Who ensures the Safety of Toys produced in the EU and elsewhere

1
Who ensures the Safety of Toys produced in the EU
and elsewhere?

• Wanda Geisendorf
• Swedish Consumer Agency

2
Many consumers believe

• ..that toys and childrens products are
  mandatory tested by a laboratory, and made safe
  before being put on the shelves. This is not
  always the case and not not asked for by
  exisiting legislation.

3
Who ensures the safety of toys produced in the EU
and elsewhere?

• Is it SANTA CLAUS? The Media? Or the legislation?
• What has improved in the last 25 years?
• The EU Directive for the Safety of Toys, the
  essential safety requirements, CEN standards,
  self-certification and the CE mark do they
  work?

4
This is a very common hard and heavy garden
swing that can injure children badly if they are
hit in the head by it.

• Requirements that aim to protect children against
  such injuries from moving swings have recently
  been deleted from the CEN toy standard for
  swings for domestic use. Manufacturers claim
  that there is no accident data to support the
  requirements.
• Many injuries are in fact recorded but the data
  is not detailed enough to determine if the swings
  involved were garden swings (which are classified
  as toys), or the very same kind of swings used in
  collective playgrounds (which fall under the
  General Product Safety Directive.)
• Toy manufacturers claim that no technical
  requirements are needed in the toy standard.
  Parents should supervise their children - for the
  same kind of swings used in collective
  playgrounds- for which standards exist under the
  GPSD - the requirements have not been deleted.

5
Why are so many CE marked toys still unsafe?

• Not enough market inspections and
  self-certification is abused
• The EU/CEN Standards do not cover all risks
  presented by toys

6
1. Not enough market inspections and
self-certification is abused

• 500.000 different toy articles are shown in the
  Nuremberg toy fair. It is hard to effectively
  control such a large assortment.
• The chance to get caught when cheating with the
  CE mark is very small. Market inspections are not
  sufficient in all EU countries and inspections
  differ between the MS.
• Responsible companies like IKEA have strict
  internal control of product lines. Others just
  order without checking what they receive. They
  order CE marked, or just ask for one prototype
  to be tested.
• Illegal stocks of cheap discarded CE marked
  toys that no longer fulfil the safety
  requirements are dumped in cellar shops and at
  amusement fairs. Many dangerous cheap junk toys
  are sold before Christmas by less responsible
  vendors who disappear after Christmas
•  
•  

7
2. The EU/CEN standards do not cover all the
risks presented by toys

• New risks are not covered
• Commercial interests are in the majority in
  standardisation Anybody who can pay the
   entrance fee  is invited to take part in CEN.
   No pay no play  is the rule. Standardisation
  is not a  democratic  process there is no
  parliamentary influence although reference is
  given to standards in the legislation.

8
2. The EU/CEN standards do not cover all risks
presented by toys

• Accident data is misused. The precautionary
  principle is not used.
• Manufacturers are reluctant to change their
  production in order to prevent future injuries.
  They ask for accident histories of fatalities or
  serious accidents before being prepared to draw
  up new standards even when it is obvious that
  injuries will occur in the future because toys
  present potential hazards that need to be
  addressed.

9
Strong magnets that can be swallowed by children
can cause..

• One fatality caused
• In thirty other cases, the magnets had to be
  removed by surgery
• Many of the vitims were over three years of age.
• One boy in Denmark who swallowed a toy component
  with magnets and another metal object had an
  operation but still carries a stoma.

10
Suprise chocolate eggs

• Have been banned in US since 1936 because of the
  choking hazard.
• The photo show an EU suprise chocolate egg with a
  toy inside (choking hazard) and no visible age
  warning.

11
Darts with suction caps that come loose

• Have caused choking fatalities among children
  over three years.
• Although children over three are stronger,
  standards requirements are less stringent for
  them than for children under three

12
What needs to be done?

• The legislation must give better protection for
  children the chemical requirements of the
  present TSD and the proposal for a revised TSD
  are not sufficient.
• The essential safety requirements should be
  detailed and precise in order to give clear
  guidance both for standardisation and for the
  laboratories that perform EC-type certification.
  Threshold limits should be given in the directive
  or in mandates to the CEN.

13
What needs to be done?

• Put an end to the commercial dominance in
  standardisation
• When standards fail to give good results there
  should be alternative ways of making technical
  requirements than standardisation. If
  standardisation is used the test methods might be
  elaborated by the CEN but the legislator should
  set the safety- requirements. Balance between
  consumers and commercial interests should be
  established by law.

14
What needs to be done?

• Insert the precautionary principle
• Improve the requirements for the presentation of
  warnings. Today warnings are often used instead
  of changing the design of the toy. But the
  warnings are often very small and difficult to
  read.
• Consider alternatives to self-certification for
  certain sensitive groups of toys. (For example
  toys intended for very young children- the most
  vulnerable age group- could be tested mandatory
  tested by a third party before being placed on
  the market.)

15
What needs to be done?

• Influence governments to prioritize market-
  control. Not much money is allocated to the
  market control of toys and childrens articles-
  is it because it is only the question of
  children?
• Toys in food need to be better regulated- if not
  banned.

16
A dangerous container

• The protective container to a toy embedded I
  food. The container has a dangerous shape.
  Spherical shapes f ex in small toy balls have
  caused fatalities and are therefore not allowed
  for in toys for children under three years.
  Embedded as containers to toys in sweets they are
  not encompassed by the EU- legislation

17
Some examples of shortcomings in the Toy Safety
Standards

• Chemical hazard
• Strangulation hazard
• Impaction hazard
• Risk of burns

18
Chemical hazard

• The standard EN 71-9 Organical Chemical
  Compounds presupposes that a child less than
  three years cannot lift an object that weighs
  more than 150 grams to its mouth. Therefore the
  surface of toys that weigh more than 150 gram
  intended for children less than three years are
  allowed to contain harmful chemicals which might
  be released when children suck or lick the toy
• As a comparison the picture shows (non toy)
  feeding baby- bottles. They are intended to be
  lifted by the baby itself. The bottle to the
  right is intended for a child 12 months and over
  and holds 250 grams of liquid. The bottle to the
  left is intended for a child 6 months and over
  and can hold 150 gram of liquid.
• (EN 71-9 has yet not been referenced by the
  EU-Commission.)

19
Strangulation hazard

• Cords on toys intended for children under three
  years are not allowed to be more than 220mm long
  after two (non fatal but serious) strangulation
  incidents in Sweden. The cord involved was 260 mm
  long. According to anthropometrical child data
  the neck circumference of a child 36-48 months is
  241 mm (mean). The standards requirement applies
  if there are attachments in the ends that could
  tangle to loops or nooses.

20
Strangulation hazard

• An USA manufacturer has asked for all
  electronically cords to be exempted. The reason
  is that the electronically cord used for his
  particular brand of drawing board is not recorded
  in the accident data. Furthermore manufacturers
  claim that the max. 220mm should be changed to
  max. 300mm.The incidents in Sweden and the
  antropomethrical child data are disregarded. They
  refer to that there is no accident data in the
  USA involving cords to toys less than 300 mm. 

21
Impaction hazard

• Electrical Ride on toys for children under three
  years are according to EN 71-1 allowed to have a
  maximum design speed of 8km/hour. The normal
  walking speed of an adult is 6 km/ hour. The
  running speed of an adult is 8 km/hour. It is not
  possible to effectively supervise a child that
  uses a battery-powered toy at the speed of 8/km
  hour- in particular if the carer is also
  supervising siblings or other children.

22
Impaction hazard

• Reputable child psychologists and paediatricians
  hold the view that children under three years
  should not use electrically powered ride on toys
  that can be propelled faster than the normal
  walking speed of the child itself. Children of
  that young age are not able to negotiate knobs
  and levers and do not understand the behaviour of
  machines. Violence directed at children heads by
  collisions must be kept as low as possible. There
  are non-traffic fatalities reported in connection
  to young childrens use of electrically powered
  ride on toys. Some of the fatalities occurred
  inside the home. But as the accident data is not
  detailed enough to report about the speed of the
  toys the manufacturers claim that there is no
  evidence that 8/km hour is more dangerous than
  lower speeds.

23
Risk of burns

• The flammability standard EN 71-2 requires that
  toy disguise costumes shall not have a flame
  spread of more than 30/mm per second. This
  hula-hula skirt is exempted from the requirements
  and allowed to burn. Because of the material with
  stripes it is impossible to fit the skirt in the
  U-frame that is used for testing the flammability
  of toy disguise costumes. Manufacturers claim
  that there is no accident data for hula-hula
  skirts - therefore requirements are not needed.
•  

24
Risk of burns

• Toy facemasks that cover the head are required to
  be flameproof.
• They should either not ignite or -if they ignite
  - must self extinguish. The Spider man mask and
  other fabric masks are exempted from these
  requirements. They are allowed to burn 10mm/sec.
  The reason is that a manufacturer had problems
  that his Spiderman mask, which was already on the
  shelves, would not fulfil the future requirements
  in order to be flameproof.
• Burn injuries to the face might lead to
  disfigurement a serious handicap for the child,
  which might sometimes result in suicide.