/ Home & Energy

Why are dangerous toys still on sale?

43
Profile photo of Dr Thomas Bell Dr Thomas Bell Principal Scientist
Comments 43

Toys are the most-recalled products in Europe. Our scientist Dr Tom Bell asks why more isn’t done to keep children safe.

More than 650 dangerous toys were recalled from sale last year across Europe. Already in 2019 the number stands at more than 60.

Tough laws and British Standards are supposed to protect our children so they can play safely. But they’re in danger from toys sold every day in high street shops and online – everything from hoverboards to soft toys.

Last year we uncovered some truly shocking results when we tested slime, one of the most popular kid’s toys.

We tested them for what proportion of harmful metals and chemicals they contained, including arsenic, boron and lead. Less than half of those we bought were safe and fit for sale. That’s appalling.

Approach with caution

Some slimes sold in Argos, Hamleys and Smyths contained chemicals up to four times higher than the EU safety limit. Our advice is that all slimes, both homemade recipes and shop-bought slime, need to be approached with caution.

Worse followed when we tested children’s Halloween costumes bought from high street and online stores. We set light to costumes and timed how long it took for the fire to spread.

This is important as many people tend to have candles out during
Halloween, meaning there’s an increased fire risk. In our tests,
the worst costume burned in just 90 seconds. Several failed the
regulations and should not be on sale.

For the slimes and the costumes, we demanded action from manufacturers, the Office for Product Safety and Standards, and retailers stocking the products.

Thankfully, most of the manufacturers and retailers removed the products from sale immediately. We’ve also shared information and testing results with consumer groups across Europe to ensure that everyone is adequately protected.

Campaigning for toy safety

We first campaigned on toy safety 55 years ago, when we highlighted alarmingly high levels of lead paint in children’s toys.

Sadly, the fight continues. We will test more toys this year, and expect to see industry, the government and retailers act to lower the shocking number of unsafe ones that are on shop shelves.

Where recalls are required, they must be announced and publicised widely to ensure consumers can take action quickly. Our children’s safety depends on it.

This contribution to Which? Conversation first appeared in the March 2019 edition of Which? Magazine (page 15: ‘Inside View’).

Are you surprised to see dangerous toys still on the shelves? Do you agree that retailers should be doing more to protect our children?

Comments
43
malcolm r says:
12 March 2019

We have standards, regulations and legislation that toys must meet and comply with to be legally sold on the UK market. We cannot stop delinquent manufacturers from making stuff that does not comply and is a hazard; nor can we stop delinquent traders and irresponsible resellers from importing non-compliant goods and selling them to an unsuspecting public. Nor can we track down all non-compliant goods before some have been sold on, to cause injury and harm.

What we can do is to decide to fund properly a national trading standards organisation to police the system and to respond to the public’s reports and complaints of dangerous products.

Just as important then is, when a trader/retailer/importer/distributor is found to have supplied non-compliant and hazardous goods, they should be prosecuted and a severe penalty imposed. That might make them think twice about their irresponsible and criminal behaviour – they are responsible for the products they buy in to resell and need to be quite sure of their authenticity.

Simply being thankful that “most of the manufacturers and retailers removed the products from sale immediately.” is no good to consumers. It is too late by then; many untraceable consumers will already have bought the products and be potentially harming their children. The distributors and retailers are usually the ones who are EU or UK based and who we can deal with through our legal system, whether they are Amazon or someone operating from their garage. I’d suggest Which? campaign to have Trading Standards restored and legal action taken whenever the opportunity arises.

3
 |     Reply    Report
Share   
wavechange says:
12 March 2019

If Amazon, Argos, Hamley’s and Smyths have been selling potentially harmful products, that is a simple example of the inadequacy of our present procedures for ensuring products are safe for the consumer.

In my view, the main problem is that manufacturers are required to declare that their products comply with applicable standards rather than have products independently tested before they go on sale. Retailers must not sell products that have been recalled and ensure that they are within date (if applicable) but cannot be expected to carry out their own tests. The number of alerts issued by the Food Standards Agency about foods containing undeclared allergens is perhaps the most obvious example of potential risks, thankfully only affecting those with allergies.

Which? testing has revealed possible problems with standards (e.g. smoke alarms and carbon monoxide alarms) and it is now about seven years since it was reported that plastic backs increased the risk of fire spreading in fires involving fridges and freezers, but the relevant standard has not been updated to require safer alternatives to flammable plastics.

Which? campaigns for action on dangerous products and I’m sure that this is something we can all support. I would like to know how Which? is going to push for action on our behalf. It would be interesting to learn about how Which? is interacting with the Office of Product Safety and Standards which is now more than a year old.

Leaded petrol is no longer sold, nor are paints containing lead. The last time we discussed slimes I read that it’s possible to make boron-free slimes. Perhaps that could be the way forward here.

4
 |     Reply    Report
Share   
malcolm r says:
12 March 2019

Independent testing will solve nothing. Delinquent manufacturers will circumvent this and put dangerous products on the market, and delinquent or irresponsible people will continue to sell them People like Amazon, Hamleys, Smyths and others would, if prosecuted and severely penalised, look harder at what products they sold and their provenance.

Having every single product produced independently tested might be an aspiration but is impractical. Responsible manufacturers deal with this in an honest way in the huge majority of instances. Manufacturers who are intent on cheating will circumvent any regulatory system. So we can limit that by tackling the distributors.

The fridge freezer standard has been amended and the EC/UK were considering the EN version a year or more ago. I have asked Which?, who should be on this committee, what the situation was but with no response. Unless something is a serious safety issue an amended standard will have an overlap period with the existing one. My information was that the amendments included proposals concerning the plastic back and the fire-resistance tests and the motor capacitor specifically. There are other amendments I believe.

On smoke alarms Which? were invited by BSI to give them all their test results so they could be investigated. My belief is the standard is good and that Which?’s interpretation of the significance of their testing was faulty, but discussing it with the BSI committee and their experts should resolve the matter. Perhaps Which? have done this and can report back?

My recollection of CO alarm problems was that they were not compliant with the international standard, not that there was anything wrong with the standard. Another example of penalties that should be imposed on the sellers (including Amazon, again)

1
 |     Reply    Report
Share   
Hide replies ∧
Ian says:
13 March 2019

malcolm r says: 12 March 2019
Independent testing will solve nothing.

But surely it would address Wave’s main point: self-certification of adherence to standards? It seems to me there are a number of loopholes in the various methodologies for dealing with new products and random testing of newly released items would at least present an obstacle at source.

I’ve always believed prosecuting shops is the wrong approach, primarily because it directly penalises the seller as opposed to the producer or importer. Shops could react by refusing to stock new products, which could lead to an even faster decline in the high street, stifle innovation and isolate the UK in the international marketplace.

I do believe random testing of imported and newly created products is probably going to achieve the most, in fact.

1
 |     Reply    Report
Share   
wavechange says:
13 March 2019

It’s difficult to see any logic in making the retailer or responsible for the safety of products, unless they have knowingly bought unsafe products or continued to sell them after a problem has been identified.

Tom has told us that there is still a problem with toy slimes containing more than the permitted amount of boron. If the retailer is selling slime that has been identified as non-compliant with standards then they they deserve to be prosecuted, but if no problem has been demonstrated they are blameless providing that they remove the product from sale promptly.

Manufacturers should, as part of their quality control, be testing (in house or otherwise) the amount of boron in batches of slimes, and there are various ways that this can be done.

I support Ian’s suggestions but would throw in another issue that I have raised before. Manufacturers often use different parts in their products. Anyone who has ever maintained their car will be familiar that the same model can use parts from different manufacturers, including safety components such as brakes. There have been many cases of manufacturers recalling a product but only a certain range of serial numbers. One reason for this is use of different components in manufacture. I recently dismantled a pair of emergency lights that are the same model, look identical and were manufactured at the same time, but the internal components are very different.

1
 |     Reply    Report
Share   
malcolm r says:
13 March 2019

Random testing is something I totally support. It needs to be targeted and prompted by “intelligence” – knowledge of suppliers and sellers, information from consumers, other countries experience, reputation or not of manufacturers. and so on. This would be one of the remits of a properly funded Trading Standards to police the system.

What I had assumed was being proposed was that every product that is put on sale in the UK that has to meet a standard should have a sample independently tested against the standard. Given the number of products and the laboratory facilities and expert staff required that is, I believe, quite impractical.

Nor will it, I believe, solve the problem. If a manufacturer is determined to flout the regulations they can simply alter the product from that independently tested.

Most manufacturers are responsible and would not want any product they make to be found seriously defective, unsafe or dangerous. Most manufacturers have specialist development and test laboratories designed around their products, with expert and knowledgeable staff, to ensure their designs meet the appropriate standards and, through quality testing, continue to so do. They are not in business to cheat the system. It is the delinquent manufacturers who will do that.

Why prosecute the retailers and distributors? It is they who go out into the producer market to select products for sale and it is they who profit financially from the sale of those products . They are responsible for checking the the products they choose are acceptable and meet the regulations required. In the case of CE marking there is an extensive documented trail of testing that must be available for a product to be marketed in the EU, not simply a “declaration”. All of this can be falsified of course with the aid of corrupt organisations, so importers/resellers must be vigilant. Trading with dodgy suppliers to make money without checking the provenance of a product is both irresponsible and may be criminal. Make this not financially worthwhile and my guess is those who rake care to market good products will prosper and many of those who are less careful with either change their ways or find some other activity.

Shops can deal with products that are known to be from reputable sources. That is what consumers want to be kept safe. No need to buy dodgy slime or flammable party clothes from iffy suppliers.

0
 |     Reply    Report
Share   
malcolm r says:
13 March 2019

“I’ve always believed prosecuting shops is the wrong approach, primarily because it directly penalises the seller as opposed to the producer or importer“. As with “faulty” goods the consumers contract is with the retailer and they have responsibility in law to deal with the problem. I agree that shops may not be the best target for prosecution; it is the importers/distributors with whom they deal who should be held responsible for quality of the goods they choose to source and to handle. Having said that, major shops will source directly from manufacturers or overseas distributors themselves and also take on that responsibility. Small shops may also choose to trade with dodgy distributors, or import direct, and also need to assume that responsibility.

Then there is the question of people like Amazon who, at the least, allow their market place to be used without, seemingly, their due diligence in monitoring the provenance of what is sold and from which they profit.

If selling unsafe products were properly penalised I believe those in the chain would be more careful. There are plenty of products out there that are safe for them to sell.

0
 |     Reply    Report
Share   
wavechange says:
13 March 2019

The consumer deserves protection from dangerous or potentially harmful goods irrespective of where they choose to shop. Relying on Trading Standards or another body to identify dodgy products is not good enough.

0
 |     Reply    Report
Share   
Abby Semple Skipper says:
13 March 2019

This debate about prosecuting the seller is an interesting one.

In the case of the slimes that the manufacturer argues is a putty the shop in theory has undertaken due diligence in stocking it. Many small, independent retailers might not have the capacity to investigate beyond being careful about their supplier.

I know the retailer my son got his slime from will have been careful when sourcing the product but they had no idea it had been subject to this investigation. So much of this is down to communicating with suppliers and consumers so people can make an informed choice.

0
 |     Reply    Report
Share   
malcolm r says:
13 March 2019

Trading Standards is the UK’s nominated organisation to look after product safety.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ce-marking#ce-marking-enforcement
We need a central organisation of this type who proactively police the system, react to consumer complaints, have the money and facilities to investigate and to bring prosecutions when appropriate. We cannot prosecute people outside our jurisdiction, which limits our ability to deal with delinquent manufacturers, hence we must attack the careless, delinquent or otherwise deficient people who bring unsafe products into the UK and distribute them without being careful about their quality or source. CE products have, by EU regulation, to have very comprehensive documentation to support the manufacturer’s assertion of compliance.

https://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/ce-marking/importers-distributors_en briefly summarises their role, including
“Importers
When importing from non-EU countries, importers must check that products fulfil all EU safety, health and environmental protection requirements before placing them on the market.“.
That seems to place the responsibility upon them. The importer may be a major retailer as well as a distributor.

0
 |     Reply    Report
Share   
DerekP says:
13 March 2019

As I see it, retailers have a clear responsibility to only sell “safe” products, including, of course, fridge-freezers, tumble dryers and toy slimes.

Hence any retailer who discovers that they are (and have been) selling toy slimes with more than four times the legal limit of boron in them, should withdraw them from sale and attempt to recall all the products already sold.

But the case of learning that they were selling products with more than a recommended safety limit for boron would be less severe, and appropriate action might then be to simply withdraw items from sale, but not attempt to recall previously sold goods. (For example, many other toys have potential safety hazards, not least bicycles and hover-boards, but the difference is that the hazards are known about, so buyers can make informed choices.)

Which? has said above that “Some slimes sold in Argos, Hamleys and Smyths contained chemicals up to four times higher than the EU safety limit. Our advice is that all slimes, both homemade recipes and shop-bought slime, need to be approached with caution.”

Depending on the degree of caution involved in setting that safety limit, exceeding it by a factor of four might not be a big deal, but I cannot say for sure. I would regard any text that inferred anything over the safety limit to be “dangerous” as low grade tabloid journalism. (But also, in previous discussions about slime, I think we also learnt that you can make a great slime without needing any boron at all…)

Giving good safety advice can be more complicated than this, as we’ve seen with fridge-freezers and tumble dryers. (I currently have an “unsafe” plastic backed fridge freezer and I’m not planing to urgently replace it on safety grounds, even thought it is now about 8 years old.)

0
 |     Reply    Report
Share   
Hide replies ∧
wavechange says:
13 March 2019

Derek wrote: “But also, in previous discussions about slime, I think we also learnt that you can make a great slime without needing any boron at all…” I suspect that the reason for including borax (a chemical compound containing boron) in commercial slimes is that it has antimicrobial properties, allowing the slime to be stored for long periods without growing potentially harmful bacteria and moulds. It’s easy to use cornflour rather than borax in home-made slime but that would soon grow bugs.

I understand the point that the risk is related to the amount of boron in slime, but the maximum amount permissible is well established and I don’t have much sympathy for any manufacturer that fails to comply with this.

0
 |     Reply    Report
Share   
DerekP says:
13 March 2019

My understanding is that that the boron compounds are needed to activate the slime, if its bulk material is made from something like PVA glue:

thebestideasforkids.com/how-to-make-slime-with-contact-solution/

My friends’ kids found that boron loaded contact lens cleaning solution was needed and worked well there and they did not experience any obvious health impacts.

But the very best and longest lived slime was from (apparently) boron free kits like these ones Smyths sell:

smythstoys.com/uk/en-gb/boredom-busters-/slime/so-slime-diy-slime-factory-blue/p/166274

NB – other slime retailers are available…

…and I doubt that there has been any specific research on toy slimes from which a “well established” and clearly defined “maximum permissible amount” has been derived for its boron content. That would be a bit like asking how many cigarettes I could safely smoke each day, always assuming that I wanted to. I certainly cannot see toy vendors wanting their slimes to come with MSDS’s (materials safety data sheets), as I would expect to find in a UK workplace.

0
 |     Reply    Report
Share   
wavechange says:
13 March 2019

I have not seen published research on toy slimes and do not know the background to the maximum permitted amount of boron. Manufacturers are required to make MSDS/SDS available to distributors etc but they are not generally supplied to the public. This is somewhere in the current directive, available via this link: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/toys/safety_en

One of the problems with setting limits for materials in contact with the skin is that people respond differently. Washing hands thoroughly after contact with slimes would be a sensible precaution, but I don’t know if this advice is provided.

0
 |     Reply    Report
Share   
DerekP says:
13 March 2019

Where safety limits are set, they should be set so as to protect everyone who might be exposed to the hazard in question.

0
 |     Reply    Report
Share   
wavechange says:
13 March 2019

Absolutely. That can depend on many factors including frequency of contact and in some cases concentration of the potential irritant. A well known washing up liquid was marketed for years as ‘kind to your hands’. I knew someone who developed contact dermatitis in the factory producing it. The packaging does not refer to the importance of rinsing hands after use, which is a sensible precaution when using any detergent-based cleaner.

0
 |     Reply    Report
Share   
malcolm r says:
13 March 2019

An example of where individual shops should be prosecuted is those “corner shops” that sell fake (and sometimes dangerous) alcoholic drinks and tobacco, often bought off the back of a white van. Other fake goods is bought in the same way. We’ve also seen example of fake “branded” car parts like brake pads and shoes sold by individual “businesses”!. They all know what they are doing and is one example of where penalties should be imposed that exceed the profitability of the enterprise.

0
 |     Reply    Report
Share   
Abby Semple Skipper says:
13 March 2019

As you can imagine this has caused quite a bit of conversation in the WhatsApp group for my son’s class! I discovered that the one tub of slime we had was one of the ones to avoid. It was bought somewhere that prides itself on high quality products so they are investigating it.

I think a part of this is the speed at which crazes sweep across the country and the need to have a flexibility in responding to them. There are many people out there looking to cash in on this craze.

0
 |     Reply    Report
Share   
Hide replies ∧
wavechange says:
13 March 2019

The maximum permissible amount of boron in slimes will have been set on the basis of available information and in future this could be decreased or increased as needed, to ensure that the risk is acceptable for most users. There is no way of ensuring that no-one will be affected and those with eczema and other skin conditions have to be careful about many products they will encounter in the home.

It will be interesting to see how long it takes for the shop in question to remove the questionable slime from their shelves. Don’t forget to mention that Which? alerted you to the problem. 😉

0
 |     Reply    Report
Share   
Abby Semple Skipper says:
13 March 2019

I sent them all the links from the investigations and might have mentioned how I knew about it. 😉

My thoughts are less about the ability to set standards quickly but more about enforcement. You might not believe how many different types of slime there are out there. There are many trustworthy manufacturers and suppliers but you are always going to have people cutting corners to cash in on what will inevitably be a relatively short term craze. The other big thing these days are squishies. Basically very soft, cheap stress balls in the shape of all sorts of things. Some are heavily fragranced to disguise the awful plastic smell. I personally do not trust most of them I see on sale.

0
 |     Reply    Report
Share   
Abby Semple Skipper says:
13 March 2019

In answer to a number of questions about Trading Standards, the Office of Product Safety and Standards and consumer enforcement – This is something we are campaigning on and encourage everyone to sign our petition for change. https://conversation.which.co.uk/home-energy/consumer-enforcement-system-improvements/

0
 |     Reply    Report
Share   
Hide replies ∧
wavechange says:
13 March 2019

I wonder if Which? has considered promoting Government petitions, which are likely to be seen and supported by more people: https://petition.parliament.uk

Sadly, many Government petitions are poorly written and it is not possible to start a new petition if one on a similar subject exists.

The Convo that Abby mentions has not attracted much input, presumably because most people don’t know much about Trading Standards, never mind the new OPSS. When I have asked groups of people what they know about TS, the only one they could relate to was ‘weights & measures’ – for example checking retailers scales and the accuracy of petrol pumps.

Not only is there a need to reinstate TS as an effective service to support the consumer but to make the public aware that they do have protection if let down by retailers and other companies.

0
 |     Reply    Report
Share   
George Martin says:
13 March 2019

Hi wavechange, you might remember this one from a few years ago, which had our full support:

https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/169835

We actively promoted and supported this petition, so it is something that Which? does consider.

0
 |     Reply    Report
Share   
Abby Semple Skipper says:
13 March 2019

One of the reasons we don’t use the government petitions is the inability to engage with people who respond. We have had some really interesting case studies and view points come through our petitions.

I think that Convo didn’t get a lot of input was because it is not an issue that a lot of people can really connect with in their day to day lives. Which is a pity as it does affect people, but just not as obviously as the worry of their child getting ill because of the slime they have.

0
 |     Reply    Report
Share   
wavechange says:
13 March 2019

Thanks George. I had forgotten about that one. I remember writing to London Fire Brigade and Margot James about my concerns.

I agree with Abby about the public not engaging with issues they do not relate to.

1
 |     Reply    Report
Share   
malcolm r says:
13 March 2019

@gmartin, George, this petition was headed
“Petition
Call on the Government to urge Whirlpool UK to recall all faulty tumble dryers“.

With respect this was an impossible request to have fulfilled. As there is no register of all the owners of Whirlpool (Indesit manufacture essentially) tumble dryers then there is no way that they can all be recalled. All that can happen is to recall those that individuals chose to register and publicise the problem in the hope others would respond.

A better petition would have been to demand that a product recall system (say for domestic appliances initially) be set up urgently with compulsory registration at the point of sale to ensure that in future full recalls can be instigated.

0
 |     Reply    Report
Share   
wavechange says:
13 March 2019

Until progress is made with registration of products, social media would be a good way of passing on information. Some people don’t use it but will have friends who do.

1
 |     Reply    Report
Share   
malcolm r says:
13 March 2019

I agree. I don’t use social media but many do – particularly I presume the younger ones. Which? do, presumably, pass on information through various media. A properly constituted Trading Standards could do the same.

Whatever route we choose to police product safety it will never be effective until it is properly resourced and funded. Unless a commitment is made to do that we will, I suggest, continue just talking about this for many years.

1
 |     Reply    Report
Share   
Abby Semple Skipper says:
13 March 2019

We do have big social media campaigns to highlight these issues. Product safety is one of the most widely shared issues for us so our campaigns messages get out there far and wide.

0
 |     Reply    Report
Share   
wavechange says:
13 March 2019

It would be interesting to know how people find out about safety issues. In the case of slimes I expect that social media and Mumsnet etc. are useful.

I’m keen on product registration, as you know, but wonder if any country has managed to implement it. Phone chargers are a common cause of fires or near misses but I have not heard of any moves to ensure that they are registered. It amazes me that many people will pay many hundreds of pounds for a smartphone and risk damaging it or causing a fire by using a cheap charger. I’m keen that we can rely on goods being safe wherever we buy them from and not just having a company prosecuted after the event.

But back to the subject: “Toys are the most-recalled products in Europe.” The video showing a Halloween costume burning is very worrying. If I was a parent I would cut off a sample of the fabric to check the flammability.

0
 |     Reply    Report
Share   
wavechange says:
13 March 2019

Abby wrote: “We do have big social media campaigns to highlight these issues.”

I appreciate this, but what I had in mind was that this should be a role for the Office of Public Safety and Standards. Maybe OPSS could retweet what Which? has posted on Twitter.

0
 |     Reply    Report
Share   
malcolm r says:
5 April 2019

Another unsafe product on sale in the UK:
https://www.which.co.uk/news/2019/04/doll-containing-toxic-chemical-found-on-sale-at-smyths-toys/
“A Which? investigation has discovered a doll containing a toxic chemical banned by the EU on sale at Smyths Toys.

The Cry Babies Nala doll costs £24.99 and is recommended on the Smyths Toys website as suitable for children from 18 months.

The sample of the doll we tested contained phthalates at 25% above the legal limit.

Phthalates are banned for use in children’s toys by the EU at levels above 0.1% of its total weight.”

I wonder where this doll, from IMC Toys, was manufactured and what process failed that should ensure CE requirements are met? The EU importer/distributor is responsible for ensuring compliance.

In my view, when such a failure occurs that is illegal there should be an investigation to find out how it happened, with appropriate penalties when negligence in sourcing products is demonstrated.

0
 |     Reply    Report
Share   
Hide replies ∧
wavechange says:
5 April 2019

For a more extreme version of an unsafe product, search for flamethrower doll. It’s amazing what you can discover if you have an interest in dangerous products on sale to the public. 🙁

Edit: If deemed unsuitable, please feel free to delete this post.

0
 |     Reply    Report
Share   
malcolm r says:
5 April 2019

Seems to be from 6 years ago so no longer on sale?

0
 |     Reply    Report
Share   
wavechange says:
5 April 2019

Yes, but other dangerous products are still on sale. Sometimes it’s fairly obvious that products are dangerous, as in my example. In other cases the problem cannot be found without inspection and testing. Since we are on the subject of toys, look at the example of dangerous hoverboards that were in the news a few years ago. These caused fires and burns. Independent inspection could have established safety problems with both the chargers and the toys themselves.

0
 |     Reply    Report
Share   
Abby Semple Skipper says:
5 April 2019

Do you realise the flamethrower doll wasn’t real?

0
 |     Reply    Report
Share   
wavechange says:
5 April 2019

I sincerely hope not, Abby, and I’m surprised that the retailer did not sue for defamation. Nevertheless, dangerous toys where the risk is not obvious have been on widespread sale – such as the hoverboards I mentioned above. I’m far from happy that we have to wait until there has been an accident and there is no effective way of contacting those that have purchased products.

0
 |     Reply    Report
Share   
malcolm r says:
5 April 2019

The web is full of fake news as Donald keeps telling us. Back to real news, the doll from IMC Toys:
IMC Toys say, according to Which?:
“We sold 1.3 million Cry Babies in the past year and have never encountered issues with any of our dolls. We have exacting safety standards, testing to the highest levels.

‘As a result of the potential non-conformity detected and the phthalates level indicated in the Which? report we will voluntarily and purely as a precautionary measure conduct an immediately preventive product recall of the serial number in question of the Nala dolls held by Smyths to eradicate the possibility of a phthalates problem.

‘We would like to stress that the non-conformity detected and the phthalates level indicated in the report does not offer an immediate risk for the children’s health in the normal use of the toy.’”

I wonder how many of the 1.3 dolls sold could have also not been in conformity with the EU limit.

What also worries me is the dismissive attitude of IMC. No “immediate risk” – well that’s good 🙁 , but continued use, normal or abnormal (children suck and chew toys) will increase the risk, so what about medium and long term risk? They clearly have not tested these dolls “to the highest levels” or have been incompetent in doing so, and presumably don’t take the EU ban very seriously, as they choose to “voluntarily and purely as a precautionary measure” take some action with Smyths. But what are they deigning to do about “the same doll is on sale at a wide range of other online and high street retailers.”

0
 |     Reply    Report
Share   
wavechange says:
5 April 2019

It might help if Smyths provided information about the affected products on the homepage of their website and in stores. Some retailers do this. For example B&Q has a long list of recalled products at the bottom of their homepage.

0
 |     Reply    Report
Share   
Abby Semple Skipper says:
5 April 2019

I have a feeling if they did sue for defamation it would have drawn more unwanted attention than would have done good.

I am really vigilant about unsafe toys. I have seen so many things over the years were I have wondered how on earth it got through the CE testing. I think I have mentioned before that for a while I was thinking of setting up a handmade toy business. The responsibility I felt for making something just was too much for me even though I knew what I was making was so much better made than so many toys.

0
 |     Reply    Report
Share   
wavechange says:
5 April 2019

A friend stopped making toys because of safety concerns and I think she needed insurance to sell at craft fairs. A quick search turned up this page: https://www.hobbycraft.co.uk/toy-safety I’m not sure why toy steam engines are exempted, but presumably there are separate regulations.

0
 |     Reply    Report
Share   
malcolm r says:
5 April 2019

The delinquent manufacturers probably cheat on their CE marking, Abby. The importer into the EU is responsible for ensuring the CE file is properly constructed and complete; if not they are open to prosecution. Those who distribute goods in the EU (including the UK for now) have regulations they should abide by. If they have doubts about a source of product or if they cannot be bothered to check the authenticity of products and the manufacturer they should not handle it.

Only by imposing meaningful penalties on those who transgress might we begin to curtail the sale of fake and non-compliant products.

0
 |     Reply    Report
Share   
malcolm r says:
5 April 2019

Here is the EU explanation of toy safety: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/toys/safety_en
There are a whole range of international standards, in force and in draft, covering different types of toys. The BSI shop lists these.

The relevant EU directive https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02009L0048-20171124 says:

“Article 6

Obligations of importers

1. Importers shall place only compliant toys on the Community market.

2. Before placing a toy on the market, importers shall ensure that the appropriate conformity assessment procedure has been carried out by the manufacturer.

They shall ensure that the manufacturer has drawn up the technical documentation, that the toy bears the required conformity marking and is accompanied by the required documents, and that the manufacturer has complied with the requirements set out in Article 4(5) and (6).

Where an importer considers or has reason to believe that a toy is not in conformity with the requirements set out in Article 10 and Annex II, it shall not place the toy on the market until the toy has been brought into conformity. Furthermore, where the toy presents a risk, the importer shall inform the manufacturer and the market surveillance authorities to that effect.“

0
 |     Reply    Report
Share   
 

Related discussions