RALEIGH - In recent weeks we have witnessed the recall of thousands of toys that contain unacceptably high levels of lead. Though belated, toy manufacturers and distributors have not only actively participated in the recalls but have also offered public apologies, with promises to raise standards and be more attentive to product oversight.

Though their motives are perhaps not purely altruistic, the industry has begun to act in the public interest. I am afraid that this is not the case with the treated-wood industry, and that leads me to this cautionary tale.

Wood treated with chemicals to protect it from termites and other pests has been a boon to the building industry, particularly in the South. Traditionally the "chemical cocktail" included arsenic. In the late 1990s the Environmental Protection Agency and the Consumer Products Safety Commission began receiving reports that arsenic was leaching from the wood. Confirmatory studies were completed, and the industry agreed to remove arsenic from the mixture for wood used for residential purposes by the end of 2004.

The EPA issued the following statement: "The intent of the phase out is to reduce the potential exposure risk to arsenic, a known human carcinogen, thereby protecting human health, especially children's health, and the environment."

So far, so good.

Questions then arose about what to do about the arsenic-treated wood that was already in place in the form of decks, ramps, etc. Playground equipment was of particular concern, since smaller children would be more susceptible to, and more affected by, arsenic exposure. Though it was not deemed to be an urgent public health problem, the EPA issued a statement that "The Agency believes that any reduction in the levels of potential exposure to arsenic is desirable."

The EPA then completed a study on the efficacy of sealants in preventing the leaching of arsenic. It found that many low-cost sealants were able to reduce arsenic exposure by 70 percent to 95 percent, and it soon began making public recommendations that sealants be used.

Even though the treated-wood industry had already stopped using arsenic in its residential building materials, it has fought these recommendations. I'm still not sure why. Nevertheless, five states and Canada quickly passed legislation requiring sealants on public playground equipment.

In North Carolina, a more limited approach was undertaken. In 2005-2006, the General Assembly considered the Schoolchildren's Health Act, which (among other things) requires public schools to use sealants on arsenic-treated wood in their playground equipment. The treated-wood industry employed two high-powered lobbying firms to delete that provision from the bill.

However, the case for protecting children was just too strong, and the bill passed unanimously in both the House and Senate -- a rare occurrence.

Simultaneously, the Commission on Health Services was considering proposed rules that would put in place similar requirements for child-care centers. Despite the trouncing it took in the General Assembly, the treated wood industry retained the lobbying firms to fight the proposed rules.

Once again, the big bucks went for naught; the commission adopted the rules to be effective in the fall of 2006.

Unbelievably, the industry still didn't give up. It asked its lobbyists to use an infrequently used piece of the rule-making process. If 10 letters objecting to a commission-adopted rule are submitted, then the rule does not go into effect until the General Assembly has a session in which legislation could be adopted to rescind the rule. One of the lobbying firms quickly amassed and submitted 65 letters of objection, all from the industry. Sixty-four of the letters were exact duplicates, simply copied onto separate letterheads. Nine were signed by the same person.

Happily, in its recent session, the General Assembly didn't even consider rescinding the rule. (This was no surprise, even to the industry, since the legislature had recently voted unanimously in favor of the use of sealants.) However, the industry apparently achieved its objective: the rule was delayed for a year, and only now is going into effect.

I have written this cautionary tale as an alert that we must keep our eyes on the treated-wood industry. Apparently, the profit motive for the industry exceeds its interest in protecting young children from potential exposure to arsenic. While the chemical mixture now used in treated wood does not appear to have deleterious effects, we can't expect the industry to be the first to tell us if it does. Some industries have not learned how to be good corporate citizens.

(Tom Vitaglione is senior fellow of health and safety at Action for Children North Carolina.)