Recent events covered by the international press have put the spotlight squarely on exported products to international markets not abiding by health and safety regulations. In a recent case, Mattel Inc’s Fisher-Price unit has recalled 1.5 million toys worldwide line because the paint may have contained excessive lead. The toys, all manufactured in China, have brought to light a fresh host of issues on the responsibilities of manufacturers, companies, and retailers in making sure that equipment and toys are up to specification. Mattel is being commended on its swift action,with estimates that the global recall would set the firm back by USD 30 million.

It can be hard to delineate exact responsibilities when it comes to protecting children and young adults from products that may cause unintended harm. For instance, if a pre-school in the Middle East had made tainted toys available to its children, the entire episode would have also impacted negatively on the school’s reputation. And this question of responsibility is not limited to excessive lead in toys.While relevant Ministries are doing all they can to prevent the spread of educational tools that might not meet specifications, how is responsibility shared between institutional buyers (who in turn can expose others to risks) and manufacturers? Would a school, college or university remain necessarily blameless were compromised equipment to pose a health risk for students or faculty?

Educational institutes and their partners can’t very well shrug off the possibility of substandard equipment and tools being unknowingly put to use in a student environment, because these institutions have a direct responsibility to ensure student well-being. Any perceived dereliction of this responsibility (even inadvertently) can create unwanted publicity that attenuates bottom line returns.

Such episodes place the onus on academic and training institutions to acquire quality assets, tools and products to minimize the risk to the customers and avoid the fallout arising from health and safety scares.

We invite readers, professionals in education, buyers and manufacturers to contribute their opinions on how best to ensure a safe educational environment at all levels. When teachers and professionals are asked to give their product recommendations, are they provided with a checklist to help guard against health and safety threats? What basic elements should such a checklist include?

What, in your opinion, is the general awareness level among procurement personnel related to health and safety issues? Do products for education and training usually carry sufficient information on materials used to allow an informed buying decision?

When acquiring tailor-made products from regional suppliers, should you ask that they be made to a particular standard (e.g. brand of paint used, type of plastic, etc), or leave such decisions to the discretion of the supplier?

Would you ever get lab tests done on any of the products you acquire (such as, furniture, stationery or building paint) Would you only use well-known brands? As demonstrated by the recent Mattel Fisher-Price episode, brands aren’t complete protection against product failure. Do they offer reassurance nevertheless?

What other general precautions can buyers take to avoid the use of products that may not meet health and safety standards?

The best contributions will be published in our letters section to further the debate in the context of Middle East markets.