I have a special interest in the matter of toy safety. I was a rapporteur on this subject in 1992 and I am particularly interested in following legislative developments on the subject. As for phthalates, the chemical substances used to plasticise PVC, I have always campaigned for proactive measures with a view to protecting, as indeed we ought, this particularly vulnerable group of consumers, i.e. children. Experiments on animals have shown the toxic and carcinogenic nature of some phthalates, which can cause liver, kidney and testicular ailments in children that suck or chew on dummies, rattles or teething rings. This identification of the risks gave parents legitimate cause for concern, and should have led to firm measures being adopted, meeting the requirements of the precautionary principle. The least that can be said, however, is that the Commission’s reaction, albeit relatively prompt (referral to the scientific committee for an opinion, studies into toxicity, ecotoxicity and impact on the environment, the emergency ban decision and proposal to amend the directives concerned), was rather lukewarm in view of the issues at stake and in view of the objective of guaranteeing a high level of consumer protection and protection of human health. What has the European Commission proposed? It has proposed banning toys containing one of the six offending phthalates that are intended to be put into the mouths of children under the age of three, and to put a warning on toys containing one of the 6 offending phthalates and likely to be put into the mouths of children under the age of three, and to revise the directive in four years’ time. This is, of course, completely inadequate. It is ridiculous to provide for a ban only on toys and childcare articles intended to be placed in the mouth. As every parent knows, young children put absolutely everything in their mouths. We must therefore ban toys and objects containing phthalates which are likely to be put either totally or partially into children’s mouths. The lack of reliable scientific information on the movement of these chemical substances within the body should lead us to implement the precautionary principle. I should also like to point out that we should be particularly vigilant with regard to the substances used as substitutes for phthalates. It is essential, furthermore, to bring the labelling of toys and childcare articles containing phthalates which are likely to be put in children’s mouths into general use. To avoid encouraging children to suck or chew on their toys, we should add a clause to prevent flavouring substances being added. We should envisage revising the directive in order to bring it up to date in the light of developments in scientific knowledge. I am convinced that, given the information currently available, we should adopt an approach of the utmost caution. I supported the amendments tabled by the Socialist members of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. I shall conclude by pointing out that, as far as the case of toy safety is concerned, the regulations regarding EC markings are too ambiguous and should be clarified as soon as possible.

Political group: PSE