Frequent recalling cases in U.S. these days have called global attention to the safety problem of kids’ toys. As the largest toy production base in the world, Guangdong becomes the focus of world-wide media. New York Times, Los Angles Times, Guardian, Helsingin Sanomat, Schweizer Fernsehen, South China Morning Post, Guangzhou Daily, Nanfang Daily, and Yangcheng Evening News have made their phone call to Guangdong Toy Association (GDTA) for interview. In view of this, Li Zhuoming, administrative vice president of GDTA makes response to the hot spots for public.

TOY INDUSTRY (T): What’s your view about the query raised by western media against China’s toys?

Li Zhuoming (L): China, particularly Guangdong is major production base for global toys. Around 75 percent of toys in the world come from China, while Guangdong contributes 79 percent for national export. With 20-years development, China ranks among top countries with advanced production capacity and technique. China has actualized export permit system since 1993 and carried out compulsory inspection, so the vast majority of products are in good quality. If China’s toys were not guaranteed in quality and credibility, they would no have made up 75 percent of global toy market. Actually, recalling does not shatter U.S. brand makers’ confidence in producing toys in China. Mattel announces that production in China would not be stop due to problems in toys made by Lee Der Toys.

According to undercount, in 2006, China exported around 300,000 batches of toys to U.S., among which only 29 recall cases happened. It is an extremely small percentage. Defects do not outweigh the merits. Actually, every country has its disqualified products. No fallacy should be reached by judging the whole by a single phenomenon and no malice exaggeration should be expected. Since China’s toys come with such a large percentage in U.S, what benefit could U.S. reap of the industry when it is demolished? For this moment, no country can take place of China for its toy industry.

T: Recent recalls in large quantity results mainly from lead and small magnets. What’s your view on how to divide responsibility in this case?

L: In this affair, maker bears responsibility for the recall, which failed to keep close watch on quality of purchased raw materials and did not tally with requirement of brand enterprise’s country. But when the shipment was made, brand enterprise had not done well in quality control and inspection, so they could not shirk the responsibility as well. According to convention, before being applied for export declaration, products have to get brand enterprise’s confirmation.

Besides, the other 18.2 million toys are recalled by Matte for easily-loosing magnets—this belongs to defect in design, so brand enterprise should be blamed in this occasion. This batch of toys is mainly produced and sold before the year of 2007, which tallied with U.S. standard at that time. However, after standard of U.S is amended this May, they fail. Country of origin and maker are not involved by any responsibility here.

T: Do you think there is any further implication in this affair?

L: Excessive trade surplus against U.S. is the critical reason for increasingly acute friction in Sino-U.S. trade. At the same time, with low price and good quality, China’s products hold a large market shares in the world, arousing conflict of some countries.

Currently, despite of higher cost of labor and raw materials and upvaluation of RMB, toy purchasers and consigners do not raise price of toys correspondingly, forcing toy makers to struggle with meager profit. Some have to find way out on raw materials in lower price. Consequently, problem might appear in quality. Considering it, I think, purchasers must bear the greatest responsibility. You want the best, but want no expense. How to see mutual benefit?

We appeal to toy purchasers in China and overseas for abidance by the principle of mutual benefit. Products should have reasonable price. Moreover, China’s toy makers should do according to their actual abilities, only receiving orders that guarantee the reasonable profit.

T: From this case, what kind of lesson should China’s companies draw and how to cope with it?

L: GDTA has paid close attention to the state of the affair. Recently, it figures out urgent countermeasures, making notice to its members. It suggests that, member companies should perfect their quality assurance system, receive orders according to abilities and require purchasers to examine the goods. Furthermore, joining hands with governmental department in concern, we are going to organize training courses, involving latest amended safety regulation in Europe and U.S.