Statement on the Commission stocktaking on Product Safety - BEUC

BEUC welcomes the Stocktaking Review but we would be less kind than the Commission about the past efforts of industry, national authorities and the Commission itself in relation to product safety in general, and toy safety in particular. There have been failures in the past and we hope that these will be rectified by the proposals for future action in the review.

The primary responsibility for product safety lies with manufacturers, importers, distributors and retailers who put toys or other products on the market. Whether they choose to have the products made in China or anywhere else, it is they who are responsible, and legally liable, for ensuring that their products are safe.

"The real test of this stocktaking exercise" according to BEUC Director Jim Murray "is whether the right lessons are learned, the right actions taken and we have safe products on the market.

We welcome the fact that the stocktaking review contains a number of proposals for further action to improve and enhance consumer product safety. 
 
Subject to this, we agree with the conclusion in the stocktaking review that the current legislative framework “when properly applied” is capable of ensuring a high
level of consumer protection. The key phrase here is “properly applied”. 
 
The legislation has not been properly applied in recent years. Problems have arisen with sometimes inadequate levels of enforcement by national authorities and also in the liaison between the European Commission and the national authorities. 
 
At national level we think that the level of market surveillance – inspecting and testing products on sale in the market – has not been sufficient to meet the challenges of free movement, globalization and increasing consumption. Under Article 12 of the Toy Safety Directive, Member States shall “take the necessary measures to ensure that sample checks are carried out on toys which are on their market, so as to verify their conformity with this Directive”. There seems to be no
clear assessment of the extent to which national authorities fulfill this responsibility.

The Mattel incidents suggest also that too much faith has been placed in industry action and especially in “voluntary” recalls by manufacturers. (In November 2006 Mattel voluntarily recalled four million toys on which small magnets represented a safety risk; in August 2007 they again voluntarily withdrew 18 million of the same kinds of toys with exactly the same problems with magnets.) 
 
As for liaison between Commission and national authorities, we think there has been a lack of clarity as to the respective roles of DG Enterprise and DG SANCO. Under Article 12 of the Toy Safety Directive Member States are required every
three years to “send the Commission a report on the application of this Directive.” Apparently this has not been done and it is unclear as to which Commission DG was
responsible for seeing that it was done – or indeed for seeing that Member States were carrying out sample checks effectively. 
 
On a happier note there are a number of proposals for further action in the pipeline. We await the Commission’s proposal for an amended Toy Safety Directive. Obviously we will have to see the text before we can comment on it, but we hope that it will include, inter alia, new and tougher provisions on chemicals in toys. 
 
The Internal Market Package for Goods contains proposals for a New Legislative Framework for the marketing of products, and is currently before the Parliament and Council. Depending on the final outcome, this may help to bring a more
coherent approach at national and EU  level to the enforcement and market surveillance arrangements for the safety of consumer products generally – or it may not. The greatest danger is that we will have two different enforcement and surveillance systems, one for “harmonized” consumer products (under the New Legislative Framework) and another for “unharmonised” consumer products (under
the General Product Safety Directive). Try explaining that to the citizens and consumers of Europe. 
 
We welcome the Commission’s efforts to improve the situation in China but we stress that the primary responsibility for the safety of products rests with the
manufacturers, importers, distributors and retailers who put the products on the market. Whether they chose to have the products made in China or anywhere else, it is they who are responsible, and legally liable, for ensuring that their products are safe. 
 
We would have like to have seen in the stocktaking review more specific information regarding the working of the system of self-certification by manufacturers of the safety of toys. Current law does not require third party testing or approval for toy safety (which is why market surveillance is so essential). The CE Mark on a toy is simply a declaration by the manufacturer that the toy is safe. The manufacturer is supposed to keep, and pass down the distribution chain, technical documentation indicating the steps taken to ensure the safety of the product. We would like to know to what extent this system is working and to what extent national authorities are checking and assessing the relevant technical
documentation – especially, but not only, for those products that have been found to be defective. 
 
We would also have liked to have seen more discussion on the problems of the CE Mark. Too many consumers think wrongly that the CE Mark on (all) toys means that the toys are (a) made in Europe and/or (b) approved or tested by some official body or independent third party. In fact the CE Mark on toys is purely a manufacturer’s declaration – it means no more than the statement “The manufacturer hereby states that this toy is safe and complies with all essential legal requirements.” (We argue that the CE Mark is so widely misunderstood that it should no longer appear on consumer products, but only on the technical documentation that should accompany all products and that should be inspected by national surveillance authorities.) END

EUC was created on 6 March 1962 by the consumer organisations of Belgium, Luxembourg, France, the Netherlands, Italy and Germany. After working together for a number of years, these organisations decided to create a European association, based in Brussels, right at the heart of Community policy. BEUC was a pioneer, one of the first lobbying organisations to set up base in the European capital in a bid to influence the decision-making process.