Toy Safety
Apologies for not writing blog entries in the Queen's language for some time. No excuses, not even the fact that things have been a bit on the hectic side with the goods package (which was approved in the plenary last week), my lobby report (which we debated in committee this week) and the Commission' discharge (which is always hot stuff).
Today Commissioner Verheugen presented the toy safety directive in the internal market committee. I think it's going to be a rather difficult dossier. Everyone has an opinion on children, toys and safety.
Commissioner Verheugen presenting the Toys Directive.
Here is my opinion, for what it's worth:
Firstly, I think it is good that the Commission came out with the proposal. As a matter of fact it was long overdue. The last directive on toy safety dates back to 1988! We are talking Ficher Price generation here...
The proposal is good for three reasons:
1) it lays down higher safety requirements than the 1988 Directive.
2 it clarifies and strenghtens manufacturer's and importer's responsibilities when marketing toys
3) it clarifies and enhances the market surveillance obligations of the Member States
Secondly, I am a bit worried about the tone of the debate that surrounds toysafety. It is such an easy target for populism, and we have seen some of it already, not least linked to the so called Mattel case last August.
Practically the whole Western community took China as an easy target and claimed that all bad products come from there. Graduallyfacts gave a different picture. If we compare the number of dangerous toys from China to the total amount of toys coming from China, Chinese toys might be even safer than toys from other countries on average.
Mattel had to publish eventually a letter of appology once it found out that the whole scandal was due to its own failure in the design process of the toys. Various opinions and analysisstill reign, but I think the lesson to learn is not to make hasty conclusions based on prejudice. When we talk about toys, the focus should be on toys and their safety and not just on one country.
Finally, the fact that I like the Commission proposal does not mean that I think that it is perfect. The 10 chapters and 54 articles leave me with a number of questions.
To what extent normal market surveillance activities ought to be shifted to the producers and importers through strenghtening their legal obligations? Does the proposed directive leavepossibilities for craft-made toys or SME producers anymore? Is there enough clarity on how to organise market surveillance in practice? Besides the provision of this directive, market surveillance is regulated also one regulation, which was passed in plenary a week ago as part of the EU Goods Package and by the General Product Safety Directive.
All the same, the ball is now rolling. Marianne Thyssen, my Belgian colleague, was nominated raporteur today. I am sure she will do a great job.
What do you think about the directive on toy safety?
7 comments
Hey again,
In addition to my previous comment:
Of course the products do move freely inside the EU-market, but hasn't toy safety been (so far) a national matter?
And all together: If there's a difference between the old and the new, can this be considered to be against the "jopo-law" principles?
Mikko Tuovinen
Mikko - thanks for your questions. Brief answers. As noted in previous blogentries: 75 % of all goods are harmonised, 25 % are not. The toy safety directive belongs to the former category. I.e. Toy safety has been harmonised and all EU member states, old and new, apply the same rules. The current proposal is an update of the previous toy safety directive which dates from 1988.
Strangely enough we have just finished a "simulation game" at the College of EUrope (did you escape these when you were at the college...?) during which we debated a fictitious Commission proposal to amend the TSD (in anticipation of the real one).
I think youre right about the populism aspect. Our "pretend" MEPs tried to require labels and safety marks on everything in a way which in practice would have meant that a number of hand crafted (eg wooden), glass etc toys would have been taken off the market without really helping safety as such. I hope the real parliament does not do the same!
Dear Mr. Stubb,
What you don't explain is why another directive is needed ? Are toys so much more dangerous nowadays ? How many accidents were there, and how many would have been avoided because of the potential new regulations ? Are we as the buying public so moronic that we need MEPs (with all due respect, what are your qualifications as a safety expert on toys ?) to decide for us what we can or cannot buy for our children ?
I realise I sound quite negative, but believe it or not, I did a european degree back in the 1980s and my children are trilingual.
But it seems to me that the bureaucratic beast that European institutions have become just needs feeding all the time, and this is but one example.
As you point out, there are already risks to smaller manufacturer through unintended consequences ! That does not bode well...
Moi Alex, or rather Mr. Minister :)
Just happened to surf on in here and now have a question for you. I hope that you have time to answer, since I am sure that in your new post as the Foreign Minister, you are rather busy.
This isn't so much to do with the EU toy directive, but rather toys and their origins... I have a daughter of my own here in Finland and I am wondering why is it so difficult to find toys that are made in Europe? I would love to find more toys made on this continent as I have fallen victim to the "China" scandal and would like to look on my own shores before I look abroad... for many reasons - environmental being one of them...
Cheers...
Dear Alex !
It is really good that there is a will and a goal to find better and more safe toys for our little ones. There is no bigger sorrow that the one of a parent who has lost her/his child. The accident is hitting every one hard and without rules.
Each step we are able to take to avoid letting loose and distributing dangerous toys is a step in the right direction. And I certain hope that we know more now abot safety than we did back in the year 1988.
Avance !
Hello to y'all,
I'm not an expert on the matter at hand, but doesn't the problem appear to be more vital in "the new eastern ten"-countries? As far as I know, at least in Finland and in Scandinavia toy safety-regulations are already pretty strict. Am I right?
Is there a clear difference between the old and the new member states?
Mikko Tuovinen