Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-12-18-Speech-4-219"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.20081218.33.4-219"2
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:spokenAs
lpv:translated text
". Whilst this new law on safe toys is a step in the right direction, it does allow a few opportunities to go to waste. This is why I did not endorse the report. For example, whilst the use of some allergenic fragrances and certain chemical substances that are carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic to reproduction, amongst other things, has been curbed, they will not be banned completely, but phased out gradually. There are no binding standards for noise-producing toys either. What is positive is that, in the eyes of the law, importers of toys will be equated with the manufacturers. Less positive is the directive’s half-hearted monitoring provision in respect of toy safety standards, since manufacturers themselves are held responsible for the safety aspect. The directive does stipulate that Member States must carry out random tests, but I fear that this stipulation is too noncommittal. Monitoring safety is random and, to date, there is not really a European quality label that enables the parents to take informed decisions and, therefore, avoid toys that can be harmful to the health of their children. Compulsory certification by independent bodies could solve this problem. Both the USA and China take product safety extremely seriously, and recently voted in favour of introducing legislation that makes these checks compulsory. Why is Europe lagging behind in this?"@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

1http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/English.ttl.gz
2http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Events_and_structure.ttl.gz
3http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/spokenAs.ttl.gz

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph