Mother’s fight pays off in standards set on toys

Press, 28 October 1982, Page 17

Mother’s fight pays off in standards set on toys

By

OLIVER RIDDELL

A chain of circumstances which began five years ago in 1977 with the near choking to death of a three-month-old baby in Auckland has Jed finally to much stricter standards for the manufacture of toys. This result owes a great deal to the determination of an Auckland mother, Mrs Heather Tanguay. In 1977, Anthoinette Tanguay was one of several infants who swallowed a bell chewed from a toy rattle. Two weeks later, Mrs Tanguay appeared on the television programme “Fair Go” complaining about the hospi-

talisation of her child after playing with this dangerous toy. “Fair Go" advised people not to buy the product and tried to get retailers to withdraw it from sale. It was the response of retailers which spurred Mrs Tanguay into action. “I was incensed at the apathy of shopkeepers and the negative responses I received," Mrs Tanguay says. When she discovered that no toy safety standard existed.' she began a national campaign which culminated in the presentation to Parliament of a petition with more

than 10,000 signatures. After Mrs Tanguay's public campaign, in 1979 — the Year of the Child — the Accident Compensation Corporation asked that a toy standard be prepared through the Standards Association, sponsored by the corporation. Copies of the 94page NZS 5820.82 “Specification for the Safety of Toys,” is now available from the Standards Association at the cost of $31.50 ($42 to nonmembers). “Toys are No. 1 in the complaints parade to the Product Safety Council.” says the Accident Compensa-

tion Corporation’s chief technical adviser. Mr Harry Benis. “The problem is that without a standard on design and testing of toys there is no control. We are particularly concerned about children under the age of three years who are inclined to put toys in their mouth, ingest them, and so on.”

Mrs Tanguay says the problem is not as bad as when she first began her campaign. "One of my greatest thrills,” she says, "is

when I go into toy shops and hear people say, ‘This is no good.' People are much more aware now of what they are buying." Although it is very much a standard for consumers, it is written for manufacturers. Most manufacturers fully support the idea of safe products and standards. But Mr Benis thinks manufacturers are likely to balk at the testing requirements, some of which cannot be carried out in New Zealand, and which are likely to increase costs.

A number of countries have introduced similar standards, including Australia, on whose standard the New Zealand one is modelled. Manufacturers wishing to export face mandatory standards in some countries.

One member of the project committee which devised the standard, Mr Allan Graves of Lincoln Industries, says: “We (toy manufacturers) would prefer to go by an international standard so that we don't have to meet differing standards in each particular country." (An international standard is being prepared but it will be some time before it is in draft form.) Speaking for his own company, Mr Graves says they will apply those aspects of the standard that are more stringent than their own present standards. Many safety aspects are covered automatically because the machine tools bought in countries such as the United States are covered by strict controls there.

Even with the full support of manufacturers it is not likely that consumers will see toys with the "S" Mark on them before Christmas,

1983. The extent to which manufacturers try to get their toys licensed will depend largely on public pressure on them.

Mr Graves says that he is not convinced of the need for Certification Mark licensing for toys, but is prepared to see how it goes. One body which is opposed to the standard is the Toy Retailers’ Federation, which is a trade group within the Retailers' Federation. It was represented on the project committee, and its representative voted in favour of the draft document, but since then the Toy Retailers' Federation has written to the Standards Association. “We consider that as it is impossible to control the age of the end-user, the responsibility will still predominantly rest with the parents as to the type of toys their children will play with,” says the letter. “If adopted, these controls will place an impossible burden on many manufacturers and we submit that the consumer will once again be the loser by further controls imposed on the trade.

“Therefore, we recommend that this standard be not adopted." They add. however, that they are helping to prepare a voluntary code of practice which they believe will receive greater recognition and acceptance.

The Standards Association reply is that the Toy Retailers’ Federation seems not to have understood that NZS 5820.82 is an entirely voluntary document There has been no stated intention to enact legislation to force compliance. The standard represents simply a consensus of those involved.

Anyway, Mrs Tanguay believes the attitude of the toy retailers is to some extent irrelevant. She says it is the increasing awareness of the customer that will be decisive in the end.