Playing safe in the EU’s toy industry

Date: 17/09/1998

Fervent lobbying by environmental groups has prompted recent calls by some European politicians for a ban on the use of PVC by the Union's toymakers. Maurits Bruggink argues that it is all too easy to start health scares when children are involved and calls for more attention to be paid to scientific evidence rather than to emotional appeals for action FOR more than a year, toymakers across the world have fallen victim to an environmental lobby against the petrochemical industry.

In the EU, the relatively small toy sector has had to deal with politicians, scientists, action groups and the press, as well as its customers, in order to keep its products on the shelves.

A good example of this is Greenpeace, the global environmental group, and its key goal of completely phasing out the use of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) because, activists claim, it harms the environment.

Greenpeace has recently focused on the fact that PVC is used in toys for the under-threes. An attack on toys might seem to be a good idea as it is easier to talk about children and their playthings than telephone cables, for example, which also contain PVC.

The approach taken was to attack the use of plasticisers to make PVC soft and malleable. Data exist showing that high exposure to some plasticisers can have adverse health effects on rats, but there is no proof of similar effects on humans.

It is far too easy to start a health scare involving our youngest and most vulnerable consumers and to discredit the raw material which goes into their toys.

Both media and politicians followed suit, leading national and European authorities to expend their common resources for over a year to find a response.

The disproportionate attention this issue has suddenly received could be seen as a direct result of the BSE scare and the European Commission's commitment to showing more interest in consumer issues than it has in the past. Although PVC has been used in toymaking for more than 40 years, there is no evidence to date of any harm being done to children.

Nevertheless, contrary to scientific evidence, a ban on these products seems to be the goal of many politicians, who appear to have become over-sensitive to all perceived risks to human health since the BSE crisis. Fortunately, decisions in Brussels are made collectively and a Draconian ruling banning products on emotional grounds has been avoided thus far.

The issue here is whether a child who sucks on a PVC toy containing certain plasticisers - known as phthalates - could be adversely affected. Some speculate that there is a risk that phthalates may be released from PVC toys if they are sucked by children.

Fortunately, the Commission has scientific committees at its disposal to determine whether there is a risk to health, as environmental pressure groups claim.

However scientists, aware that their opinions are being used as the basis for new policies, not unexpectedly leave room for interpretation in their answers. Each party can therefore select the explanation it likes.

In the case of PVC toys, it has proved to be too much of a long shot to accept the claims put forward about health risks, despite the imaginative interpretations made by some politicians (who shall remain nameless). This has led to the rejection of proposals to ban certain products.

Scientists continue to examine the issue. The fact that the process of evaluation is not straightforward can be illustrated by one simple example.

To measure the amount of phthalates it is safe for a child to suck, calculations were made by chemists based on exposure to the material over a 12-hour period. Since a one-year-old baby who sucks a teething-ring is not normally awake for 12 hours of the day, I can only assume that the scientists who came up with this type of evaluation must have been childless.

Science should obviously play a major role and form the basis of such decisions but, to go as far as to ban products from the market, there should at least be some fairly substantial evidence. In the case of PVC toys, a ban would have been far from justified and would have certainly set a dangerous precedent.

In addition, the position of those who wish to ban a product is always weakened when they have to find alternatives. While we know a great deal about phthalates, what do we know about their substitutes? Far more realistic health risks could be created by moving into an area of the unknown.

This issue went as far as it did because of a very effective lobby. Although it is safe to say that industry has more lobbying resources in Brussels than other groups such as consumer lobbies or environmentalists, the influence of the latter cannot be underestimated. Moreover, they are in a strong position to play the emotional card.

Greenpeace is a good example of a non-governmental organisation (NGO) with a multi-million-ecu budget at its disposal, allowing it to pursue its lobbying interests in a highly professional way.

The most modern communication techniques are used, including attractive websites, although the 'good old' techniques such as occupying buildings, demonstrating at shops or blockading sites where products are made also remain popular.

It seems that all methods are encouraged as long as the main goal is pursued: in this case, the ultimate phasing out of PVC.

Do NGOs have carte blanche to take action? The answer must be no. In the first place, there are legal restrictions and environmental organisations have already been condemned by courts on many occasions.

In the long term, while lobbyists are increasingly becoming partners in the regulatory process, their credibility may be undermined if they continue to misrepresent the facts.

Many pressure groups have proved to be more successful in communicating with the public and press than with the authorities. With their increasing role in the decision-making processes in Brussels, NGOs should move away from their often traditionally emotional appeals towards representation based on facts and sound moral arguments.

In the case of PVC toys, politicians, consumers and others have often been misled. This has not gone unnoticed and has done a great deal of harm to the credibility of those who oppose PVC toys. Toymakers have successfully and justifiably capitalised on this.

The Commission has handled this contentious issue with a great deal of openness; sometimes too much. The battle by toymakers is not only against the threat of a ban on products by governments but also on behalf of customers and consumers.

No shopkeeper wants activists on the doorstep before Christmas starting an ill-informed argument in an attempt to stop certain products being sold.

On one occasion, the preliminary conclusions of a scientific committee working group were published on the Internet. This not only undermined the reputation of science as a basis of sound policy-making, but also fuelled the controversy and damaged industry.

As with many types of consumer products, toys are already under continual scrutiny regarding safety. Since we are dealing with the most vulnerable members of our consumer market, the sector has become one of the most regulated in Europe.

To manufacture unsafe products would not only violate these rules, but would also spell commercial suicide. Selling soft PVC toys in the knowledge that they are harmful to health is not an approach expected of manufacturers. We are all consumers and we have a right to be protected from dangerous products. We also have the right to be able to make a choice without fear and uncertainty.

Cosmologist Carl Sagan once said: “It is a foreboding I have, maybe ill-placed, of a world in my children's generation, or my grandchildren's generation when, clutching our horoscopes, our critical faculties in steep decline, unable to distinguish between what is true and what feels good, we slide, almost without noticing, into suspicion and darkness.”

Maurits Bruggink is secretary-general of the Toy Industries of Europe and director at political consultancy European Strategy Agency in Brussels dealing with European Community Affairs.