On the basis of evidence from public health experts that lead emissions from any source pose an unacceptable public health risk, the then Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, the Hon Joe Hockey MP, published an unsafe goods notice under section 65(C)5 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (TPA) banning the supply of candles with wicks containing lead. The notice appeared in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette on 2 September 1999.
Temporary bans under the Trade Practices Act remain in force for a period of 18 months. Consequently the initial ban on candles with lead wicks expired on 2 March 2001. At that stage, if the Minister considered it necessary, it would have been possible to proclaim a permanent ban. However, on 14 February 2001, after considerable research and testing, the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) notified its intention to ban candle wicks with greater than 0.06% lead content by weight. 0.06% lead is the upper limit found in some zinc candle wicks, which CPSC testing found did not result in harmful lead emissions.
The intention of the TPA temporary ban was to exclude from the marketplace candles that emit dangerous levels of lead. However, the original temporary ban did not specify a threshold for lead content and captured candles with only minute trace levels of lead, such as candle-wicks containing zinc. Accordingly, on 19 March 2001 the Minister published a new temporary ban on candles with wicks that contain greater than 0.06% lead by weight and candle wicks sold separately that contain greater than 0.06% lead by weight.
This new temporary ban will lapse in September 2002. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) enforcement action has demonstrated that candles with lead wick cores have largely disappeared from the Australian marketplace as a result of the three years temporary ban.
Candles with lead core wicks previously sold in Australia were mostly imported from China, where lead is used as a cheaper alternative. Rough estimates supplied from industry sources reveals the following statistics about candle sales in Australia:
Both Taiwanese and Chinese candles have been confirmed as having lead wick cores.
The number of kilograms of candles imported from China in 1998/99 was 6.744 million and from Taiwan was 0.077 million out of a total of 8.218 million kgs (ref Australian Bureau of Statistics) i.e. 82% by weight of imports of candles into Australia came from China and 83% came from China and Taiwan combined.
Retailers estimate that approximately 75% of the candles sold in Australia come from China.
The Lead Advisory Service (NSW) estimated in 1999 that the range of possible lead wick core candles imported into Australia in financial year 1998/99 was between 615,600 to 6,412,500 candles.
Recently published research by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) shows that candle sales have been growing rapidly in the last ten years (10% to 15% per year), fueled by consumer interest in aromatherapy and increased demand for home fragrance products in general. There is a wide range of estimates of candle sales in the US. The Census Bureau reported a total value of shipments in 1997 of US$986 million. Industry estimates put 1999 sales at US$1.3 billion just for scented candles, and up to US$2.3 billion for all candles.
A permanent ban on candles with lead core wicks is considered necessary, particularly in the light of the US ban, to prevent the Australian market again being flooded with imported candles with lead core wicks. Previous experience with other products demonstrates that once a ban lapses, the products rapidly re-emerge on the market.
The problem was identified in Australia by Mr Mike Van Alphen from Lead Sense (a lead testing/consulting firm) who tested a number of candles with wicks that contained a central wire composed of lead. The report Analysis of Candles with Metal Wick Cores concluded that the candles were capable of transferring some 500 to 1000 micrograms of lead per hour into the air, and that daily candle burning of several hours duration in an enclosed space (such as a living room) could result in elevated blood lead levels and severe lead poisoning, which would be a particular concern for children and pregnant women.
To verify Mr Van Alphen's conclusions, Treasury arranged for WA Health, SA Health and CSIRO, Sydney to undertake a peer review of his testing methodology, analysis and test results. The review supported the general findings of Mr Van Alphen's study and concluded that lead emissions from any source pose an unacceptable public health risk and can result in increased blood lead levels in unborn babies, babies and young children.
According to the Lead Reference Advisory Service (NSW), even minute quantities of lead are capable of causing IQ loss and learning and behaviour problems. The US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has ruled that "Because lead accumulates in the body, even exposures to small amounts of lead can contribute to the overall level of lead in the blood and to the subsequent risk of adverse health effects."
Why is government action needed to correct the problem?
Over the last three years the Australian market has been subject to temporary bans prohibiting the supply of candle-wicks containing lead. This has proven to be an effective control, with various products being voluntarily withdrawn from the market. When the current temporary ban expires in September 2002 this control will be removed. If there are no longer any controls on the Australian market it is expected that these hazardous products would return, particularly in the light of the proposed US ban. There is also growing concern about the issue in the European Union, which could lead to a European ban.
The lead wick candles pose an imminent risk of death, serious injury and serious illness. Australia was the first country in the world to take action on lead candle-wicks and attracted favourable international publicity for such action. The CPSC has since followed Australia's lead and again drawn world-wide attention to the issue.
Until the introduction of the initial temporary ban lead wick candles were widespread on the Australian market, imported from China and Taiwan by numerous small and large importers and sold in a variety of retail outlets.
US research indicates that lead wick candles are widely available in both the US and Europe, and are attractive to consumers because their cheaper production costs are generally reflected in the price. Although the US candle manufacturing industry voluntarily agreed to discontinue the use of lead in wicks in 1974, imported candles still contain lead. Accordingly on 14 February 2001 the US announced its intention to follow Australia's lead and ban candles with lead core wicks.
The Government's consumer protection policy includes the objective of ensuring that consumer products are safe. The Trade Practices Act includes provisions to support this objective through the establishment of mandatory consumer product safety standards, product bans, recalls of unsafe products and the issuing of product safety notices.
In the case of candles with lead wick cores, the Government's aim is to protect consumers from lead poisoning.
Is there a regulation/policy currently in place? Who administers it?
The current temporary ban under the Trade Practices Act was proclaimed on 14 March 2001 and specifies candles with wicks that contain greater than 0.06% lead by weight and candle wicks containing greater than 0.06% by weight. The ban is enforced by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) who advise that they have encountered no enforcement problems.
A permanent ban is supported by all State and Territory Ministers for Consumer Affairs/Fair Trading who have introduced mirror bans under their regulations.
Consumer choice or consumer education are not options in this case, because consumers would not be able to identify the presence of lead in the candle wick or the quantity of lead emissions into the air.
Self regulation
Industry self regulation is voluntary action by industry to control the supply of particular products for the benefit of consumers. Self regulation would not be an appropriate option in this case, because the manufacturers are Asian, and would not be likely to voluntarily agree to cease using lead, which is much cheaper than any of the alternatives. Effective self regulation is normally achieved by working through industry associations. It would theoretically be possible to obtain an undertaking from the Australian Retailers Association not to supply candle wicks containing lead. However as candles are sold by a vast number of small suppliers and a range of different types of retail outlets (eg garden centres) that are not members of industry associations, it would be very difficult to achieve complete market coverage.
Government regulation
The Government has the power to regulate the supply of consumer products under the product safety provisions of the Trade Practices Act.
On the basis that candles come in a variety of shapes and sizes, the best way to address the safety hazard of candles with lead core wicks is to ban their supply. Candle wicks that may be sold separately for use in home-made candles also need to be banned.
A ban also has the added advantage of the Government being seen to act without delay to protect the health of Australian consumers. Lead poisoning, as well as being a major public health and safety problem is also an emotive issue and has attracted considerable international attention.
A permanent ban is supported by all State and Territory Ministers for Consumer Affairs/Fair Trading, who have introduced mirror bans under their regulations.
Who is affected by the problem and who is likely to be affected by its proposed solution?
A ban on candles with lead wick cores would affect Australian consumers, businesses involved in the supply of candles (importers, distributors and retailers) and government (including consumer product regulators and health care workers).
The impact of the options is assessed as follows.
Self regulation
Costs
Consumers
Because a self regulatory regime is likely to be followed by only the major suppliers, the health of consumers would be endangered by candle-wicks containing lead. Where compliance with recommended lead controls is adopted, the cost of industry testing could be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices.
Industry
Industry would need to meet the cost of testing imported candle-wicks for lead. The overseas manufacturers are unlikely to agree to test candles and provide importers with test results, so this cost would mainly be borne by importers.
Government
Health services would be subject to an increased demand for treatment of the effects of lead poisoning.
The Government would be subject to criticism for not taking action to safeguard the health of Australian consumers.
The candles are imported from China and other Asian countries, therefore it would not be feasible to negotiate with the manufacturer to cease using lead.
Negotiation with Australian suppliers is also not a feasible option, because many suppliers are understood to be independent retailers and not members of industry groups.
Benefits
Consumers
The lead wick candles are cheaper to produce, and the availability of these could result in cheaper prices for consumers.
Industry
Industry would have a greater choice of products to import. This could result in cheaper prices and a corresponding increase in sales.
Government
The Government would save approximately $20,000 per annum in enforcement costs.
Government regulation
Costs
Consumers
Lead is used by Asian manufacturers because it is marginally cheaper than other, safer alternatives such as zinc. Theoretically candles without lead wick cores should be slightly more expensive. However, over the three years of the temporary ban it was not possible to detect any major impact on the retail prices of candles.
Industry
Theoretically industry should have to pay slightly more for candles without lead wick cores. However, over the three years of the temporary ban there was no discernible increase in prices. As candles without lead wick cores are readily available, the market does not seem to have been affected greatly.
The Trade Practices Act gives suppliers the opportunity to request a conference before the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) if they feel that a ban on a product would greatly disadvantage them. No supplier has requested a conference, which would seem to indicate that the effect on industry has been marginal.
Government
Based on ACCC estimates, the cost of ban enforcement using visual compliance checks in the market and laboratory testing where necessary would be approximately $20,000 per annum.
Benefits
Consumers
Consumers would be protected from exposure to lead poisoning and the accompanying health risks.
Industry
Industry would be supplying a safe product and sales could be favourably affected by the fact that consumers know that the product they are buying is safe.
Government
There should be cost savings for health care services for the treatment of injuries and disabilities associated with lead poisoning. It is not possible to estimate the actual savings in health care costs because there are no available statistics on exposure to lead from candles.
The well-being of the community in general and especially those most vulnerable, such as babies and young children, is a keystone of government policy, and the introduction of a permanent ban will reassure the community that product safety is being addressed.
Before the introduction of the two temporary bans consultations were held with State and Territory consumer affairs/fair trading authorities and Ministers, the Lead Reference Advisory Service of NSW and State and Territory Health authorities.
All parties gave a high level of support to the proposal to ban lead core candle wicks.
A permanent ban under the Trade Practices Act on candles with lead core wicks is the most efficient means of preventing candles with lead core wicks from re-entering the Australian market.
This strategy has been in operation for three years through the proclamation of temporary bans and there is no evidence that it has impacted adversely on industry.
Bans under the Trade Practices Act give the Minister responsible for consumer affairs the power to act decisively and quickly to address a serious safety problem with goods that create an imminent risk of death, serious injury or serious illness.
The Australian ban on lead wicks was widely commended by public interest groups in the US and led to calls for the CPSC to undertake similar action (which they are now doing).
Recent press reports indicate that concerns about candles with lead wicks are starting to emerge in the European Union, where they are widely available, and it is likely that the issue will attract more international publicity. It is extremely important that the Australian Government retains its reputation as the world leader on the issue.
A notice published under section 65C(7) of the Trade Practices Act will implement the ban. Affected suppliers will be advised that they can seek (if they wish) a conference before the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). Once in place, the permanent ban will be reviewed in September 2007.
The ban would be published in the Australian Government Gazette to read as follows:
Commonwealth of Australia
TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974
Consumer Protection Notice No. of 2002
Notice of permanent ban
I. IAN CAMPBELL, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, pursuant to sub-section 65C(7)of the Trade Practices Act 1974 hereby impose a permanent ban on goods of a kind specified below.
Particulars of goods:
Candles with wicks wherein the wicks contain greater than 0.06% lead by weight; and
Candle wicks containing greater than 0.06% by weight.
Dated this day of 2002
IAN CAMPBELL Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer
