2 ms·
But the whole argument is that buying parts/ingredients that aren't poisonous isn't enough. You still have to spend a lot of resources on testing. I think that
by Mirioron 7y ago
But the whole argument is that buying parts/ingredients that aren't poisonous isn't enough. You still have to spend a lot of resources on testing. I think that these kinds of regulations should scale with the size of the company/revenue/profit. Smaller companies shouldn't have as great of a burden, so as to encourage competition. (There should still be punishments for them failing though. Eg you're not required to test if you're small, but you can still be punished for selling poisonous products.)
- KevanM 7y agoMost regions have prescribed safety standards to meet, for instance the kitemark or the CE mark (http://www.safekids.co.uk/toysafetymarks.html)[http://www.safekids.co.uk/toysafetymarks.html] http://www.safekids.co.uk/toysafetymarks.html)[http://www.sa... show an item meets the regulatory safety requirements - these aren't added by stores, they are obtained by the manufacturer so that its products can be sold in stores across Britain and Europe. Saying that the onus should be on stores is crazy, unless you accept that a company should have exclusive rights to your product at which point it become a licensed product and would probably be branded as such.
- Mirioron 7y agoOh, I completely agree that the onus shouldn't really be on the store. I was talking about manufacturers that sell it themselves.