As many of you are probably aware, I'm generally a rather pro-EU citizen. Today, however, I saw a German news segment on the upcoming EU-wide regulations regarding safety and chemical levels in children's toys, such as items imported from China. I immediately got on the interblag to look for info backing this up and I'm sad to say I've found some. My support is severely shaken right about now.
Germany, quite often - even stereotypically - known for its large amount of bureaucracy, strict regulations and rules, already had very strict limits in place to protect human health, especially that of our infants. So, obviously, when the planned EU-wide safety limits were revealed, our government appealed to the EU to let us keep the stricter rules.
To give you a quick background source, here's an article from April:
On 20 March 2012, the European Commission published Decision 2012/160/EU in the EU's Official Journal regarding Germany's restrictions on a number of chemicals that can be found in toys. The Commission Decision responds to a request, made by Germany on 20 January 2011, to retain its existing restrictions on five elements, namely, lead, arsenic, mercury, barium and antimony, as well as on nitrosamine and nitrosatable substances, released from toys and toy materials (see: EU Business Alert Issue 18/2011).
The previous Toy Safety Directive (88/378/EEC) had already laid down limits for the five aforementioned elements, although no specific provisions had been introduced for nitrosamine and nitrosatable substances. Under new EU Directive 2009/48/EC on the safety of toys, all these substances will be restricted according to a modernised legal framework by taking into account more recent scientific evidence. The new restrictions will be triggered as from 20 July 2013, but to a less severe extent than the German restrictions.
The EU commission tasked with this matter, released the following verdict in March:
The German measures related to antimony, arsenic and mercury notified pursuant to article 114(4) of the TFEU are not approved. The German measures related to lead and notified pursuant to Article 114(4) of the TFEU are approved until the date of entry into force of EU provisions setting new limits for lead in toys or 21 July 2013, whichever comes first. The German measures related to barium and notified pursuant to Article 114(4) of the TFEU are approved until the date of entry into force of EU provisions setting new limits for barium in toys or 21 July 2013, whichever comes first. The German measures related to nitrosamines and nitrosatable substances notified pursuant to Article 114(4) of the TFEU are approved.
Meaning that Germany would have to allow for lower safety standards when it comes to arsenic, antimony and mercury in children's toys, produced or imported. The way I read the rest of this, similar issues will come up with other chemicals, but the above are immediate changes and thus the most pressing.
Today, the German response was made widely public: Germany will attempt to sue the EU commission responsible for lowering the safety standards in the EU court to get to hold on to our higher safety standards.
Now, I'm quite honestly flabbergasted. I can easily consider EU-regulations valuable when they establish a new baseline of minimum security, an improvement on perhaps less-than-adequate measures. But forcing us to lower our standards goes against my perception and senses here entirely. What is your opinion on this subject?
Now, I'm quite honestly flabbergasted. I can easily consider EU-regulations valuable when they establish a new baseline of minimum security, an improvement on perhaps less-than-adequate measures. But forcing us to lower our standards goes against my perception and senses here entirely. What is your opinion on this subject?
Well, the reason for it is given in your first article:
Stricter restrictions could potentially create technical barriers to trade within the EU market, meaning that Hong Kong's toy suppliers to the German market would have to ensure that toys sold there would have to comply with the stricter rules.
This, in turn, could lead to higher costs due to the differentiated treatment for the German market on the one hand and other Member States' markets on the other. As a result of these potential barriers to trade, the Commission was obliged to investigate Germany's request, in order to evaluate whether such barriers are legitimately justified (i.e., on higher level of protection of children's health grounds).
It's about trade barriers it would seem. Now I'm not particularly sure that the EU shouldn't just adopt the German standard there, but I do see why they'd want to avoid unreasonably high standards from some countries and not others. I'm just not sure if it was unreasonably high or not.
Mortai Gravesend: Well, the reason for it is given in your first article:
Yes, I get that, but listen to the reasoning:
Stricter restrictions could potentially create technical barriers to trade within the EU market, meaning that Hong Kong's toy suppliers to the German market would have to ensure that toys sold there would have to comply with the stricter rules.
This, in turn, could lead to higher costs due to the differentiated treatment for the German market on the one hand and other Member States' markets on the other.
As if that's a bad thing. Quite frankly, I'm more than happy to pay a little more for some crappy piece of plastic if it means it won't give a child mercury poisoning.
It's about trade barriers it would seem.
Are such trade barriers, i.e. hampered profit incentives, reason enough to force a country to lower their safety standards? I am, quite frankly, not willing to lower our standards when it comes to children's health for something as lackluster as that.
Mortai Gravesend: Well, the reason for it is given in your first article:
Yes, I get that, but listen to the reasoning:
Stricter restrictions could potentially create technical barriers to trade within the EU market, meaning that Hong Kong's toy suppliers to the German market would have to ensure that toys sold there would have to comply with the stricter rules.
This, in turn, could lead to higher costs due to the differentiated treatment for the German market on the one hand and other Member States' markets on the other.
As if that's a bad thing. Quite frankly, I'm more than happy to pay a little more for some crappy piece of plastic if it means it won't give a child mercury poisoning.
It's about trade barriers it would seem.
Are such trade barriers, i.e. hampered profit incentives, reason enough to force a country to lower their safety standards? I am, quite frankly, not willing to lower our standards when it comes to children's health for something as lackluster as that.
Yes, but that would be why I mentioned unreasonably high standards. I'm not sure whether the standards are unreasonably high or not. If they are unnecessarily higher than the regular standards then I think these issues should be enough to call for pulling them down, no? If they aren't, then of course there's a problem. I simply don't know enough to evaluate the standards.
Mortai Gravesend: Yes, but that would be why I mentioned unreasonably high standards. I'm not sure whether the standards are unreasonably high or not. If they are unnecessarily higher than the regular standards then I think these issues should be enough to call for pulling them down, no? If they aren't, then of course there's a problem. I simply don't know enough to evaluate the standards.
Well, our experts certainly don't think they're unreasonably high, but doesn't this then just turn this into a game of "he said, she said"? It's less a question of whose numbers are right at that point, it's a question of authority and responsibilities. I'd hope for the EU to regulate reasonable minimum safety standards rather than forcefully lower those standards which not only meet but exceed that minimum.
Mortai Gravesend: Yes, but that would be why I mentioned unreasonably high standards. I'm not sure whether the standards are unreasonably high or not. If they are unnecessarily higher than the regular standards then I think these issues should be enough to call for pulling them down, no? If they aren't, then of course there's a problem. I simply don't know enough to evaluate the standards.
Well, our experts certainly don't think they're unreasonably high, but doesn't this then just turn this into a game of "he said, she said"? It's less a question of whose numbers are right at that point, it's a question of authority and responsibilities. I'd hope for the EU to regulate reasonable minimum safety standards rather than forcefully lower those standards which not only meet but exceed that minimum.
True, it would then come down to that, which would be a problem...
Well if you don't want them to ever lower standards, then are you saying they shouldn't bother caring about trade barriers?
Skeleon: It's less a question of whose numbers are right at that point, it's a question of authority and responsibilities. I'd hope for the EU to regulate reasonable minimum safety standards rather than forcefully lower those standards which not only meet but exceed that minimum.
I see it more as a cost benefit analysis. The cost of lowered standards vs the benefit of increased trade.
What kind of effect would the lowered standards have? Have any studies been done? I'd imagine you could compare Germany to another nation in the EU. Find some useful metrics. Number of injuries, sickness, etc, etc. I dunno.
Blablahb: Maybe, but if choosing between safe and safe, why not adopt the safe that means less bureaucratic fuss?
But we don't see it as "safe" and "safe", we see it as "safe" and "possibly harmful to children's health". Germany isn't just suing to preserve its overly elaborate bureaucracy.
Mortai Gravesend: Well if you don't want them to ever lower standards, then are you saying they shouldn't bother caring about trade barriers?
It's not exactly that I'm opposed to ever lowering standards. But if we were to lower standards, I'd want it done for the right reasons, based on the science and evidence. Say, we falsify higher safety limits requirement by demonstrating that no statistically significant risk increase is measurable and reach a scientific consensus on the proper limits. But until this is done, I wouldn't want to risk it. You're right regarding my position to a degree: The issue of trade barriers should only ever come in second because I don't think we should risk children's health based on short-term economic considerations. So in that sense, while they sure should care about trade barriers, they should care about proper safety limits more.
Walter Byers: What kind of effect would the lowered standards have? Have any studies been done? I'd imagine you could compare Germany to another nation in the EU. Find some useful metrics. Number of injuries, sickness, etc, etc. I dunno.
Sure. We'd need to get the groundwork done. But the EU is putting this into effect now (and the rest of it by 2013). By the way, use the "Quote"-button so I get a notification when you quote me please.
As if that's a bad thing. Quite frankly, I'm more than happy to pay a little more for some crappy piece of plastic if it means it won't give a child mercury poisoning.
You'd need to show that the EU regulation is ineffective at keeping children safe to make this claim.
Well, our experts certainly don't think they're unreasonably high, but doesn't this then just turn this into a game of "he said, she said"? It's less a question of whose numbers are right at that point, it's a question of authority and responsibilities. I'd hope for the EU to regulate reasonable minimum safety standards rather than forcefully lower those standards which not only meet but exceed that minimum.
Wouldn't that defeat the point of the EU, though? One of the purposes was to create a trade and economic union where trade within the union and with non-EU nations was streamlined and standardized.
Skeleon: Sure. We'd need to get the groundwork done. But the EU is putting this into effect now (and the rest of it by 2013).
That's a good point. I'm glad Germany is raising a red flag then. It could send a message to other EU nations about their standards.
Skeleon: By the way, use the "Quote"-button so I get a notification when you quote me please.
I'd love to but the escapist's javascript is broken for me at work. I think its being blocked. I should probably investigate a better solution. I was hoping people were getting messages about my posts. I guess not :(
Skeleon: But we don't see it as "safe" and "safe", we see it as "safe" and "possibly harmful to children's health". Germany isn't just suing to preserve its overly elaborate bureaucracy.
However thats impossible, as EU regulations for toxin intake are based on what is safe. The limit isn't chosen on a whim.
The only real exceptions to that are European eel and sex toys. The former because the Netherlands lobbied for a toxin intake limit 16 times higher than normal (because otherwise all consumption of eel would've been banned) and the latter because no legislator wants to touch sex toys and go down in history as 'the guy who made dildos safe'.
So unless those toys from the OP are the naughty ones, or constructed out of eels, it seems Germany is overly concerned.
Mortai Gravesend: Well if you don't want them to ever lower standards, then are you saying they shouldn't bother caring about trade barriers?
It's not exactly that I'm opposed to ever lowering standards. But if we were to lower standards, I'd want it done for the right reasons, based on the science and evidence. Say, we falsify higher safety limits requirement by demonstrating that no statistically significant risk increase is measurable and reach a scientific consensus on the proper limits. But until this is done, I wouldn't want to risk it. You're right regarding my position to a degree: The issue of trade barriers should only ever come in second because I don't think we should risk children's health based on short-term economic considerations. So in that sense, while they sure should care about trade barriers, they should care about proper safety limits more.
Oh I don't deny that we should care about proper safety limits first. I'm just saying that given the information available to me it isn't clear who is right or wrong here because it isn't clear whether the increased standards actually accomplish anything. I would assume the EU commission that decided this thought that the standards were unnecessarily high for safety. Given what I know I can't really say they're right or wrong.
LetalisK: Wouldn't that defeat the point of the EU, though? One of the purposes was to create a trade and economic union where trade within the union and with non-EU nations was streamlined and standardized.
To a degree, yes. But I'd argue that creating a trade and economic union should take the backseat in such a situation. I'm not comfortable arguing absolutes like that, especially not when health concerns are on the line. It's a weighing of benefits and I'm clearly on our experts' side when I make my call on which is the more important benefit in this situation. On a different issue, my answer my differ as well.
You'd need to show that the EU regulation is ineffective at keeping children safe to make this claim.
Arguably, our experts have done so when they determined what restrictions we needed. But clearly interpretations or evaluations differ on this. I'd prefer to err on the side of caution when it's about something so long-term harmful as risking children's health.
Unfortunately not. With the quote button, it doesn't just create a quoting box with the name of the original poster, it also adds a link to the post in question which looks like this: post="528.374803.14530995" I assume that link is what's responsible for the message being sent and received. Have you tried changing your security measures? I know that when I had completely over the top security enabled once, a lot of this stuff didn't function properly. Needed to find a good middleground.
Blablahb: However thats impossible, as EU regulations for toxin intake are based on what is safe. The limit isn't chosen on a whim.
As I said, "he said, she said". Our experts didn't choose our higher limits on a whim, either. And considering the profit and trade motive, I'd be much more hesitant to just outright declare the EU limits simply as safe and be done with it at that point. I'm always rather skeptical when that appears to be the driving force behind it.
The only real exceptions to that are European eel and sex toys. The former because the Netherlands lobbied for a toxin intake limit 16 times higher than normal...
So, how do you know a similar situation isn't the case here, except this time it's Germany waving the eels around by their tails, letting people know that the EU's limits are insufficient this time rather than too strict?
EDIT:
Mortai Gravesend: Oh I don't deny that we should care about proper safety limits first. I'm just saying that given the information available to me it isn't clear who is right or wrong here because it isn't clear whether the increased standards actually accomplish anything. I would assume the EU commission that decided this thought that the standards were unnecessarily high for safety. Given what I know I can't really say they're right or wrong.
I'm quite bothered by this. Even if we assume that the EU isn't setting its limits too low and that Germany is wrong (an assumption I'd like to think most of us aren't gonna make), I'd still much rather go with the more strenuous standard when it comes to things like the level of Arsenic in toys.
Now, I'm quite honestly flabbergasted. I can easily consider EU-regulations valuable when they establish a new baseline of minimum security, an improvement on perhaps less-than-adequate measures. But forcing us to lower our standards goes against my perception and senses here entirely. What is your opinion on this subject?
I'm with you, that's INSANE. I know the reason for common standards is to ensure easy inter-country trade, but you shouldn't be prohibitted from applying toughter standards on safety issues. If companies want into your market, they can damn well produce to the highest standards.
Stagnant: I'm quite bothered by this. Even if we assume that the EU isn't setting its limits too low and that Germany is wrong (an assumption I'd like to think most of us aren't gonna make), I'd still much rather go with the more strenuous standard when it comes to things like the level of Arsenic in toys.
Why? If the EU standard is not sufficient, I understand. But if it is, why go with a pointlessly more strict standard? Going the "extra mile" won't make the kids extra safe against arsenic in toys.
Other EU countries don't exactly have an epidemic of murderous or harmful children's toys. Germany is a major economy in the EU, it would be bad if it's unecessary regulations prevented a large amount of trade with non-EU nations.
You say this shakes your view on the EU, it improves mine. It's nice to see that it is capeable of making all EU nations accomodate to a certain set of standards. Not just the economically weak ones.
Being a Libertarian, I am in the strange position of either siding with more regulations or a large, multinational government. I am not really sure what to say or what to think, besides I don't support the actions of either party.
What an unsual situation to hear of as a Brit. The national tabloids over here would be all over a story about "those bloody goose-steppers in Brussels forcing pointless elf'and'safety laws onto hardworking toymakers" (only a slight exageration I assure you), but I wonder how they'll approach this one. Will it be with flagrant hypocrisy, or will they flat out pretend it never happened?
Basically, that EU commision "...did not approve [Germany's stricter] measures for antimony, arsenic and mercury but approved measures for barium, lead as well as nitrosamines and nitrosatable substances."
If they can say 'okay this stricter measure is okay, this one is not', then I'm fairly sure the EU knows what it's doing.
Well, I suppose the best compromise I can think of is to allow products that meet EU standards to be sold, but but a little sticker like "German Approved" or something for the products that meet German standards. Make sure to highly publicize the new system and tell everybody what they mean, and then nobody can blame the government if they somehow get hurt by a discrepency between EU and German regulations.
Saladfork: Well, I suppose the best compromise I can think of is to allow products that meet EU standards to be sold, but but a little sticker like "German Approved" or something for the products that meet German standards. Make sure to highly publicize the new system and tell everybody what they mean, and then nobody can blame the government if they somehow get hurt by a discrepency between EU and German regulations.
That's so disturbingly reasonable it will surely never happen.
* * *
The EU might have some sort of point that Germany is potentially maintaining de facto trade protectionism that it is not entitled to. If you voluntarily sign away trade standards to be the right of the EU, you should live by EU trade standards.
TheBelgianGuy: If they can say 'okay this stricter measure is okay, this one is not', then I'm fairly sure the EU knows what it's doing.
Eh, if their central argument is "Different regulations drive up the price of goods because widget manufacturers have to make German specific widgets, France specific widgets, etc.", then allowing just one exception means manufacturers now have to make German specific widgets, or else make it so all their widgets meet Germany's standards.
If anything they should deny the other measures while adopting the standards for nitrosamine and nitrosatable substances, so all countries have the same regulations.
Bassik: Silly Germans, economic growth and international trade is a lot more important then the lives and health of your kindern, can't you see that?
Actually, it's potentially more than that.
The EU works on a basis of common trade practices. Germany could, theoretically, refuse to accept Italian, French or British toys for not meeting German safety standards as well. And not just toys, and not just Germany. Potentially, all EU countries could institute all sorts of forms of trade protectionism against their competitors by upping national standards.
In fact, this has sort of happened. After the BSE crisis, when the EU finally okayed British beef, the French maintained a ban. I don't think anyone can pretend that this was anything other than protectionism for the powerful French agriculture lobby.
We have to assume that the EU regulations are perfectly adequate for health and safety. If they are and I think we can safely assume they are, there is no reason for any EU country to have higher standards.
As many of you are probably aware, I'm generally a rather pro-EU citizen. Today, however, I saw a German news segment on the upcoming EU-wide regulations regarding safety and chemical levels in children's toys, such as items imported from China. I immediately got on the interblag to look for info backing this up and I'm sad to say I've found some. My support is severely shaken right about now.
Germany, quite often - even stereotypically - known for its large amount of bureaucracy, strict regulations and rules, already had very strict limits in place to protect human health, especially that of our infants. So, obviously, when the planned EU-wide safety limits were revealed, our government appealed to the EU to let us keep the stricter rules.
To give you a quick background source, here's an article from April:
http://www.hktdc.com/info/vp/a/tsg/en/1/1/1/1X07W30R/Toys---Sporting-Goods/EU-responds-to-Germany%E2%80%99s-request-to-extend-strict-national-ban-on-chemicals-in-toys.htm
The EU commission tasked with this matter, released the following verdict in March:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:080:0019:0029:en:PDF
Meaning that Germany would have to allow for lower safety standards when it comes to arsenic, antimony and mercury in children's toys, produced or imported. The way I read the rest of this, similar issues will come up with other chemicals, but the above are immediate changes and thus the most pressing.
Today, the German response was made widely public: Germany will attempt to sue the EU commission responsible for lowering the safety standards in the EU court to get to hold on to our higher safety standards.
For those of you who speak German, there's another good summary source here:
http://www.swr.de/nachrichten/-/id=396/nid=396/did=9708474/ny58c9/index.html
If there's enough of a demand for it from non-German speaking members, I'll provide a short translation.
Now, I'm quite honestly flabbergasted. I can easily consider EU-regulations valuable when they establish a new baseline of minimum security, an improvement on perhaps less-than-adequate measures. But forcing us to lower our standards goes against my perception and senses here entirely. What is your opinion on this subject?