---

Published: December 27, 2021 – Monday
(actually in the wee hours of December 28 – by the time we hit the “Publish” button!)

Some background – OH THE DRAMA!

So I have been wanting to tell this little story for quite some time, but frankly most days I don’t have the emotional energy to deal with all the routine corporate unsubstantiated claims and denials; defensive spin and rationalizations; belligerent challenges and legal threats; word games and greenwashing idiocy; and other tediously counter-productive responses from companies upon learning of my independent consumer goods XRF test results — revealing that their latest hot-selling products (and likely their supply chains) are contaminated with varying amounts of toxic heavy metals. [The levels vary from ostensibly-“harmless” trace amounts to sometimes obscenely-high — and blatantly illegal — double-digit percentages, in many cases.]

I test thousands (tens of thousands?) of consumer goods every year for metallic toxicants (heavy metals: including Lead, Mercury, Cadmium, Arsenic and Antimony) and write up and post the results here on the Lead Safe Mama website [so that parents, teachers, grandparents, environmentalists, and anyone else who cares can research and discover (for free) how – specifically – all of those millions of tons of Lead, Mercury, Cadmium, Arsenic, Antimony, and other toxicant heavy metals that are mined, refined, and incorporated into consumer products are winding up in their homes, air, soil, water, and sometimes our bodies.]

This work consumes ALL of my time, and – in a good year – barely pays the bills [through consulting revenue, as well as various supplemental streams, like accepting annoying, random advertising on the site; Amazon affiliate links to Lead-and-other-neurotoxic metals-free “replacement” consumer products that people constantly ask me to recommend; and other miscellaneous strategies that I have reluctantly embraced as the pragmatic compromises necessary to maintain this website as an independent source of reliable, accurate, science-based data not subject to political, corporate, or any other censorship or bias – and free to the public].  

It is not worth my time and energy to publicly address each and every company that contacts me and tries to lobby me, pressure me, or intimidate me in an attempt to block, remove, or “tone-down” or otherwise censor any of my findings.

That said, given I am always warning families about my concern for this particular type of magnetic tile toys – of all brands (here’s an earlier post) – whenever I see them during one-on-one home-consultations with folks, I felt it was time to both go ahead and publish this post (with specific test results for this toy from the brand MagnaTiles®) and to report on the [relatively minor] “drama” from this company…

---

Section 1) Timeline

1.a.) March 25, 2019:  I published the XRF Test results for the Discovery Toys version of these toys.

Below is a screenshot from that post.
You can read the full post by clicking on the image below.
Please continue reading below the image.

---

---

Discovery Toys makes one of the many generic “knock-offs” of the wildly-popular MagnaTiles®-style toys. Similar to what has happened with products like Kleenex® (paper tissues that come in a cardboard box) and BandAid® (sterile packaged bandage strips for use at home), MagnaTiles® is the most prominent brand of these products and is therefore the brand name that has become the vernacular term when parents refer to all of these style toys. Therefore including a reference to MagnaTiles® as a brand within that post was appropriate – linguistically. Specifically explicitly calling the toys I reported on on March 25, 2019 “MagnaTile® knockoffs” was a reasonable word choice that was relevant and important to provide context for the post. Both because that word choice distinguished those toys tested as “not-MagnaTiles®” and the word-choice also clearly stated that the toy was a knockoff of MagnaTiles®. 

As with nearly all of the consumer goods I write about on this website, one of my readers sent me these “Discovery Toys MagnaTile® knockoffs” to test (following a barrage of requests from readers to test these types of toys).

---

1.b.) March 19, 2020 – 10:04 a.m.:  I received the following e-mail

Please continue reading below the image.

---

The language in the above e-mail clearly implies that MagnaTiles® (VALTECH) believes THEIR products are “free of toxicants” — in contrast to the knock-offs of this type of magnetic tile toy manufactured by OTHER companies — which they imply one might reasonably expect to be contaminated (or “potentially dangerous”.) Their primary concern is therefore that mentioning the MagnaTiles® product name (which – again – I had mentioned in order to give context for the others toys in my previous post by calling them MagnaTiles® knockoffs) might “confuse” consumers and unfairly cast undeserved “doubts” (given their presumed contrasting lack of toxicants in THEIR brand-name products!)

I think it’s kind of funny (ironic?) that the email highlights MagnaTiles®’ efforts to test for Lead when they clearly acknowledge that they understand that the Discovery product I tested was positive for Arsenic. They seem to have a bit of a disconnect around the testing and reporting I do and the metals found… Ironic of course given their product also tested positive for Arsenic (and additionally was positive for Mercury and Cadmium!) – but was (as they stated), Lead-free!

---

1.c.) March 19, 2020 – 11:41 a.m.: The same day I got the e-mail from MagnaTiles®, I responded

My response was to [invite/offer] them to send me samples of THEIR products – which I offered to test for free – and to publish the results to verify their claims – which, if true, would help to distinguish their products from the “knock-offs” and reassure their customers of their products’ claimed utter lack of trace contaminants.

Note: In my response (image below) I state that “normally” companies that want me to test and report on their products pay a fee — and that I would waive it in this case. To dispel any considerations from my readers in advance… companies who have paid a fee in exchange for full reporting about their products have numbered exactly TWO – and each of those companies was invited by me to send in their full range products for additional testing and reporting (with the fee covering my costs to do a “deep dive” into testing and reporting on their products.) Each of these companies were invited because I already recommended and loved their products. I don’t normally accept products from companies for testing unsolicited (as that usually doesn’t end well – for the company! lol!)

---

Here’s my full response e-mail
Please continue reading below the image
You can also click on the image to see it full size

---

1.d.) MagnaTiles® response to my offer was ________

All I got was <crickets> …

They never responded to the above e-mail — so I am guessing they decided to leave well-enough-alone… even though I offered to test their products for free!

---

1.e.) My response to getting no response from MagnaTiles® was (as it always is) to invite my readers to help with this inquiry.

Here’s what I posted on Facebook on March 19, 2020
Please continue reading below the image.

---

Section 2) Corporate Attempts to Influence This Work

Tamara, why share all of the “drama”?
Is this really “drama”?

• I report on all unsolicited communications I receive from manufacturers with whom I have no prior relationship for several reasons, not the least of which is to diffuse any influence or leverage companies think they might have over the publication of independent scientific testing and reporting.
• The other reason is because I really think companies should be called out for their b.s. — especially when it includes trying to influence or censor the reporting from environmental activists who are working to protect children in areas where Federal regulatory standards fall short.

---

Heroes and Zeroes 

Normally when a company challenges (or attempts to influence or censor) the work of Lead Safe Mama, LLC – I publish the challenges immediately, so as to help the company understand where they went wrong (understanding they generally glean through public outrage over their communications – which often results in a barrage of e-mail complaints and social media mentions of the company).

I’m actually working on creating a series of posts entitled, “Lead Safe Mama Heroes and Zeroes”.

• The “Zeroes” are the companies who want me to do testing and writing about their products without any kind of compensation (and without providing me with the products they want me to test), and/or who challenge the science and language here on the Lead Safe Mama website. (Letters from lawyers or corporate P.R. teams are often involved!)
• The “Heroes” are the companies who simply thank me for my public service (and for thorough independent scientific XRF analysis [which they should be doing] that they are getting for free!) and who, upon being informed about the detection of undesirable toxic contaminants in their products, further investigate the issue and make changes to their product(s) (to make it safer for all children), even when Federal regulatory standards do not require them to do so. Heroes often also make a contribution, in gratitude and support of this work in the end.

Sometimes a company will shift from ZERO status to HERO status, once they understand the focus of my work, and the science behind it. [MagnaTiles® is currently in the ZERO category, but we’ll give them a chance to come around. ;-)]

---

Recap: Why is MagnaTiles® a Lead Safe Mama “Zero”?

1. In the e-mail from MagnaTiles® (above), they specifically wanted me to remove a valid use of their product name in a post that I wrote (a post referencing testing I did for a product that is a popular knock-off their original MagnaTiles® brand product).
2. They also assert that their products test clean (which they do not)
3. They also (politely) demand (request?) that I do a follow-up post about their products (without sending me products to test), because they expect it will test clean.
4. Obviously, they did not familiarize themselves more with my work (which would have been prudent). Specifically they seem to have not read the full post about the Discovery brand similar toy  – beyond the mention of their name – in which I state:
   • “These little metal components that could best be described as “small hollow rivets” (or “tiny tubular grommets”, possibly?) are – on any toy like this, of every single brand I have tested – nearly always positive for a low level of Arsenic (As), and/or Mercury (Hg). [This is also true in children’s sneakers, toys, belts, back packs, and other clothing items that might have these connection points – but most prevalently found in sneakers for babies and toddlers, in my experience.] I have found this to be the case dozens, upon dozens of times. It has reached the point where I can pretty much spot this type of these little metal connectors, and – even without an XRF Instrument in hand – accurately predict whether it is going to be one of those that will test positive for Mercury and/or Arsenic! [I was confident this one pictured here would be positive for one or both of those even before I tested it.]”
5. They also never responded to my e-mail (an e-mail which I took the time to write / wrote professionally and clearly and in which I offered to help them for free.)

Frankly – they probably should have “let a sleeping dog lie” (not poke a sleeping mama bear)… 

---

Section 3) What Took You So Long?

“Why did you wait until now to write about this, Tamara?”

• Right around the time of this exchange with MagnaTiles® the pandemic went into full swing.
• Even though my readers sent me three separate boxes of new-in-box MagnaTiles® products at that time (Thank you, friends!) I hadn’t – until now – managed to get around to doing a full set of the testing – which can take a considerable amount of time to do thoroughly (especially when trying to be precise and accurate in reporting low level / trace contamination of heavy metals in a metal substrate.)
• I also anticipated that writing this post would take quite a bit of time (several days in the end, with all the rounds of testing, writing and editing) in order to make it bullet proof (so the company could not attack me with assertions of misrepresentations or “fake news”).
• The mere THOUGHT of managing the time-suck of dealing with yet another company possibly coming after me/my work [because I knew I would almost certainly be reporting negative findings that MagnaTiles® OBVIOUSLY, from their correspondence, were not aware of (and apparently could somehow not imagine)] on top of all the other new (pandemic-related) balls I was juggling – with my house-full of disabled kids, no school & others challenges (trying to figure out how to safely get a kid off to college – 3,000 miles away – during a pandemic), was already was frankly exhausting…

…That’s why I waited.

I knew that whenever I did get around to writing-up this post, not only would I have to report the predictably unwelcome test results [no big deal for me, but…], I would also have to be sure to painstakingly articulate and include all of this other language to fully explain the concern (again – as I do in this post, too) because if I did not handle it in that way, I expected the company might opt to send their dogs after me (as so many other corporations have, upon hearing unexpected/unwelcome truths about whatever was actually in their “completely nontoxic“/safe/tested/federal-standard-meeting products. I could be wrong about that, perhaps I just have massive PTSD over the attacks on my work over the past 6 years — but it seemed like one reasonably possible scenario.

So today  – December 27/28 2021 (about 21 months after getting three samples of this product in hand and after having this exchange/e-mail “conversation” with the company!), I finally managed to carve out the time – by staying up until 3:00 a.m. three days in a row – to do this testing and write this post. And now we have these test results available for all to see (which I bet, in the end, the company is going to regret having asked for, given their toy tested positive not only for Arsenic (at levels in some cases more than twice as high as on the previously reported off-brand toy) but also – not unexpectedly – for Cadmium and Mercury, as well).

---

Section 4) XRF Test Results for MagnaTiles®

Please continue reading for the full XRF test results for the MagnaTiles® brand products, as well as a discussion for specific concerns with this type of product (what does it mean that these tested positive for trace levels of Mercury, Arsenic and Cadmium? And, is that legal? Is it a problem?) and my proposed solutions for families whose children play with this type of product.

---

4. a.) Summary of findings
Full XRF test results can be found at the bottom of the post

The MagnaTiles® brand magnetic building toys pictured here (purchased new on Amazon – with examples tested from three different boxes of the product) tested positive for trace (low) levels of Arsenic, Mercury and Cadmium in the metal cylindrical corner components for each tile. The range of these metals for the four examples of the tiles pictured is as follows:

• Arsenic: 14 to 44 ppm
• Cadmium: 0 to 7 ppm
• Mercury: 62 to 133 ppm

---

4. b.) Important points for context:

• XRF Test results reported here by Lead Safe Mama, LLC are science-based, accurate and replicable.
• For all test results reported here on TamaraRubin.com / LeadSafeMama.com, components are tested multiple times to confirm the results and one full set of test results is reported for each component tested.
• We would not report these test results if they would not hold up in court – as there would be too much liability for the business.
• The instrumentation we use for testing is the same instrumentation used by the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) for screening for the presence of toxicants (heavy metals like Lead, Mercury, Cadmium, Antimony and Arsenic) in consumer goods intended for use by children.
• I can, with confidence, report that these findings are relatively consistent across ALL brands of this type of toy or other toys that use similar metal rivets or grommets.
• Said another way: while the range and levels of metals changes from item-to-item / brand-to-brand / product-to-product, these small metal connector pieces tend to test positive for one or more of the following metals at trace levels: Mercury, Arsenic, and Cadmium. This is the nature of metallic contaminants.
• These findings are also consistent with similar metal components found on many shoes – either the “air circulation” holes on the sides of shoes or the eyelets for laces.
• These levels are NOT considered illegal by any current United States or International standard for toxicants in toys (with the possible exception of the Mercury levels per Danish standards, see chart below).
• It is unlikely that these heavy-metal contaminated components cause harm at all when the toy is used as intended.
• The boxes for these toys state (in big bold letters on the front of the box): “WARNING: CHOKING HAZARD – Small parts. Not for children under 3 years.”
• My concern is for when these toys are NOT used “as intended” — and specifically, for when they are mouthed / chewed-on by young children (which I often witness when I visit homes with younger children). These are the perfect size and shape and material for a younger child to be interested in chewing on them, and they are often purchased for older children in a family that may also have infants and/or toddlers in the home.

---

4.c.) Is this “a lot” of Arsenic? [or Cadmium? or Mercury?]
Is this amount of Arsenic truly a concern?

The levels found in this case are considered to be a “very low” level of Arsenic [& Cadmium & Mercury] – a “trace” amount. Even though this is a relatively LOW level reading for each of these metals (and there is currently no XRF-detectable total content regulatory limit in place at all for any of these metals for toys in the United States, see chart below) the component tested does not even begin to fill the scope (testing window) of the XRF instrument — consequently, I believe laboratory testing [e.g. digestive testing of this component] would likely come up with a total level for each of these metals that would likely be between five to ten times the levels I got for each of the metals of concern – and possibly even much higher — so, in the 100 – 1000 ppm range or higher, depending on which metal we are looking at).

And while we will NOT take a moment here and now to do a deep dive into the details shown in the chart below… please do read it carefully… there are NO MANDATORY LIMITS for Cadmium, Arsenic, Mercury and Barium in toys in the United States!

Continue reading below image, or click the table image to read more about the study that created the table below.

---

4.d.) What should you do if you have these toys?

My recommendation (to consumers) for this type of toy (always, when I see them in people’s homes where there are young children) is two-fold:

1. In the absence of regulatory standards for total content levels for the metals found (Arsenic, Mercury and Cadmium) in these toys, I think it is really important to follow the instructions on the box, and not allow young children to use these toys.
   • Point #1 is reinforced by the concern that younger children will mouth these toys and it is unclear if the safety of these toys for younger children who might use them “not as intended” has ever been well-studied.
   • If you have this exact type of toy (with the exposed/ open circular connectors / rivets in the corners) keep them out of reach of younger children. Set them up high or in a locked cabinet and let them be the special toy that older children get to play with when the younger ones are taking a nap (or are similarly out of the way.)
2. Opt for the toys like this (by this brand and / or other brands) with the sealed corners – where no exposed metal piece is available for the child to interact with / suck on accidentally (when not used as intended). Picasso brand has a similar toy with no exposed metal in the corners (link).

This is an example of a similar toy (different brand) without the exposed metal in the corners:
please continue reading below the image

Amazon links are affiliate links. If you purchase something after clicking one of our links Lead Safe Mama, LLC may receive a small percentage of what you spend at no extra cost to you.

---

Here are some links to other posts here on LeadSafeMama.com that might be of interest to you:

• A post discussing the testing methodology used for test results reported here on LeadSafeMama.com
• Other magnetic toys we have tested.
• More “Made In China” posts
• Other “Magna-Tile” style toys we have tested
• More plastic toy posts
• More modern toys
• The “Vintage Toys” section on this website.

---

Thank you for being here.

Thank you for reading and sharing about this work — independent consumer goods testing directed and supported by the readers and social media followers of all accounts related to Lead Safe Mama, LLC (Instagram, Twitter, Facebook – and direct readership here on the website!)

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them in the comments on this post. I will do my best to answer them as soon as I have a moment [however, it may take a while, given I often have my hands full with children (since the start of the pandemic especially), so please be patient.]

Tamara Rubin
#LeadSafeMama
Owner – Lead Safe Mama, LLC
Portland, Oregon – USA

---

For those new to this website:

Tamara Rubin is a Federal-award-winning independent advocate for consumer goods safety and a documentary filmmaker. She is also a mother of Lead-poisoned children. Tamara’s sons were acutely Lead-poisoned in August of 2005. She began testing consumer goods for toxicants in 2009 and was the parent-advocate responsible for finding Lead in the popular fidget spinner toys in 2017. Tamara uses XRF testing (a scientific method used by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission) to test consumer goods for toxicants (specifically heavy metals), including Lead, Cadmium, Mercury, Antimony and Arsenic. All test results reported on this website are science-based, accurate and replicable. Items are tested multiple times to confirm the test results for each component tested. Please click through to this link to learn more about the testing methodology used for the test results discussed and reported on this website.

---

Full XRF test results for four samples of the toys tested can be found below.

Continue reading below the images.

---

Reading #1) Pink Sparkly Square Magnatile
exposed metal connector (hollow circular / cylindrical headless rivet)
120-second reading

• Lead (Pb): non-detect
• Cadmium (Cd): non-detect
• Mercury (Hg): 120 +/- 4 ppm
• Bromine (Br): non-detect
• Chromium (Cr): non-detect
• Iron (Fe): 55 +/- 4 ppm
• Nickel (Ni): 643 +/- 6 ppm
• Copper (Cu): 11,900 +/- 50 ppm
• Zinc (Zn): 6,474 +/-  24 ppm
• Arsenic (As): 26 +/- 1 ppm
• Barium (Ba): 165 +/- 3 ppm
• Bismuth (Bi): 147 +/- 19 ppm
• Bismuth (Bi): 11 +/- 1 ppm
• No other metals detected in consumer goods mode.

Continue reading below the images.

---

Reading #2) Green Sparkly Square Magnatile
exposed metal connector (hollow circular / cylindrical headless rivet)
60-second reading

• Lead (Pb): non-detect
• Cadmium (Cd): non-detect
• Mercury (Hg): 62 +/- 4 ppm
• Bromine (Br): non-detect
• Chromium (Cr): non-detect
• Iron (Fe): 11 +/- 5 ppm
• Nickel (Ni): 500 +/- 7 ppm
• Copper (Cu): 7,818 +/- 37 ppm
• Zinc (Zn): 4,117 +/-  23 ppm
• Arsenic (As): 14 +/- 1 ppm
• Barium (Ba): 168 +/- 29 ppm
• Bismuth (Bi): 5 +/- 1 ppm
• No other metals detected in consumer goods mode.

Continue reading below the images.

---

Reading #3) Small Glow-In-The-Dark Triangle Magnatile
exposed metal connector (hollow circular / cylindrical headless rivet)
60-second reading

• Lead (Pb): non-detect
• Cadmium (Cd): 7 +/- 3 ppm
• Mercury (Hg): 97 +/- 7 ppm
• Bromine (Br): non-detect
• Chromium (Cr): 21 +/- 11 ppm
• Iron (Fe): 3.494 +/- 29 ppm
• Nickel (Ni): 659 +/- 10 ppm
• Copper (Cu): 11,700 +/- 100 ppm
• Zinc (Zn): 9,550 +/-  50 ppm
• Arsenic (As): 44 +/- 2 ppm
• Selenium (Se): 168 +/- 6 ppm
• Barium (Ba): 82 +/- 27 ppm
• No other metals detected in consumer goods mode.

Continue reading below the images.

---

Reading #4) Large Glow-In-The-Dark Triangle Magnatile
exposed metal connector (hollow circular / cylindrical headless rivet)
60-second reading

• Lead (Pb): non-detect
• Cadmium (Cd): 6 +/- 3 ppm
• Mercury (Hg): 133 +/- 7 ppm
• Bromine (Br): non-detect
• Chromium (Cr): 27 +/- 12 ppm
• Iron (Fe): 671 +/- 14 ppm
• Nickel (Ni): 1,520 +/- 14 ppm
• Copper (Cu): 14,200 +/- 100 ppm
• Zinc (Zn): 7,193 +/-  42 ppm
• Arsenic (As): 43 +/- 2 ppm
• Selenium (Se): 178 +/- 5 ppm
• No other metals detected in consumer goods mode.

 ~ End ~