No C 232/22 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 8. 87 
Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the proposal for a Council Directive on the 
approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning the safety of toys (*) 
(87/C 232/13) 
On 20 November 1986 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under 
Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the abovementioned 
proposal. 
The Committee instructed its Section for Protection of the Environment, Public Health and Consumer 
Affairs to prepare its work on the matter. Mrs Williams was appointed rapporteur-general by the 
Committee in the course of its work. 
At its 247th plenary session (meeting of 1 July 1987) the Economic and Social Committee adopted 
unanimously the following opinion: 
1. General comments 
1.1. It is now 12 years since the Commission first set out 
to produce Community legislation on the safety of toys. 
Different draft Directives were considered by both the EP and 
the ESC, but were consequently withdrawn by the 
Commission. In the present case, the Commission's 
document is based on these earlier proposals. While the 
inclusion of elements from these earlier proposals is a good 
thing, there is a consequent unwieldiness, particularly as 
regards administration. 
1.2. Introduction 
1.2.1. This is the first Directive on a consumer issue to be 
prepared within the framework of the new approach to 
technical harmonization of standards and it is consequently 
of major significance (2). 
1.2.2. The Committee welcomes the draft Directive but it 
deplores long delays in producing it. Therefore in the 
meantime some Member States have introduced their own 
national legislation on toy safety. 
1.2.3. The Draft Directive aims to bring the diversity in 
legislation on toy safety into a harmonized whole within the 
internal market, with a common approach to safety and 
common rules to achieve and maintain it. 
1.2.4. The Committee sees toy safety within the context 
of the more generally applicable directive on product liability 
and it points to the need for greater public awareness both of 
responsibility for product liability and of the means of 
obtaining compensation for injury. It regards therefore this draft Directive on toy safety both as a step forward and as an 
in-depth contribution to the wider-ranging forthcoming 
draft Directive on the general duty to trade safely. 
1.2.5. The Committee agrees that the starting point is the 
premise that all toys must be safe, that children — because of 
their age and inexperience — are vulnerable in cases of 
danger and must have a right to special protection. 
1.2.6. The Committee recognizes that there is a price to 
be paid for safety, by society as a whole, not only in terms of 
money but also in terms of the acceptance of additional 
controls of various kinds, of the restrictions of freedom, of 
the demands of responsibility for vigilance and 
supervision. 
1.3. Definitions 
1.3.1. Th Committee welcomes those occasions when the 
Commission provides definitions (e.g. of functional toys), 
but in the interests of clarity would have liked terms likely to 
give rise to problems of interpretation (e.g. 'authorized 
representative' in Article 10) to be defined in Article 1. 
1.3.2. It is difficult to find a truly workable and 
comprehensive definition to cover all toys for a variety of 
reasons: children do not distinguish between something that 
is bought as a toy and something they may choose themselves 
as play material; young children use toys intended for older 
children, different toys have differing characteristics and 
differing hazards, and different age groups have differing 
needs. The Committee would therefore prefer to see a 
definition which is broad enough to protect children at play 
and which cannot cause problems of interpretation as to 
whether the article in question is 'designed or intended' for 
use in play by children. 
(>) OJ No C 282, 8. 11. 1986, p. 4. 
(2) OJ No C 136, 4. 6. 1985. 1.3.3. The Committee recognizes that the younger the 
child, the greater likelihood of risk; it therefore endorses the 
31. 8. 87 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 232/23 
need for special consideration of babies and young children, 
and therefore the need for more rigorous inspection of the 
toys they play with. It therefore suggests that the 
Commission should increase the age of this group up to four 
years. 
It notes that, with regard to the question of the suitability of 
toys for particular age groups, more consideration should be 
given to the inclusion of specific guidance in cases where 
there are foreseen risks. 
1.3.4. The Committee considers the Annexes as an 
essential component of this draft Directive, and stresses that 
they must not be dismissed as an insignificant afterthought. It 
welcomes those occasions when there is cross-referencing in 
the Articles to the Annexes, and feels that essential safety 
criteria should perhaps have been included in the text of the 
proposal proper, and should have been further-reaching. 
1.4. Certification and standards 
1.4.1. The Committee is not against a certification 
system in principle, but it has reservations about the present 
proposals which imply two possible different levels of safety. 
These must be clarified and explained if they are to function 
properly. 
1.4.2. The Committee therefore seeks reassurance about 
formulation both of standards and of essential requirements, 
and about conformity with standards. It seeks clarification 
about the purpose of certification, about its effectiveness; 
above all it questions the ability to cope with the enormous 
number of toys (60 000 new toys a year), and process them 
with the speed necessary for marketing them quickly. 
1.4.3. It suggests that the restructuring of the draft 
proposal should make a clearer division between 
authorization, inspection and enforcement. It also feels that 
any new text should more explicitly deal with the question of 
penalties for serious offences. 
1.4.4. In principle, the Committee supports the concept 
of a sign or symbol which could be made to have real meaning 
for consumers, though it is only a presumption of safety and 
not an assurance of it. There are immediate practical 
problems to overcome such as the range, size and rate of 
change of toys. The section feels that not enough thought has 
been given to the actual design and practicality of an appropriate European safety mark, easily recognized and 
understood both within the Community and elsewhere. The 
possible confusion between CE and EC is pointed out. 
1.5. Imported toys 
1.5.1. The Committee points out that the main emphasis 
in the draft Directive appears to be on toys produced within 
Europe, and draws attention to the greater difficulty of 
dealing with certification, inspection and monitoring of the 
vast numbers of imported toys. 
1.5.2. The Committee therefore asks the Commission to 
make quite clear the practical application of controls and 
certification to imported goods, especially in relation to fair 
competition. 
2. Specific comments 
2.1. Article 1 
2.1.1. The Committee has reservations about the 
definition of the word 'toy', and suggests that the word 
'intended' ought to be replaced by 'suitable'. It condemns 
existing practices which aim to avoid liability simply 
claiming that a particular toy is not suitable for children 
under 14. 
2.1.2. It draws attention to the different ways and means 
of selling toys. 
2.2. Article 2 
2.2.1. The Committee suggests that the reference to 
'domestic animals' should be deleted from the present draft 
Directive and dealt with more appropriately elsewhere. 
2.2.2. The Committee recognizes the difficulty in 
anticipating the ways in which a child will use a toy in 
imaginative play, and points out that varying degrees of 
misuse are bound to occur. The Committee questions 
whether it is ever possible to define normal behaviour of 
children and therefore recommends the deletion of 
'normal'. 
2.3. Article 3 
2.3.1. Add (after the final sentence): 'Particular vigilance 
should be applied to imported toys at the first point of entry 
to the Community'. 
2.3.2. The Committee notes the reference to 'essential 
requirements' specified in Annex II, and requests that, when 
these need to be amended, full consultation with all relevant 
bodies concerned with safety objectives should take place. 
No C 232/24 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 8. 87 
2.4. Article 5 2.6. Article 8 
2.4.1. The text ought to be simplified. It must be made 
clear to all concerned exactly what is required of toys for 
conformity with the draft Directive, and exactly what are the 
implications for manufacturers. 2.6.1. The Committee feels that the system for 
certification is excessively bureaucratic and recommends 
simplification: it is likely to be unworkable in view of the 
number, range and rate of change of toys. 
2.4.2. The Committee points out that there is no 
reference in this Article to imported toys, counterfeits or 
'look alikes'. 2.7. Article 9 
2.4.3. The Committee recommends that the chosen sign 
or symbol should be put before the model identification 
number as the best means of introducing a new public 
awareness. 2.7.1. The Committee notes that the conditions to be 
fulfilled by the approved inspection bodies are specified in 
Annex 3, and stresses the importance of their independence. 
It suggests that, where feasible, there should be liaison with 
consumer and other appropriate bodies. 
2.5. Article 7 
2.5.1. The Committee stresses that there is no reference 
made to penalties for manufacturers, nor for all those who 
import, distribute and sell toys and who fail to comply with 
the rules. 2.7.2. The Committee points to the need for cross 
references to the draft Directive on good laboratory 
practice (J) which may be helpful in reducing national 
variations in standards. 
2.8. Article 10 
2.5.2. It is essential to specify the kinds of penalties that 
will be imposed: 'appropriate action' in the hands of 
individual Member States is not seen as a sufficiently clear 
deterrent, particularly as there is likely to be national 
variation. The Committee welcomes the withdrawal 
procedure, but points out that this is an economic sanction 
only. 2.8.1. The Committee remains uneasy, pending further 
clarification, about the proposed system for inspection of 
toys, questioning again its practicality bearing in mind: 
— the size of the market, even when limited to new 
products, 
It suggests that the weapon of product liability be more 
effectively used at national level. It notes also the relation of 
these comments to those made on Article 14 in paragraph 
2.10.1. — the possibility of differing levels of competence in 
different laboratories, 
— and the cost of implementation which will have to be 
passed on to consumers. 
2.5.3. There is an emphasis on prevention and inspection 
implicit in the text; but this again needs to be made clearer so 
that producers understand the implications for 
non-conformity. It is also important that consumers 
understand and question the significance of self-certification 
on toys as a guarantee of consumer safety. 
The Committee also proposes that the notification procedure 
laid down in Article 7 (1) be expanded by providing for 
notification of the public in the event of specific products 
being recalled from the market because they are potentially 
dangerous. 
Bearing in mind that the Commission does not have the 
power to require Member States to withdraw toys, the 
Committee nevertheless urges it to take the strongest possible 
steps to achieve this essential form of protection. 2.8.2. In view of the opportunity for manufacturers to 
apply to the inspection bodies of Member States other than 
their own, it should be made much clearer that only one 
single request can be put forward. Moreover, the Committee 
considers that, while procedures should be devised for 
checking possible fraudulent practices regarding requests for 
tests originating in other Member States, it is essential that 
responsibility and honesty play their part in this new 
approach to harmonization. 
2.8.3. In addition to access by Member States 
consideration should be given, within the limits imposed by 
the need for confidentiality, to the provision of access for 
appropriate organizations and institutions with valid reasons 
to copies of certificates, technical files and reports. 
(») OJ No C 219, 29. 8. 1985. 
31. 8. 87 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 232/25 
2.9. Article 11 
2.9.1. It needs to be made quite clear that this Article 
refers equally to manufacturers outside the Community as 
well as to those within it. 
2.9.2. Since self-certification is an administrative device 
to cope with a vast number of toys, it can only be a 
presumption of conformity. The Committee accordingly 
stresses its misgivings that consumers might see the EC-mark 
as a guarantee of safety, and that non-reputable 
manufacturers might use minimal safety standards as a 
marketing ploy. 
2.10. Article 14 
2.10.1. Since it is not within the competence of the 
Commission to determine sanctions, the Committee points 
to the need for Member States to be strict in their application 
of 'appropriate action' in cases where the EC-mark has 
wrongly been attached to toys. Where the safety of children is 
knowingly put at risk, criminal proceedings should be 
considered. (See also 2.5.1.). 
2.10.2. Once again the Committee urges the drawing up 
of a framework directive on a general duty to trade safely, 
which would eliminate the need for specific directives. 
2.10.3. Second indent: this sentence needs 
reconsideration and rephrasing in the light of the fact that 
manufacturers could here be penalized for something which 
was no fault of theirs, but rather the fault of the certification 
body, particularly in a case where first-time tests were 
wrongly devised. 
2.11. Article IS 
2.11.1. (Paragraph 3). The Committee asks that further 
consideration be given to the creation of an unambiguous 
symbol which is easily recognized and understood 
everywhere. 
2.11.2. The Committee points out the possible confusion 
on the part of consumers if there seemed to be two marks. A 
double mark may wrongly convey the impression of being an 
additional guarantee of security, thereby conflicting with the 
rules of fair competition. 
2.11.3. A further paragraph is needed: 'Packaging or the 
label on a toy shall, where appropriate, bear clear, simple 
and logical instructions for use and care.' 
2.12. Article 16 
2.12.1. The Committee endorses the need for sample 
checks, but would welcome more precision about the kind of information such checks are intended to produce and about 
the ways in which the information obtained would be of real 
use in encouraging safety. Access to reports should be on the 
widest possible basis, linking them with existing home 
accident surveillance systems. 
2.13. Article 19 
2.13.1. The Committee doubts whether — however 
desirable it may be — the date of January 1988 can be 
achieved. 
2.13.2. More realistically, it suggests that the Directive 
should come into force not more than two years from the date 
on which the draft Directive was approved. In view of the 
time already spent, this gives ample opportunity to those 
concerned to make preparations. 
3. Comments on the annexes 
3.1. Annex 1 
3.1.1. The Committee has serious doubts about many of 
the exemptions listed in Annex I. It notes that, if basic safety 
criteria on mechanical and physical properties, electrical 
safety, toxicity and flammability were applied generally, 
there would be no need for this current list of exclusions. 
3.1.2. The Committee concerned about the general safety 
of children and young people, questions where protection lies 
in respect of items connected with playgrounds, sport and 
leisure activites if it did not come under the heading of the toy 
Directive. 
3.1.3. It notes that the items listed in the Annex should be 
seen in the light of the definition of a toy in Article 1. 
Nevertheless, it points to possible problems of 
interpretation: that children themselves might regard items 
on the list as toys, such as folk dolls and certain Christmas 
items. There is a thin dividing line in some categories, for 
example scale models for children and those for adults. 
3.1.4.1. The Committee points to the need for a more 
systematic presentation by the Commission in its list of 
exemptions, with classification and sub-division of related 
subjects (e.g. those concerning sport, collectors' items, 
weapons). 
3.1.4.2. Itis, moreover, aware of the particular problems 
in attempting to produce a precise and exhaustive list of items 
for exclusion, and suggests this system of general categories 
with examples introduced by the wording 'in particular'. 
Additions could be made to this list when necessary. The 
No C 232/26 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 8. 87 
Committee recognized that 'grey areas' are inevitable and 
that a great deal of reliance will have to be placed on the 
discretion and sound common sense of those who decide and 
judge in problem cases. 
3.1.5.1. The Committee would welcome opportunities 
of making alterations to this Annex. It consequently suggests 
that the position of video and computer games (some of 
which are now designed for very young children) and of 
musical instruments needs to be considered and decided. 
3.1.5.2. There is concern over the exemption of pro jectile 
toys, since some of these are commonly regarded as toys by 
children, parents and the shops that stock them and can be a 
cause of eye injury. 
3.1.6.1. There can be an overlap of the sorts of 
playground equipment (paragraph 3) (slides, swings and 
climbing frames) bought for family use and for playgroups or 
small kindergartens. In this context implications of the word 
'collective' need to be considered. 
3.1.6.2. Professional toys in paragraph 7 also need to be 
more clearly defined, and the implications of their use studied 
in a family context. 
3.2. Annex 2 
3.2.1. The Committee suggests that Article 3, at a more 
significant place in the draft Directive, could have 
additionally included more detail about the criteria for 
essential safety requirements. 
3.2.2. Particular risks 
3.2.2.1. Physical and mechanical 
The Section recommends that the Commission should also 
mention in (b) finger traps; (d) add at the end of the sentence: 
'or inhaled', (h) add at the end of the sentence: 'and such toys 
should also be subjected to stability tests'. It should also 
include a reference to the need for 'speed and energy limits in 
projectile toys'. 
3.2.2.2. Flammability 3.2.2.3. Chemical properties 
The Committee suggests the need for contributions from a 
wide range of non-specialists, as well as from expert 
toxicologists at CEN, in setting criteria relating to the 
maximum daily intakes by young children. It is accepted that 
the risk factor will vary according to the category of the toy 
under consideration, and the age of the child. 
The Committee questions the lower permitted intake of 
cadmium which, among the heavy metals, is known to have 
more serious effects than that of lead. 
3.2.2.4. Electrical properties 
The word 'tension' in 5 (a) should be replaced by 
'voltage'. 
The Committee recognizes that some Member States may not 
want electrical toys on the market, and points to their right to 
ban such toys or to make their own acceptable standards. 
Add a new introductory paragraph: 
'Toys which plug into mains electrical circuits using 
transformers, which should be regarded as an integral 
part of the toy, should be subject to stringent safety 
checks, should be labelled with clear warnings, and be for 
the use of children only over the age of nine years.' 
Add a new paragraph after (c): 
'Safety cut outs in the event of products overheating or 
malfunctioning should also be required.' 
The Committee would also drawn attention to the dangers of 
batery-operated toys (very small batteries, mercury-based 
batteries etc.). 
3.2.2.5. Radioactivity 
Add: 'Radioactivity levels should also be quantified.' 
3.2.2.6. Noise 
The noise level of toys needs to be quantified, since even 
relatively small sounds at close range can affect babies and 
toddlers. 
3.3. Annex 3 
This paragraph should also include a reference to the 
problems of toxic fumes from toys which catch fire. 3.3.1. The Committee endorses the need for 
independence of operation, whatever kind of laboratory is 
31. 8. 87 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 232/27 
used for testing, and in the whole process of surveillance. 
This independence must always be kept under scrutiny. 
3.3.2. Bearing in mind the Commission's recognition of 
the role consumer organizations can have in the 
decision-making process of creating standards, the 
Committee accepts that they can have a part to play in 
safeguarding minimum standards for equipment and in 
demanding transparent guidelines for tests which are 
compatible in all Member States. 
3.3.3. The Committee once again repeats that safety has 
to be paid for, and it accordingly urges individual Member 
States to accept that money and manpower must be made 
available to operate an effective testing and surveillance 
system. 
3.4. Annex 4 
The Committee points out that it would be helpful if the 
Commission were to classify this Annex with appropriate 
headings. 
3.4.1. The Committee recognizes that there are different 
degrees of danger, and that it is the function of warnings and 
labels to point out to purchasers, parents and children the 
varying extent of possible risks. 
3.4.2. In some respects the present text is incomplete: for 
example installation should also take into account the 
stability, velocity and height of such equipment. 'At intervals' is not legally precise and should be replaced by 
'at intervals clearly and permanently indicated by the 
manufacturer'. 
3.4.3. Functional toys: the Committee suggests that, in 
the interest of greater clarity, the definition should come at 
the beginning of the paragraph. Moreover, it requires further 
thought on the grounds of being too imprecise: as it stands it 
would cover children's cups and saucers as well as model 
washing machines. 
3.4.4. Chemical toys 
The Committee notes that a single age restriction is given for 
chemistry sets, and points to the wide variation in complexity 
of sets on the market. It asks why age is stressed here and not 
in the context of electrical toys. 
3.4.5. Skateboards 
Since the craze for skateboards has now gone, the Committee 
suggests that the heading of this paragraph should be 
widened to include skates, children's bicycles, and any other 
mobile toys. 
It endorses the need for those who supervise children to 
encourage the use of protective clothing and footwear. 
Done at Brussels, 1 July 1987. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alfons MARGOT 
Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the proposal for a Council Regulation on the 
Tariff and Statistical Nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (J) 
(87/C 232/14) 
On 26 May 1987 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 
198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Treaty, on the abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Industry, Commerce, Crafts and Services was responsible for preparing the 
Committee's work on the subject. In the course of the work the Committee appointed Mr Broicher as 
rapporteur-general. 
At its 247th plenary session (meeting of 1 July 1987) the Committee adopted the following opinion 
unanimously: 
(») OJ No C 154, 12. 6. 1987, p. 6.