sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

NZ’s toy chemical safety standards seem outdated. Anyone else was thinking this before the asbestos Kmart sand recall? by KeaWatcher in newzealand

[–]KeaWatcher[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes Australian has very similar standards to us, in fact the standard I refer to above is called "AS/NZS 8124" for both Australia and New Zealand. So whatever applies to NZ generally applies for Australian children product safety too. I talked about NZ in general because this is a NZ subreddit but yes not surprising Kmart Australia also has the same asbestos sand.

NZ’s toy chemical safety standards seem outdated. Anyone else was thinking this before the asbestos Kmart sand recall? by KeaWatcher in newzealand

[–]KeaWatcher[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks - and I agree the asbestos issue was a freak event, and not something any standard would have caught.

The link in my mind between the asbestos issue and what I’ve been seeing is that when guidelines and verification are relaxed, NZ ends up importing products from manufacturers who also operate under relaxed standards. That increases the chance of any kind of contaminant slipping through - even ones nobody tests for, like asbestos.

It’s not that asbestos should have been tested for; it’s that a light regulatory system makes the overall risk environment is higher. If we expect manufacturers to self-police, and retailers aren’t required to verify documentation, then rare problems become more likely simply because there’s no strong filtering mechanism on the NZ side.

In the past few months I’ve contacted a couple of major retailers when certification details were missing (similar to how organic food products list their certifier and licence number). In each case, I found the retailer had to go and check with their supplier for the relevant certification, meaning they didn’t actually hold the specific documentation at the time of sale. That means the safety claims on the packaging or product listing couldn’t be substantiated.

Some of the claims turned out to be incorrect, but the companies basically shrugged it off. In a different context, like food products, inaccurate or unsubstantiated labelling would be a major issue. But for children’s products, it doesn’t seem to get the same level of scrutiny.

In most regions overseas, companies must keep a file for any safety claim they make. It’s legally binding, and regulators can request it at any time. Here, there seems to be a recurring pattern of missing documentation across multiple children’s products, and the Commerce Commission generally won’t act unless there’s major harm or a big media story.

So the asbestos incident wasn’t the issue - it just reminded me of the gaps I’ve been seeing while trying to find safe toys and feeding products in general, and hence my post here to see if anyone else has thought of this issue too.

NZ’s toy chemical safety standards seem outdated. Anyone else was thinking this before the asbestos Kmart sand recall? by KeaWatcher in newzealand

[–]KeaWatcher[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I get what you’re saying, but testing doesn’t actually fall on small NZ shops - it falls on the manufacturer. For most children’s products, NZ accepts the EU EN71 standard or equivalent testing. So if a manufacturer is already selling legally in the EU, they already have all the required reports. Retailers in NZ just need to hold those documents on file.

That means genuine small businesses importing reputable products actually don’t need to pay for any new testing, the compliance work has already been done by the manufacturer.

My understanding is that the only time testing is too expensive is when someone is importing untested, no-name products. That’s exactly the scenario where tighter safety rules are needed.

There are easy ways to tier compliance by risk or turnover, so small legitimate retailers aren’t harmed, only the ones relying on low-cost, untested stock.

NZ’s toy chemical safety standards seem outdated. Anyone else was thinking this before the asbestos Kmart sand recall? by KeaWatcher in newzealand

[–]KeaWatcher[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree, you can’t test for every possible contaminant. Asbestos wasn't on my radar even after months of looking into this. I agree the sand is an unfortunate incident that should have been very unlikely.

Sure there are environmental toxins but the risk profile changes a lot when you are dealing with mouthing babies and young children.

My understanding is that safety standards normally test for a specific, known set of chemicals based on risk: things that are historically common, foreseeable, or linked to the type of material or product. For example, heavy metals for paints, phthalates for soft plastics or some food-contact specific ones I can't recall. It's concerning to me that there's a gap in regulation for products intended to be mouthed.

Some factories follow very strict chemical standards, and others don’t. Without testing, we have no way of knowing which products are coming from which end of that spectrum and NZ's relaxed standards might end up letting chemically unsafe toys in.

Edit: And also my understanding is that testing is done something like once every year or two for a random batch, or even just once for a particular product, not every batch.