Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the safety of toys COM(2008) 9 final — 2008/0018 (COD)
Date: 2008-09-18
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: ESC opinion, EU Member State, consumer protection, marketing, product safety, safety standard, toy industry

C 77/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

31.3.2009

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the
European Parliament and of the Council on the safety of toys’

COM(2008) 9 final — 2008/0018 (COD)

(2009/C 77/02)

On 17 March 2008 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the safety of toys.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 15 July 2008. The rapporteur was Mr Pegado Liz.

At its 447th plenary session, held on 17 and 18 September 2008 (meeting of 18 September), the European
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 49 votes to 1 with 8 abstentions.

1. Conclusions and recommendations

1.1
The EESC welcomes the Commission's initiative to revise
the toy safety directive, although it comes rather late and is not
ambitious enough.

1.2
The EESC notes that the impact assessment on which it
is based dates from 2004, and did not take account of all the
countries that are now EU Member States.

(2007),

In view of the increasing number of alert of toys as
1.3
revealed in the latest RAPEX report
the EESC is
surprised that the impact assessment should be inconclusive not
only with regard to the link between the present directive and
toy-related accidents to children, but even more with regard to
the admitted lack of knowledge as to the effect of the present
proposal on the number and seriousness of future toy-related
accidents — something that should be the principal concern
and fundamental reason for the present initiative.

1.4
Given the Commission's acknowledgement of the lack of
reliable and credible statistics on accidents in the EU caused by
toys, the EESC suggests that the Commission,
in cooperation
with the competent Member State authorities, should set up an
appropriate system of statistical information on such accidents,
at least as comprehensive as that already existing under some
legal systems, that is accessible to all actors in the production
and marketing chain with a view to preventing accidents (1).

1.5
The EESC believes that the legal basis for the proposal
should be Treaty Article 153 rather than Article 95 alone,
considering that the most important concern, to protect chil-
dren
facilitating
effectively,
cross-border trade in toys.

primacy

simply

over

has

1.6
The EESC also believes that, in the light of the scope and
nature of the new legislative proposal and of experience in
implementing the current directive in the various Member
States, and since a total harmonisation approach has been
accepted, the most appropriate legal
instrument would be a
regulation rather than a directive.

1.7
The EESC appreciates the technically and legally coherent
and well-structured form of the proposal, and generally agrees
with its innovative measures, which include:

— a broader definition of ‘toys’ and adoption of the concept of

foreseeable use bearing in mind behaviour of children;

— reinforcement of Member State surveillance measures;

— introduction of proper prevention and information rules on

toy safety — warnings and signs.

1.8
The EESC regrets, however, that a number of aspects of
key importance have not been covered, or only inadequately.
They are:

a) unequivocal adherence to the precautionary principle;

b) more rigorous training and education of those responsible

for the care of children in contact with toys;

c) clarification of certain concepts which remain ambiguous or
vague, such as the concept of a toy or the extent of harm;

d) importers and authorised representatives not being on the
same footing as manufacturers, clearly removing the respon-
sibility of players in the toy distribution and sales chain in
respect of compensation for harm caused;

(1) National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS), managed by the
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), in the United States.

e) conformity assessment procedure unsuited to SMEs.

31.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 77/9

1.9
The Committee therefore strongly urges the Commission
to revise its proposal as suggested in the present opinion, so as
to make it a more credible instrument for the effective protec-
tion and safety of children when using toys.

2.5
Two directives on general product safety were adopted
and published in 1992 and 2001, covering toy safety in generic
terms (10), the latter putting special emphasis on the ‘changes
made to the Treaty, especially in Articles 152 concerning public health
and 153 concerning consumer protection, and in the light of
the
precautionary principle’.

1.10
The Committee calls upon the EP and the Council to
take on board the suggestions and recommendations presented
herein, and to integrate them into the legislative procedure
leading up to the adoption of the new directive.

2. Introduction: summary of the proposal

2.1
The Commission first announced its intention to take
legislative steps in the field of toy safety in the 1970s, putting
forward a number of proposals that were subsequently with-
drawn due to a lack of political consensus. Eventually, in the
the Council Resolution of 23 June 1986 (2) on
wake of
consumer protection and safety, a new Commission proposal
pointed, in more consensual terms, to the need for European-
level harmonisation of the definition of toys, their manufac-
turing standards, main safety requirements, conditions
for
putting on the market and guarantees that they could be used
by children without hazard.

the legislation in force has,

2.6
Twenty years after the publication of the 1988 directive,
the Commission is proposing a new directive on this matter,
realising that
in the meantime,
become out-dated, that its scope and the concepts used need to
be clarified and brought into line with present circumstances,
that there is an urgent need to ensure that its provisions are
consistent with the recently-proposed general legislative frame-
work (11) for the marketing of goods and, most of all, that
serious deficiencies and disparities have emerged in transposing
and implementing the directive in the various Member States in
terms of application, and that this must be resolved.

2.7
The present proposal is based on three major technical
studies, to be taken as integral parts of it. Two concern the
requirements and use of certain allegedly dangerous substances
in manufacturing toys; the third is a general impact assessment,
the final report of which dates from 2004.

In brief, the Commission is pursuing the following objec-

2.8
tives with this proposal:

2.2
Directive 88/378/EC of 3 May 1988, published at that
time (3), is one of the first legislative initiatives stemming from
the ‘new approach’ in the field of technical harmonisation and
standardisation, based on the Council Resolution of 7 May
1985 (4).

A) Enhanced safety requirements, particularly concerning:

a) use of chemical substances;

b) warnings and information for consumers and users;

2.3
The EESC drew up a mandatory opinion on the Proposal
for a Directive presented at that time (5) which, while welcoming
the proposal, regretted the long delays in its preparation, and,
based on the assumption that all toys should be reliable and
that children are vulnerable to risks and must receive special
protection, underlined the need for the issue of toy safety to be
addressed as part of the broader scope of the product liability
directive (6).

2.4
In the meantime, the 1988 directive was the object of a
number of corrigenda (7), of a major amendment by Directive
93/68/EEC of 22 July 1993 (8), and of a Communication from
the Commission on its implementation (9).

(2) OJ C 167 of 5.7.1986, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 187 of 16.7.1988, p. 1. ESC opinion: OJ C 232 of 31.8.1987,

p. 22.

(4) OJ C 136 of 4.6.1985, p. 1.
(5) COM(1986) 541 final (OJ C 282 of 8.11.1986, p. 4).
(6) Opinion CES 639/87,
31.8.1987, p. 22).

rapporteur: Ms Williams (OJ C 232 of

(7) OJ L 281 of 14.10.1988, p. 55; OJ L 37 of 9.2.1991, p. 42.
(8) OJ L 220 of 30.8.1993, p. 1. ESC Opinion: OJ C 14 of 20.1.1992, p. 15

and OJ C 129 of 10.5.1993, p. 3.

(9) OJ C 297 of 9.12.2003, p. 18.

c) choking and suffocation risks;

d) toys in food;

e) definition of the general safety requirement.

B) More efficient and coherent application of the directive, by

means inter alia of:

a) reinforced market surveillance measures in the Member

States;

(10) Directive 92/59/EEC of 29 June 1992 (OJ L 228 of 11.8.1992, p. 24
— ESC opinion: OJ C 75 of 26.3.1990, p. 1) and Directive
2001/95/EC of 3 December 2001 (OJ L 11 of 15.1.2002, p. 4); the
ESC adopted opinion CES 1008/2000 of 20 September 2000, rappor-
teur: Ms Williams (OJ C 367 of 20.12.2000, p. 34), on the proposal
for the latter directive, COM(2000) 139 final. Earlier, an own-initiative
opinion on the same subject had been drawn up by Ms Williams and
adopted by the ESC on 8 December 1999 (CES 1131/99 — OJ C 51 of
23.2.2000, p. 67).

(11) Package of proposals COM(2007) 36, 37 and 53 final of 14.2.2007,
EESC opinions INT/352/353/354 (CESE 1693/2007 of 13 December
2007, rapporteur: Mr Pezzini).

C 77/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

31.3.2009

b) information on chemicals in the technical file;

c) affixing of CE marking;

d) safety assessment.

EUR 17 300 million at
retail prices, and with imports
amounting to more than EUR 9 000 million, is a prosperous
sector involving some 2 000 businesses, mostly SMEs, and
directly employing more than 100 000 people (13).

C) Alignment of the directive to the general legislative frame-

work on the marketing of products

D) Clarification of
concepts used.

the scope and better definition of

the

3.5
The EESC is of the view that the nature of the proposal
in question requires that not only Article 95, but also necessa-
rily Article 153, be considered as the legal basis, insofar as its
scope does not relate only to the completion of the internal
market, but rather concerns a particularly vulnerable category of
consumer which cannot by any means be assimilated with that
of the ‘average consumer’.

3. General comments

The

EESC welcomes

the Commission's

initiative,
3.1
although it comes rather late, given that the directive under
review is more than 20 years old and the production and
marketing parameters and methods for toys have undergone
substantial changes in the meantime, as have the tastes and
habits of their most natural users. The EESC moreover believes
that the present proposal could be more ambitious in its aims,
and its provisions could take account of the concerns aroused
by recent events, which have been made public and are more-
over reflected not only in strongly-worded speeches and posi-
tions on the part of the Commissioner responsible for consumer
protection, but also in the EP Resolution of September 2007,
the tenor of which the EESC echoes (12). It therefore regrets that
the discussions with the EESC were not also accompanied by
DG SANCO, which has not been directly involved in its
preparation.

3.2
The EESC is surprised that the impact assessment on
which the present proposal is based is more than four years old
and does not cover the situation in all the Member States.
Neither is it clear what account has been taken of consumers'
and families' representatives or how far they were actually
involved in its preparation.

In view of

the Commission's criticism of

3.3
the alleged
shortcomings in applying the directive, the EESC is surprised
that such criticism is not accompanied by initiatives taken by
the Commission to ensure proper compliance with this Com-
munity law.

3.4
The EESC has difficulty in understanding how, given the
acknowledged lack or deficiency of statistical data to which the
Commission admits, it is possible to reach proper conclusions
on either the state of affairs to be changed, or on the effective-
ness of the proposed measures. It is, however, known that the
estimated in 2002 to represent
toy market

in Europe,

(12) Cf. the statement by Commissioner Kuneva to the EP on 12 September
2007, her statements at meetings with the Vice-President of Mattel
International on 20 September 2007 and with a delegation of toy
manufacturers, including Hornby, Lego and Mattel, on 9 April 2008,
together with the press conference of 22 November 2007. Cf. also the
EP Resolution doc P6-TA(2007)0412 of 26 September 2007.

3.6 Moreover, the fact that children are indirect consumers of
toys,
insofar as it is not they who acquire them, but their
parents or other adults who make them available to them for
the Commission to take a more
their use, should prompt
rigorous approach to ensuring that the need to inform and
educate this class of consumer is duly reflected in the wording
of its provisions.

3.7
The EESC understands the Commission's option in this
case for full harmonisation, but restates its conviction that, in
cases such as this one, there would be everything to gain from
selecting a regulation as an instrument rather than a directive,
with the obvious advantages in terms of
legal certainty and
without of the risks of late or defective transposition and the
the Commission
consequent disparities
acknowledges has occurred with the present directive (14).

in application, as

3.8
Given the nature of the subject, the on-going evolution
of the ‘state of the art’, the possibility of occasional incidents, as
clearly shown in the Mattel and Fisher Price cases, and the
worrying increase in the number of toy-related alerts as shown
in the latest RAPEX annual report (2007), representing by far
the sector with the greatest number of notifications (31 %) (15),
it might have been hoped that the present proposal would draw
all the lessons from events — and particularly from the failure
of post-market surveillance — making a more practicable and
enforceable Directive, that could lead to a safer toy market. This
in the presence of doubt, prohibiting anything
would mean,
which, while an adequate degree of certainty is still
lacking,
might legitimately be suspected of presenting a hazard, even if
slight, in its use as a toy by children and bearing in mind their
unpredictable behaviour: this is not, however, the case.

is

(13) Data from the Commission's website.
(14) Council Directive 88/378/EEC of 3 May 1988 (OJ L 187 of
to note that, unlike the
16.7.1988, p. 1).
present
products
proposal,
(COM(2008) 49 final/2 the Commission has quite rightly set out to
replace the directive with a regulation. It should also be pointed out
that the amendment to the protocol on subsidiarity in the reform
treaty, by removing the ‘preference’ for directives, represents a further
argument for this approach in the future.

important

cosmetic

proposal

It
in

the

on

(15) According to the report, in summer 2007 alone, more than 18 million
toys containing magnets were taken off the market, together with
2 million whose paint contained lead.

31.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 77/11

Turning to the CE marking,

3.9
the EESC would simply
repeat its view expressed in a previous opinion on a common
framework for the marketing of products, that ‘a lack of credibility
of the CE marking amounts to a lack of confidence in the whole
system: market surveillance authorities, manufacturers, laboratories and
certifiers,
of New Approach
and
legislation’ (16).

ultimately

adequacy

the

In this case, the EESC urges the Commission to harmonise the
final text of the present proposal with the text adopted for all
the proposals concerning the above-mentioned common frame-
work (17).

The EESC fully supports the EP's suggestion for the
3.10
introduction of a European toy safety label,
that would be
awarded by independent third-party bodies, and regrets that the
proposal has not fully responded to all the suggestions set out
in the EP's resolution of September 2007; the EESC also echoes
the concerns of SMEs, not that the toys they manufacture and
sell might be less safe, but — as is also discussed in the above-
mentioned opinion — relating to the proportionality of the
measures used in the conformity assessment procedures, espe-
cially for non mass-produced products or products produced in
small quantities (18).

3.11
The EESC considers that all substances dully recognised
as potentially dangerous, must be completely removed from toy
manufacturing, within a
is proportional,
balanced and workable for responsible manufacturers, as well as
being enforceable by the authorities.

framework that

The EESC welcomes the recent Commission Decision
3.12
on ‘magnetic toys’, but is surprised that this question was not
even touched upon in the present proposal for a directive: the

(16) Opinion CESE 1693/2007 of 13 December 2007, rapporteur:
Mr Pezzini (INT/352-353-354) where, in point 5.2.11, it is empha-
sised, with clear relevance, that:
‘The best way to boost the standing and importance of the CE marking, as
defined in Council Decision 93/465, is through a radical shake-up of the
marking itself, which would involve:
— making it clear that it should not be used or regarded as a marking or
labelling system for purposes of consumption, nor a guarantee of
quality or certification or approval by independent third parties, but
only as a declaration of conformity with product requirements and a
technical document that the manufacturer or the importer has an obli-
gation and full responsibility to produce for the authorities and the
consumer;

— rationalising the various procedures for assessing conformity;
— strengthening legal protection of the CE marking by registering it as a
collective mark, which means that the public authorities can act swiftly
to clamp down on abuses, while keeping open the possibility of addi-
tional national markings;

— strengthening market surveillance mechanisms and border customs

checks;

— getting producers and consumers to look into the pros and cons of a
possible voluntary code of conduct on the efficacy of the proliferation of
European and national quality marks and labels —voluntary or other-
wise — and how they mesh with the CE marking.’.

(17) COM(2007) 36, 37 and 53 final of 14.2.2007.
(18) Opinion quoted in footnote 16, points 5.2.7.1 and 5.2.9. See also the
EESC opinions on policy measures for SMEs (INT/390), rapporteur:
Mr Cappellini, and on cosmetic products (INT/424), rapporteur:
Mr Krawczyk.

Commission's reaction does not seem strong enough given the
seriousness of
the hazards and accidents that have already
occurred with this type of toy, amounting only to a call for the
Member States to ensure, each in its own way, that a ‘warning’
is attached.

3.13
The EESC thinks that there grounds for a more precise
definition of the level and nature of penalties, as the Commis-
sion has already done in fields where the harm caused by
improper behaviour is considerably less from a social point of
view.

3.14 More generally, the EESC regrets that an opportunity
has been missed here to put the protection of European children
on at least the same level as exists, including at the manufac-
turers'
in some Member States and other countries,
where certain types of toy are quite simply banned, as pointed
out in a study recently commissioned by the EP (19).

initiative,

The EESC is aware of the fierce competition at interna-
3.15
tional level in the toy industry. It therefore urges the European
Commission, the European Parliament and the Council to take
account of the sector's competitiveness when introducing modi-
fications in the course of the legislative process of adopting the
present directive. Safety standards for toys must not be lowered
at the expense of consumer protection, especially for children,
but international trade rules must be observed strictly so that
European companies can compete under equal conditions.

Lastly,

3.16
the EESC calls upon the Commission to be
aware of social concerns relating to toy manufacturing, espe-
cially in third countries where young children are employed
under atrocious working conditions and for long hours, daily
handling toxic, highly dangerous products, and to adopt a clear
stance in favour of eco-toys and ethical toys.

4. Specific comments

4.1 Article 1 and Annex I — List of products that are not considered

as toys

The EESC acknowledges the Commission's intention to update
the definition of a ‘toy’, so that it can be applied to all products
that are not designed exclusively for play purposes.

(19) Study on Safety and Liability Issues Relating to Toys (PE 393.523), authors:
Frank Alleweldt — Project director; Anna Fielder — Lead author;
Geraint Howells — Legal analysis; Senda Kara, Kristen Schubert and
Stephen Locke.

C 77/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

31.3.2009

The EESC would however point out that the current definition
of toys is not adequate to the scope of the objectives set, as not
only does it not permit the updating needed to keep abreast of
developments on the technology market, but it also establishes
a list of products that do not fall within the directive's scope.
The appropriateness of such products, particularly decorative
objects for festivities and celebrations, imitation jewellery, games
using sharp-pointed missiles, products intended for use for
educational purposes in schools and other pedagogical frame-
work and sports equipment, is questioned.

The basis
to protect
for establishing special arrangements
product users depends effectively on the nature of the user, and
particularly their vulnerability. Users do not distinguish the
purpose of every object that may be presented to them — the
products themselves are often seen as toys by children, their
parents and even the traders who catalogue and sell them as
toys. In consequence, the Committee does not understand why
toys used for educational purposes in schools do not fall within
the scope of
since there is no difference
concerning the nature of the user.

the directive,

The EESC opposes the distinction, in terms of liability, between
authorised representatives and manufacturers. The EESC is
concerned that retaining this rule may prevent consumers'
rights from being upheld and specifically the right to compensa-
tion in respect of harm in situations where only an authorised
representative is established in the Member State.

The EESC generally supports retaining those provisions of the
directive currently in force that share liability among all those
involved in the marketing chain.

Regarding the definition of harm, the Committee considers that
this should cover situations that arise in the long term and are
the direct consequence of confirmed accidents.

4.3 Article 9

The EESC highlights the need for all equipment and products
that are accessible and may potentially be used as toys by
minors under the age of 14 to be included within the protective
scope of
in keeping with the precautionary
principle.

the directive,

The EESC welcomes the amendment to paragraph 2 of this
article, stipulating that the foreseeable use of the toy, bearing in
mind behaviour of children, is to be taken into account in asses-
sing its hazards (although it would point out that recital (16)
could be interpreted in the opposite sense).

The EESC therefore urges the Commission to review the defini-
tion set out in Article 1 and the list, in order to make them
compatible with each other.

4.2 Articles 2 to 5

and

since

importers,

The EESC thoroughly disagrees with the distinction made
between manufacturers
European
Parliament and Council Directive 2001/95/EC on general
product safety puts importers on the same footing as manufac-
turers, where the latter do not have a representative in the
Member State. Maintaining the present distinction not only fails
to duly uphold users' right to compensation in respect of harm
(because liability falls exclusively on the manufacturer), but also
inevitably
does not properly harmonise Community laws,
jeopardising the principle of certainty in legal matters.

The EESC therefore considers that for the purposes of applying
the present directive, authorised representatives and importers
(where there are no official representatives of the manufacturer)
should be considered as manufacturers, contrary to the aim of
the present directive which only puts them on the same footing
when toys are marketed in their name or using their trademark
or they have made some change to the nature of the product,
even if not affecting the production process.

The EESC believes however that there should be an obligation
on manufacturers to foresee possible uses of their products that
may be inappropriate, but would reasonably be acceptable to
children. Moreover,
retaining the foreseeability criterion is
contradictory when the explanatory memorandum emphasises
the need for the frequently unpredictable behaviour of children
to be taken into account when designing toys.

The EESC disagrees with the wording of paragraph 3, since the
provision not only establishes an irrebuttable presumption, but
also introduces vague and undefined criteria, such as the
concepts of
in the final
‘foreseeable’ and ‘normal’ which,
analysis, rules out any obligation on the manufacturer to keep
up to date with scientific and technical experiments in the
specialist field, as the fact that his product is available on the
market is a corollary of the maintenance of general product
safety (20).

representative,

The duty to prevent product defects does not in fact end once
the product is placed on the market. The manufacturer, or his
is duty-bound to monitor and
local
observe toys continuously, so that defects that were unknown
and could not be known at the time of their entry into circula-
tion can be discovered, along with defects caused by wear and
tear, fatigue or premature ageing of the toy.

if any,

(20) See in this connection the judgment of the Court of Justice of the
European Communities of 29 May 1997 (case C-300/95, European
Court Reports 1997, page I-02649).

31.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 77/13

4.4 Article 10

4.7 Article 18

The EESC welcomes the Commission's intention to require
warnings to be clearly, visibly and legibly displayed at the point
of sale, in order to ensure that users have effective prior infor-
mation. It however considers that these warnings should appear
not only on the packaging, but also on the products themselves.

The EESC considers that the conformity assessment procedure
should be applied to all categories of toys, and not only in the
cases listed in paragraph 3, ensuring use of uniform criteria and
introducing a European safety label, as proposed by the EP (21).

The Committee however considers that the warnings displayed
at points of sale should contain not only information on the
minimum and maximum ages of users, but also indications as
to the appropriate weight of children for the use of certain toys,
and on the need for the product to be used only under the
supervision of those responsible for their care.

Moreover, given that this is a technical area in which specific
practical knowledge or statistics on accidents caused by virtue of
product use are lacking, the EESC emphasises the need for the
Commission to flesh out the precautionary principle in the
present proposal,
in exactly the same way as in the January
2000 White Paper on food safety (22).

The Committee also emphasises
should be
worded in a way appropriate to the users, and in keeping with
their particular sensibilities.

that warnings

4.8 Annex II — Particular safety requirements

The EESC renews its call for training initiatives for parents and
child carers to be encouraged, alerting them to the precautions
and risks arising from the use of toys. However, the fact that
children's safety is ultimately the responsibility of their parents,
guardians, carers, teachers, etc. cannot be used as a pretext to
diminish the responsibility on the part of manufacturers, impor-
ters and retailers for the complete safety of toys.

Bearing in mind the fact
labels are often worded in
that
languages others than the national ones, the EESC is of the view
that paragraph 3 should make it compulsory for the warnings
and safety instructions to be presented in the official language
of the Member State where the toys are placed on the market,
rather than the simple possibility it presently introduces.

Par t I — Physical and mechanical proper ties

The EESC believes that the scope of the third paragraph of point
4 should be extended to children under 60 months, since it is
still possible at this age that children might use the toy without
due prudence and precaution by putting it in their mouths,
even if this was not the manufacturer's intention at the design
stage.

The EESC also considers that the following aspects have not
been covered:

— product packaging, and specifically situations in which toys

are packaged in plastic bags;

4.5 Articles 12 and 26

— the possibility of certain toy components becoming loose

and being swallowed by children;

Although it accepts the need to retain the presumption of
conformity, the EESC feels that it would be more in keeping
with the ‘state of the art’ to reverse the burden of proof in the
event of a harmful incident.

— the characteristics of toys if broken.

4.6 Article 17

The EESC highlights the Commission's decision to require
manufacturers to carry out an analysis of the hazards arising
from the use of the toy, instead of only allowing an analysis
only of the risks inherent in its use. The Committee however
considers that this analysis should cover the entire lifecycle of
the toy, regardless of whether or not harmful situations arise,
thereby avoiding cases such as the Mattel one.

Par t III — Chemical proper ties

While welcoming the proposed changes, the EESC would draw
attention to the need to implement, with immediate effect, the
precautionary principle with regard to chemical properties, since
World Health Organisation studies have shown that exposing
children to these products can lead to chronic illnesses that
continue to affect children over the age of three.

(21) EP resolution of 19.9.2007 on dangerous

toys

(document

P6-TA(2007)0412) of 26/9/2007.
(22) COM(1999) 719 final of 12.1.2000.

C 77/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

31.3.2009

The Committee therefore highlights the need for all CMR
substances — including those coming under category 3,
provided that they have been dully recognised as potentially
dangerous — to be prohibited, not only from the design of the
product itself, but from all the internal component materials, in
keeping, moreover, with the directive on cosmetic products. The
EESC would also alert the Commission to the excessive laxity
regarding not only the permitted migration limits, but also
child
endocrine
development.

interruptors, which

normal

stunt

can

With regard to the use of allergenic substances, the EESC recom-
mends that the Commission prohibit the use of all fragrances
and sensitisers, since they may contain not only allergenic
substances — that should clearly be banned — but also other
substances that have direct implications for children's immune
systems.

To be realistic in terms of workability and given the structure of
the toy industry, with a vast majority of SMEs, and the substan-
tial changes that this Directive brings, especially in the field of
chemical properties, the EESC would like to recommend a 5 year
transition period.

Lastly, the EESC draws attention to the need to ensure the
compatibility of the present proposal with health safety rules,

Brussels, 18 September 2008.

especially regarding the materials used in toys for children of
less than 36 months. The Committee therefore urges the
Commission to authorise only the same substances that are
allowed for materials in direct contact with food products, for
the design of such toys.

Par t IV — Electr ical proper ties

The EESC considers that the annex should contain specific rules
on products requiring the use of batteries, and particularly
mercury batteries.

4.9 Annex V — Warnings

The EESC considers that
there should be specific warnings
concerning special conditions for children with certain physical
or mental disabilities, so that parents or carers are aware in
advance of the risks inherent in the use of the toy.

Regarding the use of toys in food, the EESC considers that there
should be a specific indication, displayed in a visible and
indelible way, that the food contains a toy, making this visible
regardless of how it is packaged.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS