Worried about the honesty and effectiveness of the toy-screening conducted by major toy manufacturers and retailers? Zap 'em yourself with a Niton X-ray fluorescence analyzer, or XRF gun. That's what many consumer groups, including the Center for Environmental Health and HealthyToys.org, do in the continuing struggle to keep dangerous toys off retailer's shelves. The handheld guns go for $25,000 and emit mini x-rays which strike the toy; the "elements in that sample emit return rays with frequencies that indicate which elements are present and in what amounts."

Retailers and manufacturers are not pleased, contending that such guerilla testing is a poor manner of assessing a toy's safety. But the XRF gun is what the CPSC itself uses to test toys, which consumer groups point to as evidence that the technology is appropriate. (The CPSC goes on to send toys that read hot to a third-party laboratory for verification.) And anyway: this manner of testing actually uncovers toys which are toxic, much better than the CPSC's old strategy: go to stores, and look for the ones with bright colors (more likely to be tainted with lead). A comparison of the two strategies showed the XRF gun screening to have a far higher discovery rate, though of course many items that had high readings on the XRF gun were shown to be safe after further lab testing.

But who wants consumer advocacy groups out looking for bad toys? Certainly not the toy companies, who can only stand to be hurt by the increased scrutiny and "fear-mongering." In a column published earlier today I wrote about my concern over the fate of small toymakers given the impending effective date of the CPSIA. I can't exactly shed big tears, then, for the bigger manufacturers and importers who might be hurt by the discovery of toxins (even if the alarm bells ring a bit too loudly and too soon). The two manners of dealing with the toxic toy issue -- attacking it in the streets with ray guns, or clamping a shackle of expensive testing around each toy before it hits the market -- both seem wrong-headed, one too reactive, the other too proactive. Isn't there a better middle ground?