Button battery safety - Assessment of regulatory options - Consultation paper

Response 963340227

Back to Response listing

Introduction

3. What is your organisation or profession?

Organisation / profession
The Toy Association

Consultation Paper Questions 1 - 7

1. The ACCC considers the status quo and proposes three options to improve the safety of button batteries. Which is your preferred option and why do you prefer it to the others?

The ACCC considers the status quo and proposes three options to improve the safety of button batteries. Which is your preferred option and why do you prefer it to the others?
We strongly prefer Option #3. This option combines several layers of protection, combining battery compartment security, child-resistant battery packaging, and warnings to educate consumers regarding this underappreciated hazard.

2. What effect do you believe each of the proposed options will have in saving lives and reducing severe injuries caused by button batteries?

What effect do you believe each of the proposed options will have in saving lives and reducing severe injuries caused by button batteries?
Any of the three options would be a step forward, but we believe that Option #3 is likely to effect the greatest reduction in injuries.

3. Provide comment on the ACCC’s essential requirements for secure battery compartments, child-resistant packaging and warnings and information. Are there any additional requirements that should be included?

Provide comment on the ACCC’s essential requirements for secure battery compartments, child resistant packaging and warnings and information. Are there any additional requirements that should be included?
We believe two modifications to the battery compartment security requirements are necessary:
1) There is no need to require the use of a tool, unless "tool" is defined to include a coin. We say this because the relevant international toy safety standards (ASTM F963, EN62115, and IEC 62115) all allow use of a coin to access batteries, and these requirements have been overwhelmingly effective at preventing access to button batteries from toy battery compartments (virtually all incidents where a child has gained access to a coin/button battery intended for a toy have been due to loose batteries left accessible by a carer or a child retrieving a discarded battery from the trash-the Litovitz, et. al. study can be misleading in that it classifies incidents by intended use of the battery without capturing whether it actually is accessed from the product). Unfortunately, even spent 3.0V lithium cells can generate enough voltage to create tissue damage. The overwhelming majority of access incidents are from non-toy products such as tlevision remote controls or bathroom scales.
2) Battery compartments must be subjected to anticipated-use tests, including multiple drops onto a hard surface and tension testing.

4. In relation to the requirement for secure battery compartments in which button batteries are only accessible with the use of a tool, do you consider that the use of a ‘tool’ should include the use of a coin? Why/why not?

In relation to the requirement for secure battery compartments in which button batteries are only accessible with the use of a tool, do you consider that the use of a ‘tool’ should include the use of a coin? Why/why not?
"Tool" should definitely include a coin; please see response to question #3 for rationale. IEC 62115 defines "tool" to include a coin.

5. Do you supply products that currently meet the essential requirements for secure battery compartments, child-resistant packaging and warnings and information? If not, which requirements do your products not meet and why?

Do you supply products that currently meet the essential requirements for secure battery compartments, child resistant packaging and warnings and information? If not, which requirements do your products not meet and why?
We are a trade association, and therefore do not directly supply products. Our members do supply toys compliant with AS/NZS ISO 8124-1 and IEC 62115 so some of these products require use of a coin to access batteries.

6. Provide comment on the ACCC’s proposed information standard for warnings and information to be made available at point of sale. Are there any additional requirements that should be included for products sold online, or for unpackaged products supplied to consumers?

Provide comment on the ACCC’s proposed information standard for warnings and information to be made available at point of sale. Are there any additional requirements that should be included for products sold online, or for unpackaged products supplied to consumers?
Warnings should accompany button/coin batteries and products containing or requiring button/coin cells, and should be present on packaging or product, as well as at point of sale on internet or catalog pages.

Consultation Paper Questions 8 - 14

8. Do you agree with the proposed exemption for hearing aid devices and associated zinc air batteries? Please explain your reasons. (See section 5.2)

Do you agree with the proposed exemption for hearing aid devices and associated zinc air batteries? Why/why not? (see Section 5.3)
Given that the elderly often suffer from declining visual acuity and fine motor control, as well as the lower risk profile of zinc-air batteries and the reduced likelihood of child access, this exemption makes sense. We would suggest that ACCC consider that there have been incidents where seniors have mistaken these batteries for their medications, and explore remedial approaches.

9. Do you consider that any other categories of consumer goods should be exempt from any of the proposed requirements? Do you have information and data you can provide to the ACCC in support of your view?

Do you consider that any other categories of consumer goods should be exempt from any of the proposed requirements? Do you have information and data you can provide to the ACCC in support of your view?
For the reasons outlined above, toys are already appropriately regulated, and these requirements have been successful in preventing access for decades. U.S. CPSC NEISS data validates this view.

10 . What are the likely costs to implement each of the requirements (design changes, child resistant packaging, labelling), and what do you consider is the likely effect on prices for consumers?

What are the likely costs to implement each of the requirements (design changes, child resistant packaging, labelling), and what do you consider is the likely effect on prices for consumers?
For toys, design changes (if screws are required) would cost perhaps US$1,000-2,000 for tooling changes, and US$0.05-0.10 per unit for screws/bosses, label, and additional plastic material. Cost to consumers is unlikely to be impacted significantly.

11. Do you think that all potential costs to business have been considered? Can you provide any further information about the likely cost and impact of each of the options?

Do you think that all potential costs to business have been considered? Can you provide any further information about the likely cost and impact of each of the options?
No additional impacts are apparent at this time.

12. Provide comment on the transition period for the proposed options. (See section 7)

Provide comment on the transition period for the proposed options (see Section 7).
Given development and production cycles for toys, an 18-month transition would be more appropriate than 12 months.

13. Provide comment on the principles-based approach to a mandatory safety standard. (See section 7.2)

Provide comment on the principles based approach to a mandatory safety standard (see Section 7.2). A principles based approach: • Sets out safety principles that need to be met rather than specifying detailed standards • Incorporates external instruments for compliance tests only • Includes administrative guidance which provides examples of relevant clauses in external standards that are considered to comply with each requirement.
This is an effective and efficient approach which is not design-restrictive and does not impede innovation, while assuring minimum performance standards are met. We would ask that compliance with ASTM F963 be added to the list of acceptable tests, as the requirements with regard to battery accessibility are identical to those of another listed standard, IEC 62115.