible and then issuing a real mea culpa, you issue a statement that only a defense attorney would love. We are a nation, if not a planet, of forgivers. But you have to come clean or you’ll never get back your credibility.

  40. cuttheshxt says:

    Just confess you made this mistake on purpose to make your stupid website well known to everyone. And congratulations, you made it. But please don’t mention you’re a professor from UCB or MIT, you should know what is not ethic in academia.

  41. Stephen says:

    I am not surprised at all. This kind of on purpose distortion happened again and again in this so called democratic and fee conuntry. Remember the mysterious Weapon of mass destruction which was claimed hidding somewhere in Iraq.

  42. Ashesoftime says:

    Shame on YOU!!! And you are only "regret" to spread the false information? Where is your integrity? Are we told to apologize when we make mistakes?

  43. Mark Moore says:

    How can you possibly refer to your company as a guide for consumers. You test products with old or out of date testing methods. You have damaged a company’s reputation. How could you release such damaging information about another companies product prior to being sure of all the facts. This is in my opinion creates a nice slander, pain, suffering, and loss of income. We might start calling you Good Luck or Good Bye instead. You have done one thing right. You have managed to get national name recognition by spending nothing. What better way to get your name out there than riding on the coat tale of one of the biggest toys of the year. Most companies have to spend millions to get that kind of recognition, however there is good and bad publicity and this blog speaks for it self. Thanks Good Guide for the Bad Guidance. I’m not sure how I will manage to make decisions in the future without you!

  44. Kris says:

    I would like to see the controversy regarding the HOTTEST toy of the year, the Zhu Zhu’s, be addressed before Christmas. My 8 year old daughter requested the cute hamsters from Santa this year. After researching the popular toy, I found it heart-warming to learn of the small toy company Cepia and inventor who created the adorable hamsters. Together Mr. Hornsby, with daughters by his side, created a positive "frenzy" which has brought smiles to so many and fullfilling their 28 year old American dream. I have seen strangers exchange cell phone numbers, grandmothers share stories, and even college students waiting in line for friends and family hoping to get one Zhu Zhu in time for Christmas. It is such ashame that a company like GoodGuide must misrepresent their findings and deem the most popular toy of the season as "unsafe" with no extensive research. As a wife, healthcare provider, mother of two, and marathon runner, the health of my family, patients, and self is key. I value any helpful information but strongly feel that GoodGuide’s founder and CEO, Dara O’Rourke, needs to answer some important questions nationally.
    1) On November 17th, 2008 Mr. O’Rourke stated that "parents are hungry for reliable information". He also stated that "GoodGuide ratings influence consumer purchasing decisions". In the article, "Testing Toys for the Holidays 2009", he went on to say that they were working hard taking the top holiday toys apart to test them for safety. The results would be suprising but we must wait weeks before the results are revealed on December 4th, 2009. My first question is: Why must we wait weeks to learn of a toy that is unsafe when the company’s mission is "For Benefit" and when the testing performed is with a surface scanner that takes 60 seconds? GoodGuide also states that they are a new company, independent B corporation which uses the power of business to solve social and environmental problems. What problems did this press release solve three weeks before Christmas?
    2) "US government risks being left behind yet again when it comes to Americans". referring to the unsafe and toxic toys their company found. "Why were the company’s test results compared to the current federal toy standards? Their testing and comparisons are not the same at all. I agree that the concept of better health education and product information was a "good" one however this company has countered a negative "frenzy".
    3) "Why in 2008 did they release a list of "Safe Toys to Buy" and this year specifically list 5 of the most popular as being unsafe and toxic? Honestly does this company really have the best interest of the American people at heart? Mr. O’Rourke makes reference to his 5 year old daughter, would he really defer these toys on her list based on a surface scanner alone or is he attempting to "shift the balance of information and power in the marketplace" as he quoted on November 18th, 2009 prior to the shocking allegations.

  45. Phil T says:

    When you have finished with your XRF testing equipment??? Could we please borrow it over in the UK.
    Perhaps if it is re-calibrated it may be able to detect integrity in our leading bankers and politicians. Even 0.0001 PPM would be a breakthrough.

  46. Paul says:

    -Useing self serving scare tactics to make yourself a celebrity is flat out wrong.

    You have frightened Parents, tried to create economic harm, and made up your own
    testing criteria simply in pursuit of your own celebrity. Shame on You.,

    The Donors and links that you support, who are they, and how is the "Payola" rendered.
    Dissaapointing Kids, scaring Parents, and creating Lies for your own advancement is
    the real "Cancer Scare" here.

  47. Wamie says:

    Definately more interesting than the price of cheese !

  48. Junk O meter says:

    What a crap website. There’s nothing of interest to this goodguide.com, it’s a collection of labels from various products, product reviews from other websites, and the whole trick behind this website, links to buy products they pretend "pass their tests", all the "buy now" are affiliate links from which goodguide.com gets a commission. Total snake-oil. Make a lot of noise, the gullable are swamped with massive amounts of gibberish data, product gets a green OKAY from goodguide.com, you buy the product and they get a commission.

  49. wonstron says:

    shame on you.

  50. Michael Scherer says:

    As an educated parent, I am appalled at so many of these responses. I am so thankful for sites like GoodGuide. The US government toy safety standards and their response to these situations are influenced by the lobbying of big toy companies and large retailers. Keep it up, Good Guide! If you want choose to live in denial, I recommend continuing to buy cheap toxic toys from discount stores and staying off of the internet where you can learn how the products our government okays are killing our children over time.

  51. Scott Gelatt says:

    It is irresponsible to knowingly provide inaccurate data especially at this time of year with a product so popular. Leading the public to believe that you are acting in their best interest is wrong and should be dealt with swiftly and measurably. You have created fear and panic with parents and children, flooded stores and toy manufacturers with questions and accusations and did little other than briefly slow the tidal wave that is the Zhu Zhu pet. I could care less about these toys. I have a real problem with the "Neo-Nader consumer advocates who receive monetary contributions to "test" products. Your "for profit" consumer safety company should invest some of its "profit" and see to it that you clarify your misrepresentation with more vigor than just on your website which nobody will pay attention to going forward.

  52. Lisa Jones says:

    Mr. O’Rourke, you were quoted "If these toys aren’t even meeting the legal standards in the U.S. then I would say that it isn’t worth the risk for me to bring it into my household," said O’Rourke." ABC News.

    Clarifying your testing process is fine, but it is no substitute for a public apology for you, specifically, misleading consumers. It was your personal comment above that contributed to public panic.

    Why you would publish test results and claim that it doesn’t meet US standards when you don’t even use their testing methods is beyond me. You would think that if results were negative that you would at least ensure that you ‘were’ using the same method before you made that information public – if for no other reason than to protect your company from potential liability. Someone was certainly asleep at the switch in your company, possibly you?

  53. Jennifer F. says:

    I have heard that Good Guide gets paid a percentage of any toy purchases that are made when people utilize a link via the Good Guide site. The more publicity Good Guide can generate, and therefore drive visitors to their website, the more profit they will make. Seems like a clear conflict of interest.

    Ironically, if Zhu Zhu pets had not been so popular, Good Guide probably would not have targeted them because there would have been little to gain.

  54. Jaime says:

    People that are screaming their heads off about this incident need to take a step back and look at the overall picture.

    Antimony IS part of this kids toy, albeit below the government’s soluble guidelines.

    The U.S. government does not have the manpower (nor the will) to verify that all consumer products sold in the states are not toxic.

    I also would like to know how much BPA would be released from this toy if it was set next to heat?

    There are no other sources that will investigate the environmental impacts and health impacts of the products we buy.

    Thank you GoodGuide, we WILL be paying attention and using your site for guidance on products that are better for the planet and for our kids.

  55. Malcolm says:

    Not only was the original report inaccurate and false this clarification is not much better. For a start XRF testing is not as you said "XRF technology is a method for determining levels of elements found on the surface of a toy" rather it is a method of estimating levels of elements in whatever it penetrates. The XRF does not just test the surface it actually penetrates into the surface and is easily affected by what is below the surface. So whatever you found from teh XRF test could as easily have been from material below the surface and have been inaccessible to any user.
    Leave the evaluation of toys to the experts who know what they are doing and stop creating confusion and panic in consumers and parents.

  56. E says:

    It would be a shock to me if all of the comments being made on this blog post are people who are actively involved with GoodGuide. Any rational person should realize that while GoodGuide is bearing the shame, it should bear no shame! All of the speculation about GoodGuide manipulating data to make money off of a "green product" is false.
    There is no deceit. There are no evil, ulterior motives. There is no blame.
    The federal standards should not be the basis by which GoodGuide’s analysis should be compared. GoodGuide is looking out for the consumer, so it is only natural that it wants to go above and beyond existing regulations and standards. Or atleast do something different. And look at how quickly the company explicated the exact details surrounding the research done on that specific product. Transparency is at the heart of the GoodGuide.
    Also, the government cannot and should not be expected to adequately protect us from the chemical stew that we all live in. We are exposed to harmful levels of toxins in our everyday lives, and we are ignorant of that. GoodGuide helps us reduce our exposure to these toxins to help us lead healthier lives. We should be thankful to GoodGuide for carrying out this duty to us, but we should also be respectful of the scale of such a project (confusion that arises from using different testing methodologies should be expected) . This is an ambitious task! The take home point is that we should be actively considering the health, social, and environmental impacts of everything we buy, and everything we do. Remember, we live in a chemical stew. If you feel comfortable with your surrounding environment, you should probably reconsider. We are all subjects of a massive chemical experiment, and we are being re-engineered as human beings. If you are concerned about this, you should be excited and involved with efforts like this to end the lab experiment that is modern society. There are bigger things to worry about in this world and they are much bigger than a Mr. Squiggles Toy Hamster. Come on people.

  57. Joe says:

    What a shame! Just from how this notice is written and from Dr. Dara O’Rourke’s publications as an associated professor, Dara O’Rourke, you are a lawyer or politician. You should stick to what you do, because you don’t know anything about science or engineering. and you know nothing about how a test should be done, and how to read the results.

  58. Scientific Graduate says:

    I would bet that you tree-hugging, burlap sack wearing, earth-muffins are now running to your lawyers. Your company should be ashamed at the lack of scientific method used in your testing. You have lost all credibility in any of your future testing and for any testing that you have done to this point. Hang on to your hookahs; I foresee a big law suit in your future.

  59. PoisoningOurKids says:

    WOW all you knuckheads bashing a co that tests childrens toys, shame on all of you! So irate that you wasted good money, stood on line, and wasted your pathetic life and time to buy a hazardous toy. I feel sorry for your kids not you. Yea I cant believe I wasted my time reading most of these posts and looking for info on this topic. I guess you really don’t comprehend what was said in GoodGuides statement. "while we accurately reported the chemical levels in the toys that we measured using our testing method,
    we should not have compared our results to federal standards. We regret this error. "
    They stand by their findings, meaning there is High levels of antimony on the surface of the toy. They only regret comparing their methods to the feds testing. Get it now? No?
    Read what the test equipment tests for yourself
    "Toy Screening with Handheld XRF"
    http://www.niton.com/Toys-Consumer-Goods-Screening-with-Handheld-XRF/applications/toys.aspx?sflang=en
    Here is a small snipit from the above link,

    Niton XRF Analyzers – The Ideal Screening Tool

    Operating as either a handheld tool or integrated into an optional
    test stand with included PC-based software, Niton® XRF analyzers
    are the ideal tools for screening toys for toxic metals – all eight
    regulated elements in toys designed for children under the age of 12
    (lead, barium, antimony, selenium, cadmium, mercury, arsenic, hexavalent chromium).

    I don’t know about your 3 year old but mine will chew and have everything in her mouth.
    This is one toy that will not be in her mouth this Christmas because I will be throwing it in the trash yea I am pissed I have to too. But I would rather it that way then have a sick child down the road and try to get the government to prove it. And the air was safe to breath after 911 too ya no…..

    Thanks GoodGuide for NOT using the same testing methods as our government.
    Keep up the good testing of our childrens toys!

  60. Johanna says:

    Thank you GoodGuide for reminding caring consumers such as myself that these types of plastic toys contain harmful chemicals. Even if the levels are lower than required by our government’s watered-down standards, they still do contain harmful chemicals – chemicals that will transfer to the hands that touch them. Do we really want to bring these toys into our homes? Don’t be fooled, the fact that the levels are within what the government has deemed acceptable, does not make them safe.

  61. Sam Singer says:

    You ruined your reputation in by doing shoddy work and you almost ruined the reputation of a safe and fun toy for children…and you almost ruined the company that thought of, marketed and sold Zhu Zhu. What is equally damning is your weasel-like clarification here. If this is how you act, both in making the original mistake and then your alleged ‘clarification’ you don’t deserve anyone’s trust again. You need to hold yourself to a higher and more thoughtful standard if you ever want to regain anyone’ trust. The first thing you need to do is actually apologize for misleading the press and the public…

  62. Whataboutthechildren!! says:

    Trying to make a huge name for yourself by releasing faulty tests that invlove the seasons hottest toy and having your lunch handed to you all over the media. PRICELESS!

    Can’t wait to see the lawsuit…

  63. Hampster says:

    Bad business Goodguide.com What other reports have you published that were wrong?

  64. Dave says:

    It is not substandard technology. It is actually quite valuable to measure something without having to destroy it in acid. The issue is that the person using it should know what they are using it for and if it can be used to comply with those regulations. Anyone who knows the technology knows that it does total elemental analysis, period. It has been used for 20 years for remediating Pb paint from homes to prevent child Pb poisoning.

  65. Norma Brow says:

    You have taken the joy right out of the zhu zhu pets present I have waiting for my five yr old Granddaughter for Christmas. I labored for weeks till I found two at Walmart.

    Even though you have rescinded your claim, the damage is done, my concerned daughter is fearful her child will be harmed.

    I am very annoyed with your organization. Be more careful with you national announcements.

  66. BP says:

    WOW! What a bunch of MAD Zhu Zhu BRATTS… GoodGuys, I feel sorry for you!

    Has anyone thought that perhaps the government standards are looser so not to prevent trade form China..?

    Has anyone thought WTF is "soluble" amount and how is it measured? "Total" is total – period! In any case, if I’m concerned about safety, I’d use "higher" standards…

  67. ron says:

    I used xrf technology to test good guide. They tested 93 to 106 ppm WRONG. Which is equal to 100% STUPID.

  68. Marcus says:

    Social responsibility goes both ways. What you did was the quivalent of yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded room. You needlessly alarmed many parents who rely on the internet for facutal information. Your reputation like your information is trashed. Shut your site down before you cause more damage.

    On top of this you have brought into question the repution of other scientists. I sincerely hope you are not filling your students’ heads with this type of thinking.

  69. Caromia Jardine says:

    It would be great to investigate exactly where these comments are coming from.
    Makes me think the manufacturers who are scared as hell about the potential of a company that will promote radical transparency in the marketplace might just be
    posting these clearly anti-environmental comments.

  70. Ray says:

    The real concern for me is why there is ANY amount of this cancer-causing substance in this toy. What is with the toy making industry? Sure they are made in China but why would any company sell a toy to a 4 year-old knowing that it has been made using cancer-causing substances? Do you really think 60 ppm, 50 ppm, 40 ppm… of antimony in your child’s mouth is ok? Any amount over ZERO is unacceptable to me.

  71. bob says:

    Sloppy science. You’re an embarrassment to UC Berkeley. I really hope someone is being fired over this.

    And Ray, if you knew all the items you use every day that have carcinogens in them, you’d realize how stupid your comment is.

  72. Carry says:

    I just want to say, that we should to buy toys from well known producers, and I’m glad to know that there are people who check, examine, test and recheck all these products for children, they do a great work!

  73. Oberon says:

    I’d be interested to hear more about your testing methodology and its merits as compared to the Federal standard. A surface test for a poisonous metal on a toy which can easily be chewed by a child or a pet does not seem to me to be some horrible conspiracy to ruin a small toy maker. I’m concerned still, and I’d like to understand more about the subject.

    I’m also not sure I understand the vehemence directed at GoodGuide. The Federal government does not have a clean record for testing standards, why is GoodGuide being held to such a higher standard? Especially by people who are in all probability just as ignorant of the science behind _both_ methods as I am? And when there is no clear evidence that GoodGuide is wrong about the alert, other than misrepresenting the Zhu zhu as being in violation of the government standards, why jump down their throats?

    GoodGuide, you required my email address to let me post this comment. If you have further information which might help me better understand the subject, please email me.

  74. milo says:

    Well hopefully they have learn’t from that experience and won’t have the same trouble when they launch the kung zhu pets later this year. I have to say as a parent I was slightly worried when I first heard the news about the safety issue but felt that it was delt with very quickly and I still ended up buying my little girl a zhu zhu hamster for her birthday.

  75. Sally F says:

    Mr. O’Rourke,

    The manufacturer of Zhu Zhu should sue you for misrepresenting their product to the press as unsafe.

    You should not just hide this on a separate page, but issue a clear retraction of the allegations, notifying all the media outlets that carried the story in the first place.

    You claim to be a "reliable source of information on the health". It appears to be misspelled. "UNreliable" would be correct.

    Sally

  76. jackie says:

    Is there going to be a recall?

  77. Wayne Krejci says:

    You are confusing the public. To avoid this you could publish test results obtained per the government methods along with results obtained by your methods.
    Also, are you confusing the public again by comparing your results of 93-106 ppm "total" to the government standard of 60 ppm "soluble"? What is the difference between "soluble" and "total"?

  78. deadpuppy says:

    FAILED FAILED FAILED – I want my child’s toys to be cut up and melted in acid and the lead levels measured the right way.

    LOL…surface test on a toy, what a bunch of morons! goodgudie – "did not test these toys using the new government standard for toy companies to determine the “soluble” level of contaminants in a toy" then you only did WTF? a "surface test" on Mr. Squiggle’s nose which is also a "CONTROL BUTTON" that you morons most likely touch and played with a few times before your FAILED test.

    I hope the makers of Zhu Zhu sue you retards for every penny you have and force you work the rest of your life paying them a settlement.

    One would think a bunch of teachers would get the facts before ran out to the local pawn shop and bought a XRF tester and think they could make millions with it. XRF was made to x-ray leads in fuels not how much lead is "IN" a toy.Wow get the facts – XRF is a surface test and is failed when testing real products.

  79. jw says:

    Can you clarify how you convert your measured surface concentration to compare against the "soluble" level on which the federal standards are based? Are you implying that the toy is in violation of federal standards? Is antimony a contaminant that is more likely to be found in higher concentrations at the surface rather than the bulk of the material?

  80. David Cochran says:

    It sounds more like a plott to bring the price back down so one of your employees can buy it at a decent price. Maybe you are being tempted by a competing toy company that is losing business. Whatever it is, it smells of something not right.

  81. Andrew says:

    Isn’t it interesting that antimony just happens to be a component of the new "lead-free" solders that are being foisted on the public in the name of the Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive (RoHS) implemented in Europe a few years ago, and now worming its way into products sold in the U.S.?

  82. Lisa Kennedy says:

    I also would not trust a "teacher" website that cannot even spell HAMSTER propery!!
    OMG 60 minutes, where are you when I need a real investigative report????

  83. Victoria says:

    I don’t understand how you all can live with yourselves. You run a test on the most popular & hard-to-get toy of the season using substandard equipment that can’t even do an accurate test. You then run to the media with your unsubstantiated "test results". The media, of course, doesn’t bother to do due diligence, as they should have, and runs the story all weekend. You, with the collusion of the media, terrified every parent who stood in freezing cold lines to find this toy (since that’s the only thing their child asked for from Santa). Consumer watchdog groups used to be the "good guys" but I’m convinced now that they’re just publicity hounds who like attention and the chance to get some free publicity. You should be ashamed of yourselves…not only did you defame a company (Cepia LLC) that did nothing wrong, but you also caused a tremendous worry for parents who are already stressed enough this holiday season!

  84. Gee Vee says:

    So, let me get this straight. Anyone, who has some sort of "credentials" can conduct a test using their own parameters (which has not standardized), get some result and publish it as if it is real. Confuse the public may be bring a company or two down and make a name for themselves. I agree with the comment that he should publicly retract the findings and may be send the samples to a reputable testing agency who follow appropriate methodology to test the samples.

  85. arnold ziffel says:

    I wonder if someone was looking for a little publicity. no one ever even heard of this lil hole in the wall site. now it’s blown up since it hitched itself to the hottest toy of the season with skewed and questionable test results and practices. hmmm.

  86. Tim says:

    The soluble method that is used when determining the prohibited amount of nine heavy metals in accessible paints used on toys, simulates human consumption, by disolving the paint in an acid, while the flask is clamped into a shaker bath at 98 degrees F. The paint is filtered and the remainder is analyzed by an ICP. The method that GG used was an XRF, which is very very unreliable and I wouldnt be surprised if even their XRF findings are way off. The methods couldnt be anymore different from one another. There is a reason that soluble methodology has been used and not an XRF. The hand held and table top XRF was a great solution for manufacturers, unable to afford the proper equipment following the Mattel recalls in 2007. We use it in our QC practices, but allow a huge tolerance in our pass/ fail criteria, because it is not reliable. In actuality, the only way that anyone would ever be satisfied is if every single paint/ material on every shipment was tested using the CPSC prescribed methods, but it is not financially possible for comanies to do this. Up stream quality management and proper training/ checks & balances are the only true way to monitor and control the chemicals used in toys. If you purchased your Zhu Zhu pet at Wal-mart or Toys "R" Us, dont fear….they have been tested well above any other safety standard in the world, including the federal requirements. They have set the bar high for other retailers. In addition, these products are typically made at the same place, so if consecutive batches pass the stringent retailer testing, there is little, if no chance that it would fail any lead, phthalates or soluble heavy metals limits in the CPSIA of 2008.

  87. Jonathan Birchall says:

    Shouldn’t this clarification be on your Press & Media page? It’s rather hard to find.

  88. I am glad to see that you are correcting your mistake, but how could you repeat to every news outlet that Cepia (Zhu Zhu’s manufacturer) violated a current standard when you had NO such information. You cannot raise an alarm using XRF for a standard that is a soluble standard.

  89. deadpuppy says:

    Wow this gets funnier and funnier – goodgudie now put out a statement saying "We regret this error" (marketwire.com/press-release/Goodguide-1086821.html). LOL this can get funnier. the best part is how they keep changing their story and adding disclaimers to this web-site that weren’t here last night when CNN was trying to assist Dara O’Rourke is killing the sales of the hottest toy this year. Zhu Zhu hamsters only cost $10 most anyone can afford that – I personal give Zhu Zhu hamsters a 10+ rate based on the price alone. But then goodguides doesn’t care about prices they are worried about gobal warming.

  90. deadpuppy says:

    Nice catch Lisa – Dara O’Rourke is a professor and he spells "hamster" – "Hampster" guess he uses spell check like he uses his little XRF tester …lol. (Dara make sure you add a disclaimer to your spelling errors too). Goodguide did not "correct" any mistakes in their retraction. Dara O’Rourke is a professor who should understand "simple English" goodguides statement is wrong and they are still claiming they tested what is "in" the Zhu Zhu pet. Goodguides read and understand – your failed XRF test only measure what is "on" a toy not what is "in" a toy. I want my toys tested "right" cut it in to pieces and drop the parts in acid then measure the metals found inside.

  91. SmellChecker says:

    To Lisa Kennedy,
    If you live in a glass house, perhaps you shouldn’t throw any stones?
    You may be able to spell Hamster, but you can’t spell ‘properly’ properly. Did you see what I did there?

    Freddie Starr should be most worried!

    Ha ha.

  92. deadpuppy says:

    Oh isn’t that cool, smellchecker can correct mis-spelled words on this failed site then change spelling in your post to make you look like the dummy. Oh and top it off with a little funny isn’t that cute.

  93. SHAME ON YOU!

    Your retraction statement should be front page on your main page, not burried in your blog somewhere… And your press release "apologizing" should be disseminated like your initial bogus test results.

    You should be sued for the wave of negative publicity you unleashed unecessarily. This was not a "mistake". I am not sure if your intention was to gain publicity for your idiotic website at the expense of an actual product manufacturer or if you just got paid off by competing large corporate interests to do this.

    That said, there are several problems with your test:

    You subcontracted someone to use an unproven method (Handheld Niton XRF Analyzer) to test the product while the company had passed several of the OFFICIAL CSPC-mandated requirements (ICP-OES tests) that are FAR more accurate.

    This was not a controlled test: Antimony might have got on the skin and nose of the hamster while the hamster was sitting around in your house or office or on the store shelf or a warehouse along the supply chain. When you tested it, then it popped up a false positive. That is because the handheld XRF device is just throwing an X-ray beam on the item and measures “total” substance on the surface of the item.

    The Federally mandated tests by the CSPC require tedious chemical analysis of the toal actual material and they are by far more accurate and superior, that is why the CSPC has that standard vs. using an XRF Analyzer. BTW, the CSPC has not determined as of yet whether it’s reliable to use XRF Analyzers for LEAD (Pb) testing in paint, let alone Antimony in toys…. See this report here: http://www.cpsc.gov/ABOUT/cpsia/leadinpaintmeasure.pdf

    Also, based on your testing methodology here: http://www.goodguide.com/about/toys_methodology
    Your XRF Analyzer was NOT Calibrated for antimony (Sb) before the test (just other elements) so how can you claim that it popped a positive result on Antimony. Could it have been that it was NOT calibrated properly for measuring that element? The documentation from Niton (a.k.a. Thermo Electron) does not specificy that their XRF Analyzer is accurate for Sb readings…

    Finally, after you unleash a media storm of bad publicity worrying thousands of households and jeopardizing thousands of jobs of people who actually MAKE a product (as opposed to selling air on their blogs), you go out and you issue a "fine print" retraction statement:
    http://blog.goodguide.com

    and a press release (see here)
    GoodGuide Issues Correction About Its Toy Testing Methodology
    http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Goodguide-1086822.html

    saying you are "sorry"???

    Oh, and my kid gets more exposed to harmful substances every time I refuel at the gas station than when playing with his Zhu Zhu pets… Should we also stop driving?

  94. Steve says:

    Goodguide is a SHAM

  95. Samantha says:

    Coming from someone who works in product safety, the claim that you used an XRF device to analyze the "total" antimony content on the surface of the toy is further proof of the lack of care with which you approached this situation. There is no way that you were able to get reliable enough data behind your assertions to validatae your claims of the product’s safety.

    Had you been concerned about the integrity of your claim and your site, you would have spent the (minimal) amount of money to have the product tested with a third party laboratory according to F963-08, the U.S. toy safety standard, before going live with these accusations.

    XRF is a great tool, and if you had scanned a piece of plastic that has a standard reference material available, we would have all been behind you when you announced your findings because in that case they would have been credible. AND CREDIBILITY IS EVERYTHING.

    It’s incidents like these that really make it difficult for the rest of us to advocate for safer, healthier products.

  96. Carl says:

    I am surprised that a research scientist made this kind of mistake, especially when he knows that this kind of story would spread like wildfire…nothing the media likes more than deflating something popular.

    It really is simple…if you’re going to claim that something is or isn’t up to federal standards, you have to ensure that you’re using a qualified test method. One wonders if they chose this test method in order to have a high enough number to make the claim and get in the news.

  97. Davis says:

    My Xmas wish for you is one great big lawsuit for trade libel and slander.

  98. James Beranis says:

    I hope you people suffer tenfold any negative consequences that the makers of zhu zhu pets does. Supposed do good companies like you are often just a bane to society.

  99. Chris says:

    I seriously can’t believe that you publish these standards using a different method of testing. You compare two different testing methods and then claim it fails. Are you kidding me! Your company fails the test of knowing what you are doing.

  100. Dude says:

    GoodGuide,

    You guys are a joke. I hope you get sued by Cepia since that would seem to be their only recourse in dealing with you. If you are so "sorry" for YOUR error, then why don’t you change the rating of Mr. Squiggles (5.2) and Cepia, LLC (5.6) on your website. As it stands, your only clarification for someone trying to find out what is going on is buried in a blog page. Nice.

  101. CC says:

    I am still confused. As a parent who has purchased Zhu Zhu pets, am I still to be concerned that chemicals were found, even if it wasn’t the same test the government uses?

  102. terry says:

    wouldn’t it be ironical – the cepia maunufacturer/distributor could make more out of suing these GG morons than they make out of the toy itself!

  103. david says:

    Shame on the whole lot of you people, Good for nothing you are. Alarmist eco freaks just like the rest. Maybe you could draw a connecting between this toy and it causing global warming!!!! Get a life

  104. Dan says:

    Besides GoodGuide’s lack of knowledge of testing standards, your web site has some ethical issues detailed here:

    http://www.theupperdeck.com/?p=401

  105. Sara says:

    GoodGuide is one of the only reliable sources informing all of us about dangerous levels of contaminants in toys & products. I’m glad they test the surface of toys, rather than testing the "soluble" level that the government tests – it’s a stricter test that will be more protective for us consumers. The government standards don’t adequately protect us — they allow toy companies to use levels of dangerous substances in toys & products so the companies can save money, putting all of our health at risk. Thank you Good Guide.

  106. Jeff Hunter says:

    Bad Guide would more accurately describe you Mr DARA O,Rourke. As an academic you should be ashamed to claim to represent any consumer group and produce such dribble.
    Your totally Mickey Mouse technology and testing are an embarrasement but worse is pathetic refusal to clearly apologise and display your error in a clear consumer message which everyone can understand.
    You have attacked a product to put your own self importance and crummy little website in the spotlight. I hope you get sued for plenty by Cepia .
    Just say I am sorry , I got it wrong.

  107. Jim says:

    I heard about this on NPR. GoodGuide, which "provides the world’s largest and most reliable [sic] source of information on the health, environmental, and social impacts of products and companies," appears to be a sham.

    I support a continuous examination of products and companies, especially as they involve children, but this is an embarrassment. How will this effect any other future investigations which may be warranted? The company SHOULD sue you……

  108. Danielle says:

    What kind of morons would bring this kind of attention to THE most sought after toy this holiday season without dotting their i’s and crossing their t’s? You people HAD to know the firestorm your report would cause….why wouldn’t you make sure your methods were accurate or at least the testing differences clarified before breaking the news? All you have managed to do is ruin your website’s reputation in a matter of days. You should have your "clarifications" (and I use that term lightly since a RETRACTION is warranted) on the FRONT page of your website. I hope the major media giants catch wind of this soon and drag your name through the mud because that is what you deserve for slandering a company that has done nothing wrong save for being genius enough to create a popular toy. If that toy company is REALLY smart, they will become a whole lot richer by suing you idiotic fools.

  109. Anncarter says:

    Good guide, welcome to Missouri The Show Me State!
    We do not care for companies such as yours that obviously have their facts wrong. The real question is who paid you off to sabotage a small company that came out with the "must have toy" of the season? You are a for-profit company and it is clear that your "David and Goliath "attitude will not work in Missouri. Eat your words loud and clear. The little guy does win in the end!

  110. George says:

    Looks like the brainwashed corporate crowd has hung itself out on your web site. I don’t think you should have apologized for any of your findings. Fact is that a deadly chemical is in this little toy and parents should know. Who else is going to say it if not you?

    These people must be on drugs. They don’t care whether their children are contaminated with this crap. Their motto: Don’t worry, don’t question – be happy and die!

    I live in a very dangerous world of war and soldiers, but I don’t like it when these brain dead yo-yos can’t think for themselves! They care more for the corporations than their kids!

  111. Qwilla says:

    You folks are a crock and the fact that you are NOT retracting your "test" results on the front page of your website is downright irresponsible. I do hope Cepia sues you. It’s too bad that your lack of thought and verification has killed the potential "good" that your site could have offered to consumers.

  112. Sue says:

    Zhu pets a child needs to consume to receive any dangerous level from this toy. Please also let the american public know that the substance you claimed to be dangerous would be more likely to be found in a simple plastic water bottle.

    Who funds your organization and what senators or represenatives on capitol hill support you so the American public can make informed voting decisions

    Thank you

    Joe

  113. Joni F says:

    I cannot believe this loser of a so called company can hide their admitting to the lies they made up. Why cant they go to all the news media like NBC, CBS, Fox etc etc etc to admit their lies? No, they would rather not get the truth out, because it only makes them look bad.

    I have been spreading the truth on Ebay boards all evening since I found the worthless " apology " on the web. I hope the company that makes these sue this worthless " company " for everything they have for the lies they have told. That will be the only justice they can legally get from these worthless people.

    Heck, these people think mouthwash and legos are going to kill you. Quite frankly, Id have to call them the biggest losers since they have to sit around tables thinking up lies about items.

  114. Marc says:

    If there is any doubt that your site serves any purpose other than to gain pr from false accusations and fear mongering, I am missing it. For sake of full disclosure, I license the Zhu Zhu Pets iPhone App, I have known the people at Cepia well before Zhu Zhu became a blip on the map, Russ and his team have not taken short cuts to bring this terrific toy to market, nor did they short sheet on product safety testing as was shown clearly today. Your attempt at riding the excitement today did serve to show that toy companies have been responsive to the issues on safety that need all of our attention and that great product can still WOW kids safely! And, luckily the kids and parents got the message in time for the holidays. And By the way. Stating whether you are or are not a non profit would be appropriate. As would NOT having a link to AMAZON to show people where to buy toys that you claim are unsafe!!!!!

  115. morons says:

    Tree hugging, Crack-headed, Hippy SOBs. What the hell is wrong with you? Maybe instead of crying wolf you should make damn sure there is a wolf first. Bunch of dumbasses.

  116. chaz says:

    Your press release from Saturday mentions the toy’s name three times. But in your "correction" today the name is not mentioned once. Nor is there any sort of apology to the manufacturer or the buyers of the toy. Just a cold "We regret this error". I bet you have regrets. Regrets that you’ve been exposed as arrogant, look-at-me, eco babblers that make efforts tougher for legitimate consumer and evironmental advocates. Instead of admitting that you were sloppy and irresponsible and then issuing a real mea culpa, you issue a statement that only a defense attorney would love. We are a nation, if not a planet, of forgivers. But you have to come clean or you’ll never get back your credibility.

  117. cuttheshxt says:

    Just confess you made this mistake on purpose to make your stupid website well known to everyone. And congratulations, you made it. But please don’t mention you’re a professor from UCB or MIT, you should know what is not ethic in academia.

  118. Stephen says:

    I am not surprised at all. This kind of on purpose distortion happened again and again in this so called democratic and fee conuntry. Remember the mysterious Weapon of mass destruction which was claimed hidding somewhere in Iraq.

  119. Ashesoftime says:

    Shame on YOU!!! And you are only "regret" to spread the false information? Where is your integrity? Are we told to apologize when we make mistakes?

  120. Mark Moore says:

    How can you possibly refer to your company as a guide for consumers. You test products with old or out of date testing methods. You have damaged a company’s reputation. How could you release such damaging information about another companies product prior to being sure of all the facts. This is in my opinion creates a nice slander, pain, suffering, and loss of income. We might start calling you Good Luck or Good Bye instead. You have done one thing right. You have managed to get national name recognition by spending nothing. What better way to get your name out there than riding on the coat tale of one of the biggest toys of the year. Most companies have to spend millions to get that kind of recognition, however there is good and bad publicity and this blog speaks for it self. Thanks Good Guide for the Bad Guidance. I’m not sure how I will manage to make decisions in the future without you!

  121. Kris says:

    I would like to see the controversy regarding the HOTTEST toy of the year, the Zhu Zhu’s, be addressed before Christmas. My 8 year old daughter requested the cute hamsters from Santa this year. After researching the popular toy, I found it heart-warming to learn of the small toy company Cepia and inventor who created the adorable hamsters. Together Mr. Hornsby, with daughters by his side, created a positive "frenzy" which has brought smiles to so many and fullfilling their 28 year old American dream. I have seen strangers exchange cell phone numbers, grandmothers share stories, and even college students waiting in line for friends and family hoping to get one Zhu Zhu in time for Christmas. It is such ashame that a company like GoodGuide must misrepresent their findings and deem the most popular toy of the season as "unsafe" with no extensive research. As a wife, healthcare provider, mother of two, and marathon runner, the health of my family, patients, and self is key. I value any helpful information but strongly feel that GoodGuide’s founder and CEO, Dara O’Rourke, needs to answer some important questions nationally.
    1) On November 17th, 2008 Mr. O’Rourke stated that "parents are hungry for reliable information". He also stated that "GoodGuide ratings influence consumer purchasing decisions". In the article, "Testing Toys for the Holidays 2009", he went on to say that they were working hard taking the top holiday toys apart to test them for safety. The results would be suprising but we must wait weeks before the results are revealed on December 4th, 2009. My first question is: Why must we wait weeks to learn of a toy that is unsafe when the company’s mission is "For Benefit" and when the testing performed is with a surface scanner that takes 60 seconds? GoodGuide also states that they are a new company, independent B corporation which uses the power of business to solve social and environmental problems. What problems did this press release solve three weeks before Christmas?
    2) "US government risks being left behind yet again when it comes to Americans". referring to the unsafe and toxic toys their company found. "Why were the company’s test results compared to the current federal toy standards? Their testing and comparisons are not the same at all. I agree that the concept of better health education and product information was a "good" one however this company has countered a negative "frenzy".
    3) "Why in 2008 did they release a list of "Safe Toys to Buy" and this year specifically list 5 of the most popular as being unsafe and toxic? Honestly does this company really have the best interest of the American people at heart? Mr. O’Rourke makes reference to his 5 year old daughter, would he really defer these toys on her list based on a surface scanner alone or is he attempting to "shift the balance of information and power in the marketplace" as he quoted on November 18th, 2009 prior to the shocking allegations.

  122. Phil T says:

    When you have finished with your XRF testing equipment??? Could we please borrow it over in the UK.
    Perhaps if it is re-calibrated it may be able to detect integrity in our leading bankers and politicians. Even 0.0001 PPM would be a breakthrough.

  123. Paul says:

    -Useing self serving scare tactics to make yourself a celebrity is flat out wrong.

    You have frightened Parents, tried to create economic harm, and made up your own
    testing criteria simply in pursuit of your own celebrity. Shame on You.,

    The Donors and links that you support, who are they, and how is the "Payola" rendered.
    Dissaapointing Kids, scaring Parents, and creating Lies for your own advancement is
    the real "Cancer Scare" here.

  124. Wamie says:

    Definately more interesting than the price of cheese !

  125. Junk O meter says:

    What a crap website. There’s nothing of interest to this goodguide.com, it’s a collection of labels from various products, product reviews from other websites, and the whole trick behind this website, links to buy products they pretend "pass their tests", all the "buy now" are affiliate links from which goodguide.com gets a commission. Total snake-oil. Make a lot of noise, the gullable are swamped with massive amounts of gibberish data, product gets a green OKAY from goodguide.com, you buy the product and they get a commission.

  126. wonstron says:

    shame on you.

  127. Tim says:

    To answer the question of whether or not the Zhu Zhu pets are still unsafe, regardless of the method used, is no. The amount of antimony discovered was 90ppm and the federal soluble limit for antimony in paints is 60ppm. There is a reason that ASTM developed the soluble method, because scientific data proves that it is not possible for the "total" or actual amount of elements to be ingested and passed into the bloostream. The soluble method is as close to replicating human consumption as possible (in a lab). The other thng to consider is that the XRF again is not a reliable tool for determining the precise amounts of heavy metals in any material. There is a pretty broad tolerance for amny of these heavy metals, especially a handheld device. The table top device is much more accurate, but still not an accetped method of the CPSC or any other safety organization, including ASTM. GG tried to do a good thing and it back fired. It hasnt impacted sales according to Cepia and the CPSC has, as anticipated, discarded the findings of GG. Maybe they need some assistance trying to put together a reliable program to replace what has proven to be inadequate.

  128. Michael Scherer says:

    As an educated parent, I am appalled at so many of these responses. I am so thankful for sites like GoodGuide. The US government toy safety standards and their response to these situations are influenced by the lobbying of big toy companies and large retailers. Keep it up, Good Guide! If you want choose to live in denial, I recommend continuing to buy cheap toxic toys from discount stores and staying off of the internet where you can learn how the products our government okays are killing our children over time.

  129. Scott Gelatt says:

    It is irresponsible to knowingly provide inaccurate data especially at this time of year with a product so popular. Leading the public to believe that you are acting in their best interest is wrong and should be dealt with swiftly and measurably. You have created fear and panic with parents and children, flooded stores and toy manufacturers with questions and accusations and did little other than briefly slow the tidal wave that is the Zhu Zhu pet. I could care less about these toys. I have a real problem with the "Neo-Nader consumer advocates who receive monetary contributions to "test" products. Your "for profit" consumer safety company should invest some of its "profit" and see to it that you clarify your misrepresentation with more vigor than just on your website which nobody will pay attention to going forward.

  130. Lisa Jones says:

    Mr. O’Rourke, you were quoted "If these toys aren’t even meeting the legal standards in the U.S. then I would say that it isn’t worth the risk for me to bring it into my household," said O’Rourke." ABC News.

    Clarifying your testing process is fine, but it is no substitute for a public apology for you, specifically, misleading consumers. It was your personal comment above that contributed to public panic.

    Why you would publish test results and claim that it doesn’t meet US standards when you don’t even use their testing methods is beyond me. You would think that if results were negative that you would at least ensure that you ‘were’ using the same method before you made that information public – if for no other reason than to protect your company from potential liability. Someone was certainly asleep at the switch in your company, possibly you?

  131. Jennifer F. says:

    I have heard that Good Guide gets paid a percentage of any toy purchases that are made when people utilize a link via the Good Guide site. The more publicity Good Guide can generate, and therefore drive visitors to their website, the more profit they will make. Seems like a clear conflict of interest.

    Ironically, if Zhu Zhu pets had not been so popular, Good Guide probably would not have targeted them because there would have been little to gain.

  132. Jaime says:

    People that are screaming their heads off about this incident need to take a step back and look at the overall picture.

    Antimony IS part of this kids toy, albeit below the government’s soluble guidelines.

    The U.S. government does not have the manpower (nor the will) to verify that all consumer products sold in the states are not toxic.

    I also would like to know how much BPA would be released from this toy if it was set next to heat?

    There are no other sources that will investigate the environmental impacts and health impacts of the products we buy.

    Thank you GoodGuide, we WILL be paying attention and using your site for guidance on products that are better for the planet and for our kids.

  133. Malcolm says:

    Not only was the original report inaccurate and false this clarification is not much better. For a start XRF testing is not as you said "XRF technology is a method for determining levels of elements found on the surface of a toy" rather it is a method of estimating levels of elements in whatever it penetrates. The XRF does not just test the surface it actually penetrates into the surface and is easily affected by what is below the surface. So whatever you found from teh XRF test could as easily have been from material below the surface and have been inaccessible to any user.
    Leave the evaluation of toys to the experts who know what they are doing and stop creating confusion and panic in consumers and parents.

  134. deadpuppy says:

    Not sure if this is right but it is the way I am understanding everyones Test Myth. Goodgudies – used a XRF handheld tester in a NON-controlled, non-cleaned test area on a dirty foam mat as shown in picture on goodguides web-site, XRF sends beam of light into surface of toy item that may have been touched by a unclean human hand, cow fart gases or anything else in the room and counts translucent light colors from return reflections as metals reflect colors based on type of metal. Zhu Zhu toy makers used EU testing – tester cleaned and covered in a sealed Lab chops toys in to parts, measures size of part to be tested melt parts in acid then measures the metal as the acid separates to by products. So question #1 so be which testing would parents like the real toy testers to use? Hope thats right if not please feel free to correct my thoughts. One question for Goodguide and Dara, if you find a toy or item unsafe based on your test why would you send out a press release before contacting the manufactures of the items? I know over the past few years PR (self-appointed for-profit) has pretty much defended Marketing (corp owned for shareholders) in every way of swaying peoples views but Goodguides needs to decide if they are in this game for the money (PR) or if Goodguides wants to help "people" by contacting the manufactures of the items and ask them to stop production.

  135. deadpuppy says:

    This is my final post on this failed self-appointed for-profit site. If a toy or item is deemed unsafe by Goodguide why would they still have a link for viewers to click and buy the item? "MONEY and GREED" Now – Jaime, Jaime, Jaime – do you cross streets at cross walk or just anywhere you wish to cross? Did you know more people are injured and killed crossing at Government regulated cross walks then people that just randomly crossing anywhere they wish? Your beginning to sound like George on Dec 07, 2009 at 07:28 PM "Looks like the brainwashed corporate crowd has hung itself out on your web site’ George – Corporations are not a big mean monster out to get you, they are owned but many shareholders and can be changed or re-directed by the will of the shareholders vote. This reminds me of the News Casters saying "SUV killed another 4 people today" like it is a monster on the loose randomly killing people. Oh look at Michael Scherer on Dec 08, 2009 at 07:54 AM wrote – “thankful for sites like GoodGuide”, “US government toy safety standards” are influenced by the lobbying of big toy companies. Sounds like Micheal loves the world But then he ends his post – “recommend continuing to buy cheap toxic toys from discount stores and staying off of the internet where you can learn”

    That is so sad that a person like Michael Scherer would wish people to be dumb and wish a slow painful death upon them and / or their children from “cheap toxic toys’. Michael Scherer people posting here are only asking Goodguide to be responsible and are only trashing them for jumping the gun on a “really hot item” so they can drive their web-site hits and make “money” from people using links on it to buy the item Goodguide just deemed un-safe. You Michael Scherer are sick’ wishing death to anyone and you Michael Scherer are the one who needs upgrade and to learn to use that chunk of flesh “My God” put between your ears. READ the MEMO – you “can not” learn from reading crap on the internet, you gain views from the internet but still must have the wisdom to know which is right or wrong and how to apply it to move ahead with your learning. So Michael if you are dumb you can read all you want and without the wisdom of the Lord you will still remain ignorant. Knowledge without wisdom is just a load of books on an asses back, forgot who said that but its so true.

  136. Tim says:

    This message is in response to Jaime’s posting about BPA in the Zhu Zhu hamster….what? Do you know what BPA is and where it is used? Certainly not in the furry skin of plush toys. The problem to is uneductaed comments by people who would like to think they are accurately informed of manufacturing and chemicals in consumer products. If you want to be concerned about hazardous chemicals and elements in consumer products, then dont let your children touch any electrical cords on any of your home consumer electronics or appliances. Those contain more lead than any toy you can purchase….and oh, did you know that the allowable level of lead in PVC pipes, which stream water into your home is far greater than in toys. Your kids will drink this water at some point. Its ok to be informed and listen to sites like GoodGuide, but do your own research before relying on other’s to improperly inform you. Really? BPA in plush? It is mainly used in plastics, and more specifically polycarbonate plastics, which is why you see "NO BPA" on bottles and aluminum drink containers. There is a lot that the common person doesnt know about this industry. Were you aware that the beloved CPSC allows animal testing to determine the toxicity of certain chemicals and elements? Look in the Code of Federal regulations for the details on how to introduce chemicals into the eyes of rabbits. I am not animal rights activist, but a lot of work goes into establishing limits in the consumer marketplace (except maybe CPSIA).

  137. Sara says:

    I find it hard to believe that so many people here would be so angry at GoodGuide — it’s clear to me that all of these posts slamming GoodGuide’s ratings are being written by Zhu Zhu or other toy manufacturers who are trying to take GoodGuide down for speaking the truth. Truth is there are harmful chemicals in the Zhu Zhu Pet and many other toys, and thank goodness we have GoodGuide to let us know which toys are safe. As a parent, I use GoodGuide’s ratings all the time and am very thankful for them.

  138. E says:

    It would be a shock to me if all of the comments being made on this blog post are people who are actively involved with GoodGuide. Any rational person should realize that while GoodGuide is bearing the shame, it should bear no shame! All of the speculation about GoodGuide manipulating data to make money off of a "green product" is false.
    There is no deceit. There are no evil, ulterior motives. There is no blame.
    The federal standards should not be the basis by which GoodGuide’s analysis should be compared. GoodGuide is looking out for the consumer, so it is only natural that it wants to go above and beyond existing regulations and standards. Or atleast do something different. And look at how quickly the company explicated the exact details surrounding the research done on that specific product. Transparency is at the heart of the GoodGuide.
    Also, the government cannot and should not be expected to adequately protect us from the chemical stew that we all live in. We are exposed to harmful levels of toxins in our everyday lives, and we are ignorant of that. GoodGuide helps us reduce our exposure to these toxins to help us lead healthier lives. We should be thankful to GoodGuide for carrying out this duty to us, but we should also be respectful of the scale of such a project (confusion that arises from using different testing methodologies should be expected) . This is an ambitious task! The take home point is that we should be actively considering the health, social, and environmental impacts of everything we buy, and everything we do. Remember, we live in a chemical stew. If you feel comfortable with your surrounding environment, you should probably reconsider. We are all subjects of a massive chemical experiment, and we are being re-engineered as human beings. If you are concerned about this, you should be excited and involved with efforts like this to end the lab experiment that is modern society. There are bigger things to worry about in this world and they are much bigger than a Mr. Squiggles Toy Hamster. Come on people.

  139. Joe says:

    What a shame! Just from how this notice is written and from Dr. Dara O’Rourke’s publications as an associated professor, Dara O’Rourke, you are a lawyer or politician. You should stick to what you do, because you don’t know anything about science or engineering. and you know nothing about how a test should be done, and how to read the results.

  140. Danielle says:

    I very much doubt that all 60 something posts here are from toy companies or Zhu Zhu. That is just a ridiculous statement to make….add one more tick in the column for the conspiracy theorists. I can say with 100% certainty that I am just a lowly parent caught up in the unnecessary "scare" brought about by a company that doesn’t have the wits to do accurate testing before releasing their bogus findings. I also just had to say that I thought the comment about GoodGuide having "surprising" information, but then waiting 3 weeks before announcing it is just asinine. So….these toys are SO dangerous, but it’s OK to let kids play with them for a few more weeks so GoodGuide could hold the country in suspense until the big announcement? What a crock. At least the news anchors only make us wait through four 30 second commercials.

  141. Scientific Graduate says:

    I would bet that you tree-hugging, burlap sack wearing, earth-muffins are now running to your lawyers. Your company should be ashamed at the lack of scientific method used in your testing. You have lost all credibility in any of your future testing and for any testing that you have done to this point. Hang on to your hookahs; I foresee a big law suit in your future.

  142. PoisoningOurKids says:

    WOW all you knuckheads bashing a co that tests childrens toys, shame on all of you! So irate that you wasted good money, stood on line, and wasted your pathetic life and time to buy a hazardous toy. I feel sorry for your kids not you. Yea I cant believe I wasted my time reading most of these posts and looking for info on this topic. I guess you really don’t comprehend what was said in GoodGuides statement. "while we accurately reported the chemical levels in the toys that we measured using our testing method,
    we should not have compared our results to federal standards. We regret this error. "
    They stand by their findings, meaning there is High levels of antimony on the surface of the toy. They only regret comparing their methods to the feds testing. Get it now? No?
    Read what the test equipment tests for yourself
    "Toy Screening with Handheld XRF"
    http://www.niton.com/Toys-Consumer-Goods-Screening-with-Handheld-XRF/applications/toys.aspx?sflang=en
    Here is a small snipit from the above link,

    Niton XRF Analyzers – The Ideal Screening Tool

    Operating as either a handheld tool or integrated into an optional
    test stand with included PC-based software, Niton® XRF analyzers
    are the ideal tools for screening toys for toxic metals – all eight
    regulated elements in toys designed for children under the age of 12
    (lead, barium, antimony, selenium, cadmium, mercury, arsenic, hexavalent chromium).

    I don’t know about your 3 year old but mine will chew and have everything in her mouth.
    This is one toy that will not be in her mouth this Christmas because I will be throwing it in the trash yea I am pissed I have to too. But I would rather it that way then have a sick child down the road and try to get the government to prove it. And the air was safe to breath after 911 too ya no…..

    Thanks GoodGuide for NOT using the same testing methods as our government.
    Keep up the good testing of our childrens toys!

  143. Johanna says:

    Thank you GoodGuide for reminding caring consumers such as myself that these types of plastic toys contain harmful chemicals. Even if the levels are lower than required by our government’s watered-down standards, they still do contain harmful chemicals – chemicals that will transfer to the hands that touch them. Do we really want to bring these toys into our homes? Don’t be fooled, the fact that the levels are within what the government has deemed acceptable, does not make them safe.

  144. Sam Singer says:

    You ruined your reputation in by doing shoddy work and you almost ruined the reputation of a safe and fun toy for children…and you almost ruined the company that thought of, marketed and sold Zhu Zhu. What is equally damning is your weasel-like clarification here. If this is how you act, both in making the original mistake and then your alleged ‘clarification’ you don’t deserve anyone’s trust again. You need to hold yourself to a higher and more thoughtful standard if you ever want to regain anyone’ trust. The first thing you need to do is actually apologize for misleading the press and the public…

  145. Whataboutthechildren!! says:

    Trying to make a huge name for yourself by releasing faulty tests that invlove the seasons hottest toy and having your lunch handed to you all over the media. PRICELESS!

    Can’t wait to see the lawsuit…

  146. Hampster says:

    Bad business Goodguide.com What other reports have you published that were wrong?

  147. Joni F says:

    I feel so sorry for the kids of these parents that follows this groups guidelines on whether or not a toy is safe.

    Those poor children must be locked up behind closed doors, afraid to step outside and breath fresh air. Afraid of germs.

    The toys from 10, 20, 30 years ago were so much more harmful than the toys of these days. Im still breathing. What about yourselves?

    This group chose to make up the lies they made up, then have paid links on their own website directing people where to buy them. Just sick as far as Im concerned. This group made an ass out of themselves, while thinking they could bring more of a profit to themselves by having the paid links on their website.

    These people call themselves scientists, and doctors, and flaunting their degrees, while acting more stupid than someone that hasnt even graduated high school.

    Again, I feel so sorry for any child with a parent that would believe this groups lies for even a split second. I just hope your child grows up to rush out the door the minute they turn 18 to get away from you fear mongers. You are all sick in the head and need professional help.

    Kind of reminds me of the lady in town that keeps sanitary towels in her purse. She has to wipe down anything and everything before she or her kids touch it. SICK IN THE HEAD I say.

  148. Dave says:

    It is not substandard technology. It is actually quite valuable to measure something without having to destroy it in acid. The issue is that the person using it should know what they are using it for and if it can be used to comply with those regulations. Anyone who knows the technology knows that it does total elemental analysis, period. It has been used for 20 years for remediating Pb paint from homes to prevent child Pb poisoning.

  149. Norma Brow says:

    You have taken the joy right out of the zhu zhu pets present I have waiting for my five yr old Granddaughter for Christmas. I labored for weeks till I found two at Walmart.

    Even though you have rescinded your claim, the damage is done, my concerned daughter is fearful her child will be harmed.

    I am very annoyed with your organization. Be more careful with you national announcements.

  150. BP says:

    WOW! What a bunch of MAD Zhu Zhu BRATTS… GoodGuys, I feel sorry for you!

    Has anyone thought that perhaps the government standards are looser so not to prevent trade form China..?

    Has anyone thought WTF is "soluble" amount and how is it measured? "Total" is total – period! In any case, if I’m concerned about safety, I’d use "higher" standards…

  151. ron says:

    I used xrf technology to test good guide. They tested 93 to 106 ppm WRONG. Which is equal to 100% STUPID.

  152. Marcus says:

    Social responsibility goes both ways. What you did was the quivalent of yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded room. You needlessly alarmed many parents who rely on the internet for facutal information. Your reputation like your information is trashed. Shut your site down before you cause more damage.

    On top of this you have brought into question the repution of other scientists. I sincerely hope you are not filling your students’ heads with this type of thinking.

  153. Caromia Jardine says:

    It would be great to investigate exactly where these comments are coming from.
    Makes me think the manufacturers who are scared as hell about the potential of a company that will promote radical transparency in the marketplace might just be
    posting these clearly anti-environmental comments.

  154. Ray says:

    The real concern for me is why there is ANY amount of this cancer-causing substance in this toy. What is with the toy making industry? Sure they are made in China but why would any company sell a toy to a 4 year-old knowing that it has been made using cancer-causing substances? Do you really think 60 ppm, 50 ppm, 40 ppm… of antimony in your child’s mouth is ok? Any amount over ZERO is unacceptable to me.

  155. bob says:

    Sloppy science. You’re an embarrassment to UC Berkeley. I really hope someone is being fired over this.

    And Ray, if you knew all the items you use every day that have carcinogens in them, you’d realize how stupid your comment is.

  156. Carry says:

    I just want to say, that we should to buy toys from well known producers, and I’m glad to know that there are people who check, examine, test and recheck all these products for children, they do a great work!

  157. Oberon says:

    I’d be interested to hear more about your testing methodology and its merits as compared to the Federal standard. A surface test for a poisonous metal on a toy which can easily be chewed by a child or a pet does not seem to me to be some horrible conspiracy to ruin a small toy maker. I’m concerned still, and I’d like to understand more about the subject.

    I’m also not sure I understand the vehemence directed at GoodGuide. The Federal government does not have a clean record for testing standards, why is GoodGuide being held to such a higher standard? Especially by people who are in all probability just as ignorant of the science behind _both_ methods as I am? And when there is no clear evidence that GoodGuide is wrong about the alert, other than misrepresenting the Zhu zhu as being in violation of the government standards, why jump down their throats?

    GoodGuide, you required my email address to let me post this comment. If you have further information which might help me better understand the subject, please email me.

  158. milo says:

    Well hopefully they have learn’t from that experience and won’t have the same trouble when they launch the kung zhu pets later this year. I have to say as a parent I was slightly worried when I first heard the news about the safety issue but felt that it was delt with very quickly and I still ended up buying my little girl a zhu zhu hamster for her birthday.

Comments are closed.