Press release of the German Toy Industry Confederation

(this is an unauthorised translation, see the original German text).


Nürnberg (ots) - 19.12.97

The information of Greenpeace, according to which soft PVC-toys can endanger the health of young children is refuted.

Two for the testing of toys acknowledged institutes, the TÜV Rheinland and the LGA Nürnberg and an independent testlaboratory (Dr. Budde, Darmstadt) do come to the same conclusion, completely independent of each other, that the alleged migration of softeners from toys, results of testing by Greenpeace, according to the recommendations of the BgVV (Bundesinstitut für gesundheitlichen Verbraucherschutz und Veterinärmedizin - federal institute for consumer safety and animal medicin) in Berlin could not be demonstrated. According to Greenpeace, the same method was used by them to do their own tests and these results were published.

Greenpeace alarms the General Public with the extensive exceeding of the BgVV recommended limits. In truth, the gaschromatographic tests, done by the beforementioned laboratories, show no migration of softeners. With these results, the attack of Greenpeace against the safety of toys is proven to be without ground.

Dr. Platzek of the BgVV Berlin, who was addressed for the press release of December 12, 1997, declared that he has given his recommendation in confidence of the correctness of the testresults from Greenpeace, but couldn't stand with this recommendation, because the results of the Greenpeace tests were refuted by such renomated institutes.

By using their "measurements" Greenpeace intruded in selected toy shops and wholesalers, has removed toys from the shelves and has demonstrated against the "lack of children's love" of the toy shops. Under that pressure, several toy shops and wholesalers have stopped the sales of these products.

Greenpeace doesn't publish the official testreport, even after several requests, with the argument that the official report - three weeks after the results were published - is still not ready. By personal reply, the representative of Greenpeace, Judit Kanthak, blames the difference in testmethods as the origin of the their publication contradicting results.

As long as Greenpeace gives no explanation, how their results were obtained, it must be considered that Greenpeace has deliberately published their false results. In that case, Greenpeace is responsable for the damage, estimated in the tens of millions DM for business, supposing that Greenpeace really has made these falsifications in knowledge.

ots original text: Deutscher Verband der Spielwaren-Industrie e. V.

Can be found in Internet:

More information can be obtained from:

Allgemeines Deutscher Verband der Spielwaren-Industrie e.V.
Dr. Volker Schmid
Tel.: +49-711-9765811
can be reached on: Friday 19.12.1997 until 20.00 Uhr

Corinna Printzen
can be reached on: Friday 19.12.1997 until 17.00 Uhr
Tel.: +49-911-9496811
thereafter mobile: +49-172-8531834

Spielzeugsicherheit, Gesundheit, Meßanalytik
TÜV Rheinland
Günther Zibell
Tel.: +49-221-8062700

LGA Nürnberg
Dr. Elmar Zeitler
Tel.: +49-911-6555715

Product properties
PVC and softeners
Scientific values of PVC and softeners
Arbeitsgemeinschaft PVC und Umwelt
Werner Preusker
Tel.: +49-228-917830


Greenpeace tests deliberately differ from official tests!

Update 14 February 1998

After weeks of pressure, Greenpeace at last released the testmethods they used to "prove" that soft PVC-toys do leak "hazardous" quantities of phthalates. As could be expected, the testmethods were different from the normally used official tests, prescribed by the German BgVV.

The BgVV testmethod prescribes to submerge the toys for one hour in water of 40 °C (24 hours for toys specifically intended to be chewed). After that time, the amount of phthalates migrated to water are measured.

Greenpeace ordered two laboratories to detect phthalates in toys:
One laboratory testmethod differed in that way, that the toys were cut in pieces of 1 cm2 and that all toys were tested by the 24 hour period. Despite the more severe test, only six of the thirty toys showed a detectable migration of phthalates (detection limits less than 0.1 mg/dm2) and only four toys were above the BgVV limit of 3 mg/dm2.

The other test was even more discutable:
Greenpeace ordered a laboratory to test for the migration of total organic carbon. Anything containing carbon is then detected, even the sweat of the persons that packed the toys! No correlation with the migration of phthalates is established. Abusing the results of this kind of tests is a clear falsification of facts...

And they go on...

The tests done for the toy industry were in full accordance with the BgVV prescribed testmethods. They didn't show any migration over the detection limits of phthalates for any toy, even not for the 24-hour tests. The AgPU (Arbeitsgemeinschaft PVC und Umwelt - Industry union for PVC and environment) then has made a proposal to Greenpeace to work together to have toys tested. Greenpeace asked for a two weeks delay to give their answer. One day before the opening of the German Toys Fair at Nürnberg on 5 February 1998, they refused the proposal. The next day they demonstrated against "health endangering" PVC toys at the entrance of the fair...



It is quite clear that Greenpeace has deliberately chosen incorrect testmethods to blame PVC-toys of leaking too much phthalates. This kind of methods are typical for the green multinational. It is clear that they don't care for children's health. They only use stories about children's health to scare parents just to reach their political agenda: PVC must be banned, no matter if the alternatives are worse for health and/or the environment...


You are at level one of the Chlorophiles answer pages.

Created: December 26, 1997.
Last update: April 30, 1998.

Welcome page

To the Home Page of the Chlorophiles.

Left: PVC toys and heavy metals

Right: Greenpeace children's toy tests tested!

Before you react on this reaction on Greenpeace, please read the page on Greenpeace and chlorine, maybe you will understand why.

For all other comment on the Chlorophiles pages:

Mail to