Toy Safety Standards - What are the differences?
Toy safety standards are a scary tangle of chemistry and engineering terms, acronyms and testing methods. I barely made it through college chemistry and thought words like “selenium“, “antimony” and “Newtons” could be stricken from my science-challenged brain.
As the holidays approach and questions about toy testing and safety continue to be at the forefront of customer questions, I forced myself back into the world of science in an effort to better understand how the various world standards affect my business, my kids and my life.
The good news is that, after speaking with chemists and engineers at consumer products testing laboratories and studying various standards documents, the differences between US, European, Canadian and Japanese toy standards are few. The standards are, remarkably, very similar. The most widely used toy standards and testing methods are grouped into three categories: Heavy Metals, Flammability and Mechanical Hazards.
If you’re interested in seeing the differences summarized, click on the links below*:
Heavy Metals (.gif file)
Mechanical Hazards (.gif file)
Flammability (.gif file)
That said, there are a few differences that are interesting to point out. They involve the general approach to chemical use, the use of chemicals in toys (especially flame retardant chemicals) and which toy part(s) should be used to test for heavy metals (such as lead).
ASTM 963 vs. EN 71: Health hazard? Not until someone proves it!
European standards, in general, flow from the Precautionary Principle. Chemicals, compounds and practices are banned until proven safe. The opposite approach is taken in the United States. We allow chemicals to be used in the environment and consumer products until they’re proven unsafe - typically at the behest of consumer advocacy groups. Example: phthalates. This chemical was banned in Europe, but allowed in the United States until very recently.
ASTM 963 vs. EN 71: More chemicals, please.
The use of flame retardant substances is discouraged in the EU for textiles that may come in contact with a baby. Constrast that to what goes on here in the States. It’s often difficult to find 100% natural children’s pajamas and baby blankets. We seem to prefer pajamas made of polyester and baby blankets with fire retardant chemicals. Europeans prefer all natural fabrics (cotton, wool) for baby products, even if they’re flammable. The rationale? As one company owner put it on my recent trip to Germany, “Natural materials are better for children. If a baby is too close to fire, there’s something wrong with the parent.”
ASTM 963 vs. EN 71: Just scratch the surface.
Both ASTM and EN 71 test for the following heavy metals: arsenic, mercury, selenium, antimony, lead, cadmium, barium and chromium. What differs is which part(s) of the toy require testing. ASTM places a priority on the surface coating of the toy. EN 71 determines lead content by testing the surface and substrate (inside components) of the toy.
* This information is provided for informational purposes. It is primarily based on personal interpretations published material as of 11/15/07. I am not a chemist, scientist, engineer or expert in the subject matter presented. I do not provide consulting services in matters of toy safety or product development, nor do any employees of Oompa Toys.