“It is a miracle that our generation managed to survive into adulthood without legislation like this,” said a European Commission official, rather dryly.
We were chatting next to a display (see above) of rather harmless and normal looking children’s anoraks displayed as just some of the “dangerous products” seized by EU and national consumer safety officials.
“These items of children’s clothing pose a risk of STRANGULATION due to the presence of drawstrings in the hood area,” said the notice.
Yes. The EU last year acted to tackle the menace posed by laces, cords and belts in clothes placed on the market for children under seven years old. Length restrictions also apply for children up to 14 years old.
Apparently, the banned anorak toggles could get tangled or caught leading to accidental strangulation of children.
In risk-averse Europe, where the EU’s precautionary principle holds sway, this means a ban.
As a small child, my mittens or gloves used to be fixed to long bits of elastic running up the sleeves of my toggled anorak to stop them getting lost. Deadly. A miracle I survived that without the regulators to save me.
“You might think that we are going too far, but that’s not right,” said Meglena Kuneva, Bulgaria’s engaging consumer protection commissioner.
Oh yeah?
In Finland, another EU official told me, fixed hoods on any child’s clothing is banned because of the snag and strangulation risk.
Hoods must now be attached to coats or jackets with Velcro or poppers, something else to get lost.
“Yes, you might well say that children have had drawstrings on their hoods for generations but not any more and they will be safer for it,” said the commission SANCO staffer.
In fact – of course – it is the culture of officialdom that has changed and expanded, “better safe than sorry” is now the maxim for regulators and the minimum requirement now expected of parents.
It is no surprise that, in a world where anorak toggles are banned on “elf and safety” grounds, 51 per cent of children aged 7 to 12 years are not allowed to climb a tree without adult supervision.
An ICM poll for Play England last year found that 49 per cent had been stopped from climbing trees altogether because it was considered too dangerous. Perhaps they could fall and their hoods could get caught? After all, you can’t be too safe. Read more>>
#1 by Duncan on April 23, 2009 - 1:34 pm
Bruno, can I ask a question?
Why on earth do you insist on doing these stupid “bendy banana” style stories? Why is your writing style on this blog more akin to a UKIP member than to a serious journalist?
There are plenty of things which are genuinely wrong with the EU and a lot of good would be done if journalists addressed those issues and wrote about them in an objective manner and provided genuine constructive criticism. But no – let’s write about anoraks instead, let’s bring up the bogeyman of health and safety yet again instead of focusing on real issues.
Put bluntly, these kind of articles and the attitudes of people who read them uncritically make me genuinely embarrassed to be British.
#2 by chrry bear on May 7, 2009 - 10:59 pm
It seems to me, the european bureacrats are smoking corn or too strong stuff. What they are really doing? They must be completely bannana, or they pretend IQ of 60.
#3 by al on June 15, 2009 - 7:51 pm
Yet you fail to point out what’s “wrong with the EU” that’s more worthy of reportage, instead resorting to nothing but rhetorical statements.
This is very worthy of being pointed out. Onerous regulation upon regulation for no reason whatsoever — and especially for false reasons — means that the EU intends to wield power instead of protect its citizens. It is also a bigger indicator of how much control the EU has over the global market, by forcing conformity to an arbitrary standard not based on anything, never mind any kind of scientific data (which is not cited, presuming its existence). If you cannot see what the political ramifications of this are, then perhaps you need to read some history books.
Mr Waterfield is the reporter; you are not. What are your journalistic qualifications that give you the moral high ground of what to post on a blog or write for a newspaper? Instead, you attack while suggesting no alternative. You make comparisons with the UKIP without considering what validity might be to them (a party that has raised its profile in the recent EU election, to boot); perhaps you should worry more about the genuine dangerous presences in the EU, such as Berlusconi’s neo-Fascists, Germany’s NDP, Austria and Hungary’s neo-Nazis, and even the BNP (who got a seat on the EP)? Perhaps you have always been ashamed of being British…?