Consumer Council calls on Government to consider regulation on some PVC toys
The Government is urged to consider regulation over the use of phthalates in Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) toys and children's products.
The Consumer Council ha sput forward this recommendation in a test report on soft plastic toys comprising teethers (17), bath toys (10), stacking toys (5), rattles (3), squeeze toys (3),inflatable toys (2) and balls (2). The toys are intended for children under 3years old.
The report revealed thatof the 42 test samples, 26 were made of PVC with phthalates ranging by weightfrom 19.55% to 52.66%.
Phthalates are chemicalsubstances used to plasticise, or soften, PVC. They have been shown in animaltests to be liable to cause liver and kidney damage.
The possible health riskassociated with the use of phthalates in toys and children's products has longbeen the centre of a controversy.
Earlier this month, theEuropean Commission (EC) endorsed an emergency ban on PVC toys containingphthalates intended to be put in the mouth.
The EC points out thatphthalates are released in dangerous quantities when soft PVC teethers ordummies, rattles and other toys are sucked and chewed over extended period bybabies particularly in their "teething" age.
The Council's testexamined a total of 15 different phthalates in PVC. Under the Toys andChildren's Products Safety Ordinance, only one phthalate, namely DEHP, isspecified for safety compliance for teethers, rattles and pacifiers. All sampleswere found to contain DEHP far below the 3% prescribed safety limit.
As for the other 14phthalates which are not regulated under the Ordinance, most were detected to beDINP and DIDP. DIDP was found in 25 of 26 PVC samples with quantities varyingfrom 2.09% to 51.63%.
While prolonged exposureto DINP and DIDP was shown to be toxic to rats and mice in animal tests, theWorld Health Organisation (WHO) and the International Agency for Research onCancer (IARC) have not classified DINP and DIDP as carcinogens.
International research onthe safety of phthalates in toys has so far produced divergent results and thesubject is likely to remain a matter for further studies.
In Canada, the healthauthorities there advised parents, as a precautionary measure, to dispose softvinyl teethers and rattles as there are scientific indications of a potentialhealth risk for very young children (3 to 12 months old) who have high oralcontact (3 hours on a daily basis) with those soft vinyl products.
The U.S. Consumer ProductSafety Commission concluded in its studies that few, if any, children are atrisk from DINP because the amount that they ingest does not reach a level thatwould be harmful. Generally, the amount ingested does not even come close to aharmful level.
In light of the EC'sdecision, the Consumer Council is calling on the Government to consider theintroduction of similar legislative control prohibiting the supply of PVC toyscontaining phthalates intended to be put in the mouth.
Further, the Councilrecommends the Government to consider whether such regulation should be extendedto cover all toys that are likely to be put in the mouth, for children under 3years old.
In its response, theGovernment emphasizes that it accords high priority of ensuring the safety oftoys and children's products. The Department of Health has studied carefully thefindings on which the European Union ban is based. It has also contacted theWorld Health Organization and the US Consumer Product Safety Commission forfurther information and views.
On the strength ofinformation available, the Department of Health considers that there is stillinconclusive evidence as to whether PVC articles containing phthalates which areintended to be put in the mouth will pose a health risk.
As such, the Governmentdoes not intend to impose a mandatory ban on the use of phthalates in children'sproducts at this stage.
Nonetheless, in the lightof the latest international developments, the Government has advised Hong Kongmanufacturers, whose products are mainly for export, to consider voluntarilyavoid using phthalates in children's products that are intended or likely to beput in the mouth.
In addition, to facilitateconsumer choice, the Government has suggested to traders to consider voluntarilyapplying labels to such products to indicate whether or not they containphthalates.
The Government has alsoundertaken to keep under close review international test results and standardson the use of phthalates in toys and children's products.
Separately, the test hasidentified a rattle (Sample No. 36 in CHOICE test report) to be in seriousnon-compliance with the prescribed standards for toys.
The unsafe features of therattle include the handle that is too long and small parts that present chokinghazard to young children aged under 3 years.
It has been assessed that the rattle presents a significant risk liable to cause serious injuries.
The Consumer Council has notified the Customs and Excise Department which has investigated into the supply of the rattle bearing no brand name. The importer concerned is understood to have been served with a recall notice.
Alert for fire hazards from substandard electric candles for Chinese shrines in households
Electric candles may seem like an ideal substitute - candles that "burn"perpetually, day and night, without concern for smoke and fire. But do they really?
A Consumer Council test onthese electric gadgets - commonly used with Chinese shrines in many ahousehold in Hong Kong - has found the products to be of shoddy standard.
None of the 6 electriccandle/luminaire samples tested could measure up fully to the required safetystandards. Such non-compliance may be in breach of the Electrical Products(Safety) Regulation.
All samples were found tobe electrically unsafe, in one way or more, posing potential fire hazard and,under unfavourable conditions, risk of electric shock to the user.
Indeed,in two recent domestic fires, they were suspected to have been caused by theshort-circuit or current leakage in the wires of such electric candles/luminaires.
The 6 samples in the testcomprised: 4 electric candle types, 1 peach-shaped and 1 lotus-shaped withprices ranging from $98 to $350.
All samples performedunsatisfactorily in the cord anchorage test. This means the wire conductors maycome loose from their connected terminals under strain or twisting of the wire,posing dangers of arcing (flashover) and electric shock.
Half of the samples werealso of unsatisfactory performance in the current leakage tests - failing inelectric strength and insulation resistance and protection against electricshock. This indicates that the insulation/ construction was substandard, posinghazards of short-circuit, arcing and electric shock.
Aselectric candles/luminaires are invariably left switched on at all times, dayand night, their safety is a matter of concern not to be taken lightly.
The Council has notifiedthe Electrical and Mechanical Services Department of the findings of the test.The supplier of 2 models (Samples No. 4 and No. 5 in CHOICE test report) has since instituted, as a precautionary measure, a recall of their products. For further details, consumers can contact the supplier on 2481 8732.
Consumers are advised to consult this (December) issue of CHOICE to ensure such devices are in compliance with the required safety standards.
Survey of travel agencies on refund policies over visa fees and handling charges
Complaints have been raised against travel agencies refusing to refund visa fees and/or handling charges in the event of tour cancellation.
The Consumer Council has conducted a survey of 14 travelagencies to study the existing practice and identify areas of improvement.
According to the Travel Industry Council (TIC), travelagencies are allowed to collect a minimum of $100 as handling charges tocompensate the time spent on handling visa applications.
And in the event of tour cancellation, the agency is entitledto deduct the visa fees collected by consulates or embassies and refund only thehandling charges.
The survey found that, in practice, the TIC's recommendationswere not consistently followed by all travel agencies.
Depending on the types of travel documents - BN(O), HKSARPassport, CI (Certificate of Identity) and DI (Document of Identity) - and thecountries of travel, the amount of handling charges could reach, in extremecases, as high as $340.
12 agents provided information to the Council in respect oftheir refund policy. At least 4 adopted practice different from the TIC'srecommendation: 1 travel agency will refund neither the visa fees nor thehandling charges; 2 will refund both; and 1 will refund both only if thevalidity of the visa is short (e.g. one month).
2 agents in the survey have declined to provide the Councilwith information on their refund policies.
In the light of the survey findings, the Consumer Council hasput forward the following recommendations in the interest of consumers:
- The TIC should abolish the recommended handling charge of $100. The amount to be charged should be decided by the free market.
- In principle, travel agencies have the obligation to bear the costs of visa and handling, since not all travellers could still use the visa in the future due to its validity, and availability of holidays or tours.
- It may be acceptable if in the case that the validity of visas is reasonably long for later use by the consumers, travel agencies need only to refund the handling charges.
- On the other hand, if the validity is short, travel agencies should bear the cost and make refund of both visa fees and handling charges.
Consumers joining outbound toursare advised to consider not only the tour price but also the handling charges ofvisa application and the relevant refund policy. Alternatively, consumers canconsider applying their own visas to minimise loss due to tour cancellation.
Meanwhile, travellers are reminded to check the validityperiod of their passports to ensure that it meets with the entry requirements ofthe countries of destination.
In general, a validity period of 6 months is required but different countries may have different requirements. It is advisable to make enquiries beforehand.
In this issue of CHOICE was reported a complaint case in which a family of four bound for Malaysia for a packaged tour, upon check-in at the airport, had to leave behind their baby girl whose passport had only a validity period of 2? months.
Safety of devices in beauty treatments raises grave concern
Concern has been raised over the safety of devices used for treatment at beauty and fitness centres.
Experts in the field observed that while the effects of manyof such beauty treatment devices remain to be proven, their safety raises graveconcern.
The issue of safety is high on the list of areas of concern toconsumers in a recent Consumer Council survey which points to the need for theseestablishments to be brought under some form of regulatory control.
According to the survey respondents, they have been treatedwith devices generating electric current (58.8%), ultrasound (10.3%), laser(9.4%), ultraviolet (9.3%) and magnetic field (0.1%) as well as devices to coolor heat (3.3%), vacuum suction (3.2%) and massage (2.0%).
As part of the survey, the views of the Hong Kong Society forPlastic and Reconstructive Surgeons and the Hong Kong Polytechnic University'sDepartment of Rehabilitation Sciences were sought on newspaper and magazineadvertisements and articles on the treatment devices used in beauty centres.
They raised doubts over the claims that such devices couldachieve in beauty treatments. For example, operators of ultrasound device forslimming claim that ultrasound frequency of 1 megahertz can penetrate into theskin to a depth of 3cm to burn the fat, tone the muscle and strengthen the skintissue.
Medical opinions note that ultrasound alone cannot remove fat.It can increase the blood circulation, causes mild heating, but cannot burn thefat or tone the muscle. Ultrasound can be used in combination with liposuctionto remove fat, but this procedure must be performed by a trained, experiencedand registered plastic surgeon.
With regard to detoxification beauty treatment using electriccurrent, heat, ultrasound, magnetic field and massage devices, operators claimthat it can increase lymphatic circulation and eject the toxins from the body.
Medical opinions question what toxins could such treatmentremove. There is a lack of scientific study to prove that increased lymphaticcirculation can help eliminate toxins from the body.
Their concern over the safety of these beauty treatmentdevices is heightened by the lack of any legislation governing the personnel andoperation of these centres.
For instance, although there is a guideline for operatinglaser equipment, it is up to the individual beauty centres to follow voluntarilysuch guideline.
As some of the treatment devices used in beauty and fitnesscentres are potentially hazardous to the users, more effective measures areclearly needed for proper control over the operation of such devices.
Consumers are warned to be cautious in accepting the use oftreatment devices in beauty centres. Pregnant women, people taking certainmedicines, those with pacemaker, skin allergies or premalignant skin disease maynot be appropriate candidates for some treatments.
Further, cosmetic products such as creams and lotions forfacial treatment, skin peeling, slimming, hair removal are also not regulated under the Pharmacy and Poisons Ordinance - unless they contain western medicines or poisons or bear medicinal claims.
While these products now come under the control of the Consumer Goods Safety Ordinance, it does not set any specific requirement on the ingredients, labelling and usage of cosmetics.
Test report on GSM/PCS handsets
Included in this 278th issue of CHOICE are latest test results on 23 models of mobile phones comprising 4 single band, 18 dual band and 1 tri-band and ranging in price from $1,000 to $5,000.
Results revealed that while voice intelligibility was quite good, battery performance varied significantly - ranging, in standby time,from 56 to 175 hours and, simulated use time, (3 minutes talk and 57 minutes standby in each hour) from 20 to 53 hours.
One sample was equipped with a new type of battery called Lithium Polymer generally expected to give better battery performance. However,the results showed that its performance was in fact below average.