A consumer product safety standard for toys for children under three years of age was first declared mandatory under the Trade Practices Act 1974 on 11 January 1989. The current mandatory standard came into effect on 16 April 1997 and is derived from Australian Standard 1647.2-1992 Children’s toys safety requirements part 2: constructional requirements, approved by the Standards Association of Australia on 14 September 1992, as amended by Amendment No. 1 published on 5 March 1995.
When the mandatory standard was introduced, there had been concern for some time about the dangers of children ingesting and inhaling the small parts of toys. Children under three years of age have not yet fully developed their reflexes to cough out small items which they may place in their mouth. They are therefore especially vulnerable to inhalation and ingestion hazards because they can't recognise and avoid these dangers. The objective of the standard was to reduce the risk of children under three years choking on toys, by ensuring that the toys meet small-part size and performance criteria.
An updated version of the Australian Standard was published on 16 May 2002 (AS/NZS ISO 8124.1:2002). This new version brings the standard into line with international standards.
The establishment of an international standard for children’s toys and the adoption of that standard as an Australian Standard means that the current mandatory standard for toys is now out of date and has become an impediment to the toy industry in Australia. Currently industry has to test toys to both standards, which is a time consuming and expensive process. An updated standard will result in reduced costs to business. The current standard also acts as a barrier to trade since it does not align with international standards.
There is a need to review the mandatory standard to ensure it continues to be effective and appropriate. Attachment A 'Comparison of requirements under AS/NZS ISO 8124 Part 1 to the current Trade Practices Act mandatory standard for children under three years' shows that the new standard is more hazard directed and less prescriptive.
In assessing the need for a mandatory standard in 1986 the Consumer Product Advisory Committee (CPAC), an advisory body to the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs, observed that children under the age of three years are recognised worldwide as a group at risk from the dangers of inhaling or ingesting small objects. The problem results from young children’s underdeveloped cough reflex, coupled with their tendency to examine small objects by putting them in their mouths. Their inability to recognise the dangers of this behaviour increases the risk of injury or death even further.
Injury statistics
Data on deaths and injuries associated with toys is extremely limited because only the cause of injuries or deaths is mentioned on most data bases, without linking the occurrence to a particular object.
The most comprehensive data on toy-related deaths and injuries comes from the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) for the calendar years 2000 and 2001:
Calendar year 2000: 17 toy-related deaths, including six cases of choking or aspiration. Two children choked on small toy balls, other toys involved include a small ball from the end of a toy caterpillar’s antenna and a toy building. There were an estimated 191 000 toy-related injuries treated in US hospital emergency rooms; 37 per cent of the injuries were to children under five.
Calendar year 2001:25 toy-related deaths including nine choking or aspiration deaths occurred with a toy building block, a toy dart, a toy ball and six unspecified toys. The children ranged in age from three months to eight years old. There were an estimated 255 100 toy-related injuries; 30 per cent of these to children under five.
Statistics produced by the UK Department of Trade and industry estimate that there were 167 choking accidents involving toys or parts of toys to children under four in the UK between 1986 and 1996.
In Australia we are aware of two choking deaths associated with toys in 2002. One child choked on a small piece of a children’s board game and another on a small dart which became lodged in his throat.
The Victorian Injury Surveillance System (VISS) has limited data for injuries associated with toys based on children under 15 years who presented to the Emergency Departments of the Royal Children’s Hospital , Preston and Northcote Community Hospital and the Western Hospital over the period 1989 to 1992. A survey of home injuries during the period showed that toys directly caused 66 per cent of all injuries. Seventy five percent of toy injuries occurred to children under five years, with one-year olds having the highest occurrence at 21 per cent.
The Victorian Emergency Minimum Dataset (VEMD) is a surveillance database maintained by VISS of injury presentations to 28 Victorian public hospital emergency departments, representing approximately 80 per cent of statewide emergency department presentations. For the three year period January 1999 to December 2001 VEMD identified 365 cases of toy-related injury to children aged 0-2 years; 62 per cent of presentations were males; 40 per cent of cases involved children aged one year old, another 40 per cent were aged two years and the remaining 20 per cent were aged 0-11 months.
VISS consider that because of the structure of the VEMD data base the identified cases would almost certainly be an underestimation of the true incidence of toy injury in this age group, but do provide an estimate of the minimum number of injuries associated with toys which present to a hospital emergency department.
Only limited child mortality data is available. The Queensland Injury Surveillance System collates data from a variety of sources. However, they qualify their data collection as the coronial database in Queensland is limited. In a survey of injury deaths for the years 1992–96 QISS identified:
11 deaths for children under one year old, of which two were due to suffocation
186 injury deaths for children in the 1-4 age group including three deaths from suffocation.
Why is government action needed to correct the problem?
Despite the fact that a mandatory standard for toys for children under three has existed since 1989, there have recently been large numbers of recalls of toys that do not meet the small parts requirements of the standard. That there is still a degree of non-compliance with the standard points to the continuing need for a mandatory standard for toys for children up to and including 36 months.
Some of the problems in the marketplace are caused by small importing firms whose business does not centre on the supply of toys, and discount retailers who very often do not have adequate quality control measures in place. In the financial year 2001–02 there were 209 recalls of consumer goods, with a significant proportion of these being for unsafe toys.
The government’s consumer protection policy includes the objective of ensuring that consumer products are safe. The Trade Practices Act includes provisions to support this objective through the establishment of mandatory consumer product safety and information standards, product bans, recalls of unsafe products and the issuing of product safety warning notices.
The government’s primary aim is to reduce the risk of children up to and including 36 months of age choking on toys by ensuring that these toys do not produce small parts and meet performance criteria which simulate reasonable and expected abuse of toys by young children.
The government also aims to remove barriers to trade and ensure that mandatory standards are aligned with international standards. This will result in reduced costs for industry because there will no longer be a requirement to test two standards.
Is there a regulation currently in place? Who administers it?
The current mandatory standard for toys for children under three came into effect on 16 April 1997 and is derived from Australian Standard 1647.2-1992 Children’s toys safety requirements part 2: constructional requirements, approved by the Standards Association of Australia on 14 September 1992, as amended by Amendment No. 1 published on 5 March 1995.
Mandatory standards are enforced by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC).
Who is affected by the problem and who is likely to be affected by its proposed solution?
The proposed options would affect consumers who purchase toys and their children under three, businesses involved in the supply of toys (manufacturers, importers, distributors and retailers) and government (including consumer product regulators) and providers of public hospital services.
Option 1: Industry self-regulation
Industry self-regulation is voluntary action by industry to control the supply of particular products for the benefit of consumers. For toys, self-regulation could involve an industry code of conduct to supply only toys that meet the new Australian Standard.
If the mandatory standard were removed the relevant legislative framework for toy safety issues would rest with the product liability provisions contained within Part VA of the Trade Practices Act. Part VA provides statutory rights of action to consumers against a corporation which in trade or commerce supplies defective goods that cause injury or death.
It is arguable that the provisions of Part VA provide a lesser standard of safety than that offered by the mandatory standard since:
the provisions of Part VA are retrospective and are only invoked after loss or injury has occurred
a lower standard of construction, design, performance or labelling of toys may not constitute a ‘defect’ giving rise to a successful claim under Part VA.
Costs
Consumers
Although the major players in the industry are likely to conform to a code of conduct, there are literally hundreds of small importers whose products often do not meet the current mandatory standards and who have been forced to recall toys for this reason. The number of unsafe inexpensive toys on the market is likely to increase and this would have a negative effect particularly on low-income consumers who are likely to shop in bargain stores.
Industry
Costs to industry comprise the development of a code of practice for the supply of safe toys and the promotion of the code to industry and consumers.
However, those complying with the code could be losing sales to suppliers of cheaper, non-compliant products.
Government
Indications are that non-complying toys would continue to be supplied under industry self-regulation, which could result in ongoing costs for hospital treatment associated with a significant level of preventable injuries. Government could also be forced to take expensive legal action against the suppliers of unsafe toys (e.g. if mandatory recall orders were ignored or challenged).
Benefits
Consumers
Consumers could benefit from a wider range of inexpensive toys; however, these are likely to be less safe or unsafe.
Industry
Self-regulation allows suppliers to determine what action they should take and what costs they wish to incur in the supply of toys.
Government
Self-regulation as an alternative to government regulation avoids the need for legislation and an enforcement regime, saving the cost of market surveys, enforcement action and reviews of mandatory standards.
Option 2: Retain the current consumer product safety standard
Costs
Consumers
Although the current standard offers a minimum amount of protection, the latest Australian Standard has been updated to offer a higher level of protection, particularly for small parts, plus it reflects international best practice.
Industry
At the moment industry is attempting to comply with both the new Australian Standard for toys and the mandatory standard. Toys have to be tested to both standards which makes the process time consuming and expensive.
The industry association, the Australian Toy Association Limited (ATA), has advised that their members who are toy importers, manufacturers and retailers are required to meet both the voluntary requirements of the new standard and the mandatory requirements of the current regulation (which references the old standard). Although similar, they are not exactly the same, therefore three documents must be referenced—the new standard, the current regulation and the old standard.
ATA has advised that 'Interpretation of even one standard can be difficult and sometimes confusing. If the current complex situation were allowed to continue it could lead to greater confusion and possibly even to a reduction in compliance or increased certification costs which would eventually be passed on to the consumer. None of these are desirable outcomes.'
The views of the ATA are endorsed by the Australian Retailers Association.
The current standard will act as a barrier to trade as it does not align with the international standard.
Government
The government could be criticised for retaining an outdated standard which acts as a barrier to trade.
Based on ACCC estimates, enforcement costs would amount to approximately $20 000 per year.
Benefits
Consumers
The minimum level of protection from dangerous toys afforded by the current mandatory standard would continue to reduce deaths and injuries to children.
Industry
Industry cannot see any benefits in the retention of the status quo and has been actively lobbying for an updated standard.
Government
Retention of the current standard would allow government to continue to control the supply of some dangerous toys.
Option 3: Introduce a mandatory standard to reflect the most recently published Australian Standard
Costs
Consumers
Government regulations would aim to eliminate unsafe toys from the new product market. Theoretically, this could result in increased costs to consumers. However, advice from industry indicates that adopting the most recent Australian Standard is likely to reduce testing costs and these reduced costs could flow on to consumers.
Industry
Costs to industry would be reduced, as there would be no need to adapt or re-label toys to meet the current standard, or to test two different standards.
Government
Based on ACCC estimates the cost of mandatory standard enforcement using visual compliance checks of the product in the market would be approximately $20 000 per annum.
Benefits
Consumers
Consumers would benefit from an increased range of safer products, and possible flow on price reductions arising from the reduced costs to industry, as well as reduced injury/health costs.
Industry
Industry would benefit from reduced costs with the removal of the requirement to adapt or re-label toys, elimination of the need to test two standards and from access to a wide range of safer products.
A comparison of requirements under the current mandatory standard and the new Australian Standard, and the anticipated market effect of adopting the new Australian Standard is at attachment A. This comparison demonstrates that the market impact of adopting the new standard would not be significant, and industry would benefit from reduced testing costs due to the streamlined tests in the updated standard.
Government
The wellbeing of the community in general, and especially those most vulnerable, such as all children under 36 months of age, is a keystone of government policy and an updated standard will reassure the community that product safety is being addressed. The new standard would help to reduce the costs to the government of the injuries and deaths outlined in the injury statistics on page three.
Consultations will be held with suppliers, the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs (MCCA), the Standing Committee of Officials of Consumer Affairs (SCOCA), the Consumer Products Advisory Committee (CPAC) (these bodies comprise Commonwealth, state, territory and New Zealand consumer affairs/fair trading ministers/officers) and the following members of the Standards Australia Committee on the Safety of Children’s Toys:
Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
Australian Consumers Association
Australian Hearing
Australian Retailers Association
Australian Toy Association
Commerce Commission New Zealand
Kidsafe
Ministry of Health New Zealand
New Children’s Hospital, Westmead
New Zealand Toy Distributors Association
Pigment Ecological & Toxicological Technical Committee of Australia
Plastics and Chemicals Industries Association
Queensland Health.
The Australian Toy Association (ATA) has advised that the new toy safety standard AS/NZS ISO 8124.1:2002 is based, with only minor changes, on the International Safety Standard. This was developed between 1997 and 2000 by an international team of experts and incorporates the latest knowledge available at the time. The latest research and injury statistics from Europe and the US as well as Australia. The full Standards Australia Technical Committee gave thorough and careful consideration to adopting the ISO document for Australia and New Zealand and it was published as AS/NZS ISO 8124.1:2002 in May last year. ATA strongly recommended that the mandatory standard be updated to reference this new standard as soon as possible.
The views of the ATA are endorsed by the Australian Retailers Association.
While major suppliers would comply with an industry code of conduct, the prospect for gaining voluntary commitment to the supply of safer toys by small independent suppliers is not good. They compete against the major suppliers by selling cheaper products and this market niche seems set to continue with the cheaper, non-complying toys attracting lower income families and resulting in an associated continuing high rate of injury for this group.
In summary, industry self-regulation has the potential to achieve a significant level of success with the major players, but small independent suppliers are unlikely to comply.
Retain the current consumer product safety standard
Industry can see no benefit in retaining the status quo and has been actively lobbying for an updated standard. At present industry is attempting to comply with both the mandatory standard and the new Australian Standard (which aligns with the international standard.) The current standard acts as a significant barrier to trade, as it does not align with the international standard. Consequently the retention of the standard would not meet the government’s objectives of reducing barriers to trade.
Introduction of a mandatory standard to reflect the most recently published Australian standard. (recommended option)
The recommended option is for a mandatory standard for toys for children up to and including 36 months of age based on the new Australian standard. The standard will only address the key safety issue of small parts.
The risks to young children have not changed since the introduction of the mandatory standard for toys for children under three. Treasury considers that the most appropriate countermeasure continues to be a mandatory consumer product safety standard updated to meet the current Australian Standard.
The new mandatory standard for toys for children up to and including 36 months of age would commence on 17 December 2003, and would run concurrently with the old mandatory standard for twelve months. Consequently until 30 June 2005 suppliers would be given the choice of complying with either standard. This would remove the current onerous requirement for industry to test to both standards and give suppliers a chance to clear existing stocks.
The standard will be reviewed on a regular basis, at least every five years.
Attachment A
Comparison of requirements under AS/N:ZS ISO 8124 part 1 to the current Trade Practices Act mandatory standard for toys for children under three years
Current mandatory standard
AS/NZS ISO 8124 part 1
Anticipated market impact of introduction of AS/NZS ISO 8124 part 1
Definitions
Based on 3 years. Based on ingestions & inhalation hazard.
Based on 36 months. Based on parts that fit into small parts cylinder.
Both the same.
Specific requirements for particular toys
There are requirements for specific toys (i.e stuffed toys, pull or push toys with solid handles and protective tips and protective covers) as well as the general requirements.
The standard is based on the hazard rather than the specific toy, i.e. small parts are prohibited before and after all tests.
Requires a warning on toys intended for children between 36 and 73 months.
The effect is the sameas the specific requirements are covered within the reasonably foreseeable abuse tests. The new standard is easier to understand. There is no need to search the document for references to a specific item. There is an additional warning requirement (however, most products carry this anyway).
General test requirements
Allows for exclusion of porous material, fibre filling, paper, fabric, yarn, fuzz, fluff, elastic and string.
New standard allows writing and painting materials that are small parts.
Normal use test requirements
Includes toys with moving parts and washable toys
Non specific tests required to simulate normal use in the toy’s expected environment. Specific test for washable toys. Six wash and dry sequences required. No distinction for hand wash.
New standard is less specific but covers all normal use. Nil market impact expected.
Reasonably foreseeable abuse test requirements
Includes general tests for dropping, compression, tension and torque, as well as tip over, projectile, bite, seam strength, flexure, tumbling, tyre removal, axle removal, mouth actuation and impact tests for specific toys.
Includes general tests for dropping, compression, tension and torque, as well as the tip over, dynamic strength, tension and flexure tests for specific toys.
Refer to tests below.
Appendix A—test for accessibility
Defines probe and procedure to determine accessibility of components.
Accessibility of a part or component—same test.
Nil market impact expected.
Appendix D—test for ingestion or inhalation hazard
Test for ingestion or inhalation hazard
Truncated circular right cylinder-ID= 32 mm Ht=25-57 mm
Refer 5.2 small parts test.
Truncated circular right cylinder -ID=31.7 mm Ht=25.4-15 mm.
Dimensions are close to identical.
Nil market impact expected.
Appendix E—conditioning
Requires 24 hours in a normal atmosphere.
Refer 5.1 General.
Requires 4 hours at a normal temperature.
New standard requires less time and only specifies humidity for textile toys.
Nil market impact expected.
Appendix F—test for toys with moving components
Specifies number of cycles and laboratory determines component parts.
Refer 4.1—normal use.
Non-specific tests required to simulate normal use in the toy’s expected environment.
Test lab determines process.
Nil market impact expected.
Appendix G—test for toys which are labelled as being washable
Specifies washing cycles and methods depending on hand or machine wash.
Three wash and dry sequences required.
Refer 5.3—washable toys.
Six wash and dry sequences required.
No distinction for hand wash.
New standard is harsher, but should give similar result.
Nil market impact expected.
Appendix H—drop test
Specifies number of drops and height depending on age group.
Note: The requirements in 10.3.1 allow that toys for children under 18 months and weighing more than 0.5 kg do not have to be tested and that toys for children between 18 months and two years and weighing more than 1.5 kg do not have to be tested.
Refer 5.24.2—drop test
Specifies number of drops and height depending on age group and weight of toy.
Toys for children under 18 months and weighing more than 1.4 kg do not have to be tested.
Toys for children between 18 months and 96 months and weighing more than 4.5 kg do not have to be tested.
Slight differences in test procedure and increases the range of items that have to be tested.
Some products currently allowed may now be disallowed.
New standard is based on worldwide data so additional requirements should be accepted.
Appendix I—compression test
Specifies compressive force depending on age group.
100N up to 18 months.
125N between 18 months and three years.
Refer 5.2.7—compression test.
114N up to 36 months.
May disallow some toys for children less than 18 months and allow others for those up to 36 months. Impact is expected to be slight.
Appendix L—bite test
Tests to determine the effect of biting on a toy.
Bite test is not included in EN71, nor in ASTM F963. It is part of the CPSC requirements in the US.
For some toys with small cross-sectional areas, the bite test can have an impact on the subsequent pass or failure of the torque and tension tests.
The change is therefore expected to allow some products that were previously disallowed.
The rationale for its exclusion from the EN71 standard is not known.
Appendix M—torque test
Determines the effect of clamping and then twisting a toy at specified torque’s depending on age.
0.25NM for less than 18 months.
0.375NM for 18 months to 3 years.
Refer 5.24.5—torque test.
Determines the effect of clamping and then twisting a toy at a specified torque—0.45NM.
The new standard is significantly more stringent for toys for children up to 18 months.
Some existing products may not pass.
Appendix N—tension test for any projection on a toy
Determines the effect of clamping and then pulling on a toy with specified force depending on age.
50N for less than 18 months.
75N for 18 months to 3 years.
Refer 5.24.6.1—tension test—general procedure.
Determines the effect of clamping and then pulling on a toy with a specified force—70N.
The new standard is more stringent for toys for children up to 18 months.
Some existing products may not pass.
Appendix O—test for stuffed toys
Tension test for fabric and seams of stuffed toys. Fabric and seams are tensioned with specified forces depending on the age of the child, 50N for less than 18 months and 75N for 18 months to 3 years.
If an opening greater than 5 mm is produced then all of the stuffing material is examined for ingestion or inhalation hazards.
Refer 5.24.6.2—tension test for seams in soft-filled and bean bag type toys.
Fabric and seams are tensioned with 70N regardless of intended age.
The toy fails if a small part is released.
The new standard is more stringent for toys for children up to 18 months in that it uses a greater force, but the toy does not fail unless a small part is released by the test.
Unlikely to have much market impact.
Appendix P—flexure test for toys with stiffening means for retention of form
Test to determine if the stiffening material will break if flexed.
Bending force is dependent on age.
50N for less than 18 months.
75N for 18 months to 3 years
Refer 5.24.8—flexure test.
Tests if flexing the material inside the toy will produce a small part.
Bending force is 70N independent of age.
The new standard is more rational in that a hazard must be produced in order to fail. Also the force used is greater.
Some products may be allowed that are not now, but these products would not be hazardous.
Appendix Q—tumble test for wheeled toys
Tests if an ingestion or inhalation hazard is produced when a wheeled toy is tumbled down a specified flight of stairs.
Applies to toys heavier than 1.4 kg.
Refer 5.24.2—drop test.
Toys weighing up to 4.5 kg for children over 18 months old are subject to the drop test.
It is expected that toys that fail appendix Q would also fail the drop test.
No market impact expected.
Appendix R—tension test for tyre removal
Tests if a tyre can be removed with specified forces depending on age.
50N for less than 18 months.
75N for 18 months to 3 years and, if the tyre is removed, whether it produces a hazard.
Refer 5.24.6.1—tension test—general procedure.
Determines the effect of clamping and then pulling on a toy with a specified force—70N.
Any toy failing the tyre removal test will also fail the tension test.
The new standard is more stringent for toys for children up to 18 months.
