[draft] Children's products safety act

[Jarish Inyo]

What is to stop toy companies from outsourcing their product to non WA member nations to bypass these standards?

[Grays Harbor]

Why has this been submitted while still in larval stage?

[Caracasus]

To be honest, I couldn't see a way of altering it much beyond what I already had done, or just deleting it so I figured that was the done thing - i.e. there'd been a fair amount of debate over the minutiae of the proposal, I'd changed a fair amount after consideration and then proposed it. Was I wrong to do so, or did I break some form of protocol? I genuinely couldn't see any new points being raised for or against that hadn't been debated.

[Imperium Anglorum]

You submitted this as 'Health: Healthcare'? How does putting a stamp on some toys 'modify universal standards of healthcare'?

[Separatist Peoples]

To be honest, I couldn't see a way of altering it much beyond what I already had done, or just deleting it so I figured that was the done thing - i.e. there'd been a fair amount of debate over the minutiae of the proposal, I'd changed a fair amount after consideration and then proposed it. Was I wrong to do so, or did I break some form of protocol? I genuinely couldn't see any new points being raised for or against that hadn't been debated.

"Most proposals, ambassador, take weeks or months to reach submission. While I'll grant that there is no minimum time limit, and that one such proposal that required no drafting in these chambers whatsoever has just passed, that has proven to be the exception, rather than the rule."

[Caracasus]

To be honest, I couldn't see a way of altering it much beyond what I already had done, or just deleting it so I figured that was the done thing - i.e. there'd been a fair amount of debate over the minutiae of the proposal, I'd changed a fair amount after consideration and then proposed it. Was I wrong to do so, or did I break some form of protocol? I genuinely couldn't see any new points being raised for or against that hadn't been debated.

"Most proposals, ambassador, take weeks or months to reach submission. While I'll grant that there is no minimum time limit, and that one such proposal that required no drafting in these chambers whatsoever has just passed, that has proven to be the exception, rather than the rule."

Fair enough - I'll bear that in mind if this one goes bad.

[Caracasus]

You submitted this as 'Health: Healthcare'? How does putting a stamp on some toys 'modify universal standards of healthcare'?

Best fit. If there'd been a misc. category I'd have picked it. I figured ensuring health and safety fell more under healthcare than any of the other categories I saw.

[Kaboomlandia]

Does the category fail make this illegal?

[Sierra Lyricalia]

1. Submitting this was not the best idea. Generally you want to actually fix the problems with your draft before trying to get it to vote. Speaking of...

2. The definitions you've given would have us ban nail clippers, safety scissors, disposable cutlery (plastic silverware), actual cutlery (metal silverware), paper in general, pipe cleaners and popsicle sticks... in fact, let's just go ahead and completely ban children from doing any kind of art whatsoever, because it's clearly too damn dangerous. Cripes, little Billy might poke his eye out with that marker, so gods help us if he gets hold of a calligraphy pen! Girl and Boy Scouts won't be able to carry utility knives or Czech Navy Dirks into the deepest part of the forest, where such tools are indispensable. The tools with which kids build model airplanes, sailing ships, and spacecraft are also clearly too hazardous to import. I mentioned nail clippers already - but including products marketed to parents as well is just flat out lunacy. The vast universe of products marketed to parents for them to allegedly benefit their children's lives would traumatize and shrivel any less deranged or better-rested target market.

While we agree with Ms. Chinmusic that there's room for age-based product safety standards for the world economy, this is not a good way to go about it.

[Kaboomlandia]

"Not manufactured with sharp edges or points".

Congratulations. You've just banned scissors and paper.

[Caracasus]

"Not manufactured with sharp edges or points".

Congratulations. You've just banned scissors and paper.

No, I really haven't. Scissors and paper are not manufactured with sharp edges or points likely to cause serious injury if used as intended. Neither would tools, carpentry sets or nails. They are intended to be used by children under adult supervision.

An example of something manufactured with material, sharp edges or points likely to cause serious injury if used as intended would be, for example a toy chariot with razor-sharp wheel blades, or a soft toy stuffed with broken glass.

[Caracasus]

1. Submitting this was not the best idea. Generally you want to actually fix the problems with your draft before trying to get it to vote. Speaking of...

2. The definitions you've given would have us ban nail clippers, safety scissors, disposable cutlery (plastic silverware), actual cutlery (metal silverware), paper in general, pipe cleaners and popsicle sticks... in fact, let's just go ahead and completely ban children from doing any kind of art whatsoever, because it's clearly too damn dangerous. Cripes, little Billy might poke his eye out with that marker, so gods help us if he gets hold of a calligraphy pen! Girl and Boy Scouts won't be able to carry utility knives or Czech Navy Dirks into the deepest part of the forest, where such tools are indispensable. The tools with which kids build model airplanes, sailing ships, and spacecraft are also clearly too hazardous to import. I mentioned nail clippers already - but including products marketed to parents as well is just flat out lunacy. The vast universe of products marketed to parents for them to allegedly benefit their children's lives would traumatize and shrivel any less deranged or better-rested target market.

While we agree with Ms. Chinmusic that there's room for age-based product safety standards for the world economy, this is not a good way to go about it.

Again, not really. These things would not be marketed for consumption specifically by children. Pocket knives and utility knives would be fine, as they would be dangerous, but only if used in a manner they were not designed to be used for. Pocket and utility knives would in addition, not be marketed as toys or for children. If a scout group wanted to purchase utility knives and give them to the kids, they could do that - nothing is stopping them. The knives would, however, not carry the safety seal.

[Dire Dawa]

Okay - this is my first go at making a proposal. I've searched the lists of WA and even the old UN proposals and haven't found anything on this yet. I feel that this is a reasonable proposal and I'd like some input.

AIM To impose a set standard of safety for children's products for sale on the international market.

RECOGNIZING The need for parents to ensure that products designed for consumption by their children are relatively safe for consumption.

FURTHER RECOGNIZING that many nations do have rigorous safety standards for their products, but noting that standards vary wildly between countries and that parents may not be aware of the safety standards that products purchased for their children were made to before purchasing a product - hence the need for a comprehensive, recognizable benchmark for safety in products.

FURTHER RECOGNIZING the impossibility of many nations to fully test and assure the safety of every product line and manufacturer on point of import, and to provide customs officials and importers with a globally recognized symbol of baseline safety standards to further allow them to pinpoint and satisfactorily inspect potential imports.

DEFINING Children's products as any product designed for the consumption of children, marketed for sale to children or parents/guardians. Including, but not limited to, toys, educational products and accessories such as prams.

DEFINING safety standards as:
(i) Being free from known toxic substances that could easily enter the body during routine use such as lead paint.
(ii) Not manufactured with material, sharp edges or points capable of inflicting serious injury when used as intended.
(iii) Manufactured to a level of durability that requires that the product would not break into potentially lethal fragments under expected, reasonable use.
(iv) Requiring an easily recognizable quality assurance stamp to be displayed somewhere on the product, informing the purchaser that the product has met the standards above.

DEFINING for sale on the international market in this context as any product exported from its country of origin for consumption by citizens of another state.

DEFINING imposing a set.... as the formation of a body charged with the oversight and administration of safety tests and implementation of agreed upon safety standards.

REQUIRES that products manufactured for the international market for consumption by children bear a visible stamp confirming that the product meets the minimum safety standards outlined above.

So... what do you think? Probably needs a bit of work.

Edits:
Last draft - tidied up some of the language and removed age guidelines as a requirement

Changed to "manufactured using a material and with sharp edges or points capable of inflicting serious injury"

Changed to "manufactured to a level of durability that requires that the toy would not break into potentially lethal fragments under reasonable use"

REQUIRES that products manufactured for the international market for consumption by children bear a visible stamp confirming that the product meets the minimum safety standards outlined above.

FURTHER RECOGNIZING that many nations do have rigorous safety standards for their products, but noting that standards vary wildly between countries and that parents may not be aware of the safety standards that products purchased for their children were made to before purchasing a product - hence the need for a comprehensive, recognizable benchmark for safety in products

Hear hear¯

[Sierra Lyricalia]

...2. The definitions you've given would have us ban nail clippers, safety scissors, disposable cutlery (plastic silverware), actual cutlery (metal silverware), paper in general, pipe cleaners and popsicle sticks... in fact, let's just go ahead and completely ban children from doing any kind of art whatsoever, because it's clearly too damn dangerous. Cripes, little Billy might poke his eye out with that marker, so gods help us if he gets hold of a calligraphy pen! Girl and Boy Scouts won't be able to carry utility knives or Czech Navy Dirks into the deepest part of the forest, where such tools are indispensable. The tools with which kids build model airplanes, sailing ships, and spacecraft are also clearly too hazardous to import. I mentioned nail clippers already - but including products marketed to parents as well is just flat out lunacy. The vast universe of products marketed to parents for them to allegedly benefit their children's lives would traumatize and shrivel any less deranged or better-rested target market.

Again, not really. These things would not be marketed for consumption specifically by children. Pocket knives and utility knives would be fine, as they would be dangerous, but only if used in a manner they were not designed to be used for. Pocket and utility knives would in addition, not be marketed as toys or for children. If a scout group wanted to purchase utility knives and give them to the kids, they could do that - nothing is stopping them. The knives would, however, not carry the safety seal.

If your intent is to make reasonable safety regulations, then you need to fix your definition:

DEFINING Children's products as any product designed for the consumption of children, marketed for sale to children or parents/guardians. Including, but not limited to, toys, educational products and accessories such as prams.

(emphasis added)

Thus even items intended for use by parents only are forbidden to have sharp edges capable of inflicting injury when used as intended - so yes, that absolutely means no nail clippers. If we relax a bit and say, well, let's keep this limited to things that children are supposed to get their hands on, you're still outlawing paper (even adults get paper cuts); scissors, even blunt-tipped ones (it's only a few degrees of grip from "used as intended" to "fingers in direct danger of slicing"); and if you think model airplanes and the scalpels and glue used to put them together aren't marketed directly to children, it's clear you've never before seen marketing. The law does what the law says, not what you're trying to pretend it says. This sausage-fingered attempt to protect children by mandating they be physically separated from every remotely dangerous surface is not good law, ambassador. I really think you ought to have it pulled (by appealing to the Secretariat and asking them to remove it from the proposal queue) and then subject it to a complete change of approach.

Again, there's room for international law in this area; it's just that as presented here, this would not fit into it.

[Caracasus]

Again, not really. These things would not be marketed for consumption specifically by children. Pocket knives and utility knives would be fine, as they would be dangerous, but only if used in a manner they were not designed to be used for. Pocket and utility knives would in addition, not be marketed as toys or for children. If a scout group wanted to purchase utility knives and give them to the kids, they could do that - nothing is stopping them. The knives would, however, not carry the safety seal.

If your intent is to make reasonable safety regulations, then you need to fix your definition:

DEFINING Children's products as any product designed for the consumption of children, marketed for sale to children or parents/guardians. Including, but not limited to, toys, educational products and accessories such as prams.

(emphasis added)

Thus even items intended for use by parents only are forbidden to have sharp edges capable of inflicting injury when used as intended - so yes, that absolutely means no nail clippers. If we relax a bit and say, well, let's keep this limited to things that children are supposed to get their hands on, you're still outlawing paper (even adults get paper cuts); scissors, even blunt-tipped ones (it's only a few degrees of grip from "used as intended" to "fingers in direct danger of slicing"); and if you think model airplanes and the scalpels and glue used to put them together aren't marketed directly to children, it's clear you've never before seen marketing. The law does what the law says, not what you're trying to pretend it says. This sausage-fingered attempt to protect children by mandating they be physically separated from every remotely dangerous surface is not good law, ambassador. I really think you ought to have it pulled (by appealing to the Secretariat and asking them to remove it from the proposal queue) and then subject it to a complete change of approach.

Again, there's room for international law in this area; it's just that as presented here, this would not fit into it.

I am sorry, but this is covered under two phrases: serious injury and used as intended.

Serious injury covers life-threatening injuries - nicking fingers on things, bumps and grazes etc. would not count.

Used as intended - a scalpel would not be used as intended other than under supervision. Perhaps I should have changed it to likely to - but I feel that generally anything capable of causing serious injuries when used as intended covers things well.

[Flibbleites]

You know, if I'm reading this right, the only requirement is that the products have to have a stamp that claims that the product meets the safety requirements. No where does the proposal actually require that the product meet said requirements. And if you hadn't been in such a hurry to submit this you could fix it without requiring it to be pulled by the Secretariat.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Kryozerkia]

You know, if I'm reading this right, the only requirement is that the products have to have a stamp that claims that the product meets the safety requirements. No where does the proposal actually require that the product meet said requirements. And if you hadn't been in such a hurry to submit this you could fix it without requiring it to be pulled by the Secretariat.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

In addition to this. the current wording doesn't line up with the healthcare category. It's been removed as to allow the author time to correct these errors and receive more input from ambassadors and delegates.

Proposal writing is a marathon, not a sprint.

[Kaboomlandia]

"Usually, when there's a "Think of the children!" proposal, it's usually anti-abortion, but this one is trying to guard children's lives by banning sharp implements."

[Grays Harbor]

"Usually, when there's a "Think of the children!" proposal, it's usually anti-abortion, but this one is trying to guard children's lives by banning sharp implements."

No, it is not. It is trying to implement universal standards of safety for items used by children. It needs work, but that will come.

And i do not believe that "think of the children" has been used by the author in conjunction with this.

[Caracasus]

Hi guys - it got pulled as the action was not health based. Totally my mistake here, and I thank you all for your patience in dealing with someone who's pretty new to this! Thanks as well for the input. I think this proposal can work.

The main gripe people have is this idea that it's going to ban scissors. It's not - and I think the wording can be fixed to show this more clearly.

As it stands:
(ii) Not manufactured with material, sharp edges or points capable of inflicting serious injury when used as intended.

Perhaps this could be changed to:

(ii) Not manufactured with material, or constructed in such a way that it is likely to cause serious physical harm to the user or others when used as intended.

As we can see, pocket knives, scalpels for wood carving, chemistry sets, scissors, nail clippers and so on are absolutely fine. If used as intended (i.e to cut paper, or with potentially more dangerous articles under adult/responsible supervision) they are not likely to cause serious physical harm.

Agreed?

Any more problems/solutions?

[Caracasus]

You know, if I'm reading this right, the only requirement is that the products have to have a stamp that claims that the product meets the safety requirements. No where does the proposal actually require that the product meet said requirements. And if you hadn't been in such a hurry to submit this you could fix it without requiring it to be pulled by the Secretariat.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Yeah - should not have rushed this. Apologies.

Okay - change this sentence from:
REQUIRES that products manufactured for the international market for consumption by children bear a visible stamp confirming that the product meets the minimum safety standards outlined above

to

REQUIRES that products manufactured for the international market for consumption by children meets the above minimum safety standards and bears the chosen visible stamp confirming that the product meets the minimum safety standards.

Thoughts?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

You know, if I'm reading this right, the only requirement is that the products have to have a stamp that claims that the product meets the safety requirements. No where does the proposal actually require that the product meet said requirements. And if you hadn't been in such a hurry to submit this you could fix it without requiring it to be pulled by the Secretariat.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

In addition to this. the current wording doesn't line up with the healthcare category. It's been removed as to allow the author time to correct these errors and receive more input from ambassadors and delegates.

Proposal writing is a marathon, not a sprint.

OK, are the authors supposed to read your minds as to what category the proposal does belong in? Or is it some inaccessible mystery category known only to Catherine Gratwick and a few trusted deputies?

[Grays Harbor]

In addition to this. the current wording doesn't line up with the healthcare category. It's been removed as to allow the author time to correct these errors and receive more input from ambassadors and delegates.

Proposal writing is a marathon, not a sprint.

OK, are the authors supposed to read your minds as to what category the proposal does belong in? Or is it some inaccessible mystery category known only to Catherine Gratwick and a few trusted deputies?

Mysteries are fun. Give them a bowl of soup and call it dinner theatre.

[Caracasus]

OK, are the authors supposed to read your minds as to what category the proposal does belong in? Or is it some inaccessible mystery category known only to Catherine Gratwick and a few trusted deputies?

Mysteries are fun. Give them a bowl of soup and call it dinner theatre.

Seriously though - no idea what category. I'd rather a bowl of soup.

[Caracasus]

Anyone know how I'd go about asking a mod what category to put this one in?