Anyone with an old car knows about this situation :-)

As long as money is more important to some testhouses than safety, there will be no changes. On the other hand - it would be very easy, to separate the sheeps and the goats: To ensure a hight safety-quality-standard, all one has to do is to send them a preparated product.

The receiving test-report directly shows the quality of the test-house. In my understanding, it's the responsibility of the authorities (accreditation,...) to verify the "work" of the testing and certification bodies.

 But what can they do, if the testing is performed in China, HongKong, ....

Certification is useless, if the certifier doesn't personally know about the testing! Actually this can be done automatically: report in, certification out. That's what you get nowadays.

I just discovered this forum. I think it’s quite interesting to discuss about the value of testing and certification.

It’s up to the manufacturers to design safe products. They are responsible for the safety, no notified body can take over this responsibility.

What we really need is a strong market surveillance. If there are any black sheeps amongst the manufacturer, the authorities have to act.

Do we really need testing and certification bodies in Europe?

You are right in saying it is up to the manufacturers to design safe products.

But  the thing is many manufacturers don´t know how to design safe products regarding the existing standards and regulations.

They declare the conformity with the CE-regulations by writing the CE-Declaration of Conformity. Formally that is ok. But ask this manufactuerers what they have done to make their product safe. The answer is: We have developed the product regarding the relevant standards. Ok. Now ask them for the test reports. The answer is: What test reports? We have to test against the standards mentioned in the Declaration of Conformity?

Testing bodies can assist the manufacturers to do the right things to get a safe product. When you install this assistance in your manufacturing process in a very early point of time you can save many money.

The products I've seen; e.g., fork trucks, cranes, printing equipment, electrical hand tools, industrial racking systems; all had testing certificates.  Most of the equipment is reinspected annually when I was working in Germany by the local State's TuV lab.   This was also done in Denmark, Iceland, the UK, Portugal and Spain where I was inspecting.  Turkey (non-EU) had procedures, but enforcement was lacking.   A dated inspection seal is affixed and if expired, the equipment cannot be used until a new seal is affixed by the manufacturers' licensed representative.   In the case of manlifts, this equipment was inspected, tested, and certified semiannually (every 6 months).   TuV Rheinland-Pfalz operates a lab in New York City to test North American products before they are granted import permits into the EU.   Automobile manufacturers provide Homologation certificates; EU Declaration of Conformity as you refer.  In some cases, not every specific item can be tested; e.g., an item such as aftermarket suspension springs may be tested on one particular automobile and then then fitted to another model by the same manufacturer.   The manufacturer is allowed to do this and takes all the risk in determining if the models are similar enough to preclude further specific tests.  The OEM rule is often misinterpreted; if a manufacturer provides the parts are no cost, then and only then, do OEM parts have to be used.  Other than normal or routine user replaceable parts; substitited aftermarket parts, must be OEM or equivalent (this means a TuV test certificate) or any manufacturer's warranties, expressed or implied are void.   Testing bodies provide objective test results and in their detailed reports of analysis will indicate exactly where and why a particular product may have failed.  Sometimes products slip through; two years ago a company importing consumer steam irons into Greece from China made a terrible mistake and a few women were electrocuted (killed) refilling the iron when plugged in to mains.  (The cord was not VDE tested and approved, and ungrounded (unshielded); as we know, the sole plate of an iron is metal so conducted electricity easily.)   This issue is all a concern over product liability and in the EU manufacturers are liable for use under the conditions specified in the operating or users instructions.  

Siggi Assmann wrote that test results would be more applicable, when "... the test houses and notified bodies would be controlled (stronger)". I agree with this proposal. But how could this be done? What are your ideas behind that?

Sometimes I have the impressions, that today a stronger monitoring by the accreditation and/or notifying bodies only consists in checking formal aspects -  without real effects.

Only few - and I suppose the serious - of test houses attend to the meetings of the vertical group or at least contact it by correspondence, where differences of test results or different interpretation of standards are discussed and adapted.     

It would be a big step forward if accreditation bodies would request from test houses  clear indications of their individual uncertainty of measurements for each test method. The vertical group of test houses and notified bodies could control these indications by comparison.

In order to make this way effective all accredited test houses shall be obliged to join to the vertical group meetings or at least to correspond to this group.

"I just discovered this forum. I think it’s quite interesting to discuss about the value of testing and certification.

It’s up to the manufacturers to design safe products. They are responsible for the safety, no notified body can take over this responsibility.

What we really need is a strong market surveillance. If there are any black sheeps amongst the manufacturer, the authorities have to act.

Do we really need testing and certification bodies in Europe?"

Answer: As long as we don´t have any really effective market surveillance: Yes. In addition in some fields we will always need a 100% testing by independent test houses (better would be an authority). The market forces always work with a delay. What does all the responsibility of a manufacturer help, if you can´t trace them (e.g. importers) or if the accident has already happened.

First of all I want to tell, that my focus is on safety gloves only. But looking from this

point only, it cannot make a complete difference to products in common. But

differences are there. Therefore product saftey needs individuell analyses on the ranges.

I do not understand the excitement coming up within the last period of time.

Since 1989 we have the norms and they are showing levels. Since there are levels

there are uncertain results throughout the notified bodies in Europe.

The only thing is that the competition has been rapidly grown up and therefore the view

in all these things is more intensively - depending on the result of the own marketing activities.

And unfortunately many things connected have to do with marketing. By the way: Black

sheeps are always there in all areas of life. But they are in a minority position. Why therefore

to condemn all the things. A lot of bureaucracy is involved. A lot of expertise is needed.

Since the norms are exsisiting the quality requirement in the market has been increased, although

the prices increased. At least for Germany it is surprising, but fact. I think that is positive.

The bueraucracy, inflation of groups and organisations all kinds, etc. which WANT to have influence

on all the things came up to much. Mostly they are from the testing side. Whether there are the

notified bodies, TUEV's or other PRIVATE inspection companies, laboratories and so on.

In all these private organisations the marketing has priority. Why they all announced turn over

records for 2011! More and more offices and branches from the private testing side are

coming up. That is then called globalisation. Basically it is the expanding to more profit as aim.

Because the products have become more worse? Special manifold test labels

all kind do not help to make the market more clear. Especially when it is arranged for a single

country and not on european base and again. Safe income guaranteed. Sometimes I do not see

that the product is really the centre of all efforts.

I sometimes wish, that only real authorities are allowed to certify products. They are independent

and have to follow the laws strictly, so they are more carefully because real responsibility they

have to consider. That makes the individuelles more carefully for they doings.

But they are also always fianancially not very well equipped. So it is a political case. And

when the politics intervene everything becomes more crazy. Especially when the Eurpopean

parliament groups influence all this.

Now the 686 has been amended. And therefore also the german Product Safety Law(PSG).

What an up and down!!!!!! The former market surveillance was continously build up better

and better. Slowly, but on the move. Now it shall become made more perfect? Where to take

all the needed experts from? And I mean experts and not stickler for the letter of the law.

That does not help on the way. That only creates troubles without end on low level. Even

when the the customs are equipped with full power.

Fact is also, that a lot of norming groups are very activ to update the things according to the

actual times and materials. A lot of money is paid for participating by the manufacturers and

ALSO IMPORTERS. Many of the big participants or brands in the markets are IMPORTERS.

All serious companies are heavily interested to bring

But the motto must be: marketing out, product in the centre. Then solutions come automatically.

Fazit: We need further testing and certification by notified bodies. But on authority base. Fully

fiananced by the national governments or european parliament. But without direct possible

influence on the actions.

Finally there must be mentioned that always the announcement of reduing bueraucracy is a joke

in total. Especially the small and intermediate companies are not able to handle all the required

rules, laws, directions, etc. etc. etc. The costs involved not mentioned. Especially when they need

help, they are exempt like a christmas goose.

The responsibility for our products  will be taken over by us IMPORTERS also in future.

And those black sheeps with bad products will lose on long run. But only when everybody

of the end-users understands that a quality has its price.

Basically we are conform in general as I understand it well. But there are some nuances I want to point out. One thing is, also to consider the good judgement of the users, who also do not want to be hurt or become ill in a way. So they also look on that what is served. The other thing is, that serious suppliers also do not want to expose dangers to the users. And there are more serious participants in the market as one may believe. In opposite to the US here in Germany the regulations by law make us criminally liable. So the care is there, mostly, because the involved private persons responsible are involved. Not the companies. The structure and selling system is also very different from the other markets in USA and Europe. I guess Germany is the 2nd biggest in the world after USA. Therefore the attention and surveillance is great and a lot of people are especially involved. So the interest to fulfill the requirements is also mostly there. Especially for the importers which have the same status as an manufacturer. So the liability is the same. Here the special importers do not serve the factories directly, but via special traders. Of course there is the 2nd line of those who serve the shops, too. That means different requirements have to be fulfilled. I have mentioned it, because there are different procedures compared to i.e. USA. Here the functional intermediary want i.e. neutral marked products, whereas the big players want to push their brands. So 2 different wishes have to be fulfilled. The laws and guidelines do not consider this, because it is specific for our work here. Of course there are to many cooks who can spoil the broth. But there is a tendency in the CEN area that more and more JWG/JPG's(joint work(project groups) are created to harmonize i.e. the test methods made for gloves, shoes, clothing, etc. That is a good movement, I think. Your idea of a double blind test is not bad. But what about the charges. And it will not work. In general I do not want to be missunderstood. Since more than 20 years there have been developed Norms like 420, 388, 374, 659, etc. etc. A lot of time and know how has been put in. I do not want to get it cancelled or made more simple, because then the doors become opened for those who do not really care about quality. The only thing is in these new times to make the norms again according to the developments and available materials. There is a lot of tuning to do and we are on the way with a lot of engagement increased by all the involved parties. The different positions between US and EEC markets was clearly shown when the ISO DIS 22613 did not become realized. This would have been the badest thing ever could have happened. Because with that all the hard times the norms have been made would have been burned. In general it is not to be seen positive when ISO tries more and more to have influence on this works. As well it is not to be seen positive that the EEC parliament more and more is trying to get a grip on the norming. That is always politically motivated. There are not enough experts to act accordingly and helps nobody. Quite the opposite. It will block the psoitive development I nevertheless see in all these activities. With interest I also studied the NSC article you pointed out, because the contents is astonishing, but not surprising. There have been made a lot of round robin test the last 2 years in the TC. Unfortunately without results which could allow to install a method according to the new materials which have been added to the market after the DIN420/388 was born. Also in this aspect we are hardly working further to come to a positive result. But there is unfortunately also a lot of political background from the global big players. It refers to products with actual level 5 and may be necessary to be corrected downward after a new method is installed. The marketing departments of these giants will not allow that to do. That blocks also a fast solution and it is difficult to eliminate this thinking. With a purely new start with new levels everything would be in the interest of the user. The editor's company also send delegates to the meetings. It is also not a question that test methods are guides or rules. We need levels to be able to compare the products and to make everybody interested to imrpove and to come to good qualities. The only thing is, to give the levels a better fundament by the testmethods to make them more believable. Is still a way to go. Unless there is somebody having an idea about an complete new way about an evaluation criterion. The last sentence of the NSC becomes fully verified by my side. Besides your comments, all this also belongs to the spectrum to be considered to come to acceptable conditions in the sense of good products for the users, not only for the marketing.

Dear All,

This seems to be an interesting discussion. However, I have the impression different examples are mixed up leading to overly exegerated and / or generalised conclusions.

Therefore I argue to be less wordy (verbose) and more to the point. Also I would very much like it if the words would not be all cluttered up and more evenly distributed into paragraphs.

Wish you all a happy, effective and safe 2012!

Cheers, Paul.

Noted; Paul we all do not share a common core so we need to establish one so we are all on the same page for such a discussion to bear fruit or we are at risk of turning this valuable forum into a blog. 

    In my case, I moved to Greece after working in Germany through an EU program to inspect US government-controlled workplaces where European Nationals are working.  I inspected in the UK, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Denmark, Germany, and Iceland and a non-EU country, Turkey.  This was arranged to prevent liability for the US government under the Status of Forces Agreements (SOFA) as included in the Final Governing Standards negociated between the US State Dept and respective Foreign Ministry's and NATO Charge d' Affairs in European States and the Republic of Turkey as most US OSHA rules under 10 and 40 CFR are far less stringent than EU directives and those implemented by national goverments; e.g., the UK's Health and Safety Executive or Italy's 626/94, etc...  In Germany, the system is far more complex as differing Federal Republics have differing environmental laws; e.g., containment requirements for above-ground fuel storage tanks comes to mind.   Due to the differences, inspection and citation criteria had to be the most stringent criteria of applicable standards/rules in every case.  In the US, any employer assumes strict liability under the principle of agency and Overseas (foreign) cases may be pursued in the US court system for punitive damages with some measure of success.   andardization, I have served on an ANSI TC for printing and publishing. 

    I am also well aware of what has been and is going on inside ELOT, The Hellenic Standardisation Organisation when it comes to ISO certification inspections.  This same could be true for the Turkish Standards Organisation (TSE) as I worked in Turkey for nine (9) years.  The entire standard inspection and testing process has to regulated by an independent third-party or at least, there has to be a strict credentialing process put into place for periodic re-certification of testing laboratories.  The system at present in incapable of policing itself as there are vested interests which serve other masters.  As a laboratory analyst for a few years with Bionomics Analytical Labs in Orlando, Florida (now called Test America Inc.) and 20 years with the US Air Force, the procedure used by the US E.P.A. for cerified environmental labs is the double-blind analysis of an unknown sample between two independent testing labs with the results compared to the "real" known-value of plus/minus 3% at two standard deviations for some analytes with others even less.  I do not know what the NIST (formerly the US National Bureau of Standards, NBS) criterium are as I never performed this type of analysis. 

Bottom Line: The system is broken, politicans and businesses are only interested in the end results.  The process needs tightening or the entire function has lost its value-added for quality assurance to include consumer product safety for EU citizens.           

Dear all,

there are a lot of aspects in the different messages I try to categorize for the further discussion:

• The role of standards and especially the role of the standards setting process for product safety
  Are there too much lobbyists influencing the process and not enough experts? Should testing and certification bodies abstain from participatin in standardization groups?
  
• The role and work of the testing and certification bodies
  *  Are labels a help for the market, especially if they are european labels? 
  * What about the credibility of testing and certification bodies? Is accreditation really assuring a good quality of testing and certification? Would the system be better off if there are only testing and certification bodies which are part of an authority? 
  *   Round-robin tests / double-blind tests can be a good method to assure the quality of testing labs. Does this really work in all fields of products, e.g. machines?
  
• Importers, retailers and users
  Are importers, retailers and users really able and willing to judge a product with regard to its safety?
  
• Manufacturers
  - How to deal with the black sheeps? How many black sheeps are in the market?
  - Are all manufacturers experts in product safety or do they need external help, e.g. from a testing and certification body? Do we have to differentiate between different types of products like PPE, machines, ...?
  
• Trend
  Has product safety improved in the last decade and is it still improving? Or do we just have a lot more of bureaucracy, formal quality like ISO 9001 without any benefit?

A happy new year to all!
Rüdiger

Dear All,

First of all let me wish everybody a happy and especially a healthy 2012.

to Paul: It not only seems an interesting discussion, it is a necessary discussion to come to imrprovements. I am in accordance with Robert's 1st sentence in reply to your comments. How aboutconstructivecriticism ofthe executed testifications, instead of overall comments on that what has been written. We cannot be all scientists. But there are long time experience which influence the opinions. The point is, that we all come from different areas of work and therefore the point of view will be different. So the discussion may help to get a better line.

to Heinz: Thanks for the information about the survey. It is interesting that just now it is made, because the discussion about this is in full swing since longer time. The actual implantat case is setting surely a peak.

One request. Why you do not complete the personal data profile for this discussion? It is more nice with whom one is discussing, I guess. And you mention there that you are expert in Research. But later in the the line it is filled quite the opposite. I hope you do not mine this direct speech.

Back to the important theme and the categorization:

• The role of standards.......: To both questions I answer with NO. The lobbyists mainly come from outside. Others are those from authorities or related political institutions.
• The role and work........: *Of course labels help for the market. But they should be limited and uniform for Europe. They of course help to higher the quality. The market development has already given the approval, especially for Germany. * Yes, authorities under government control are preferable.*Double blind tests will not be possible in every category, but for i.e. PPE surely.
• Importers, retailers.........: Without reservation - YES. Absolutely most of them.
• Manufacturers + Trend: To investigate "Black Sheeps" and to get a number is difficult since ever. But the market control has been improved slowly slowly over the last years. The measurements taken place have their effects. The involved circle is more and more careful and the ambition has heavly increased to serve law conform i.e. PPE to the market. There is no need of help from testing or other bodies to come to this stage. The different product groups must be differentate.

There is a lot of benefit came out of the standardisation. That does not change that the increase of bueraucracy is an unfortunate accessory phenomenon. One task should be to get it reduced. Especially for SME's, which newly the EEC parliament are so at heart, it is difficult and much to costly.

I think in many groups all these problems are wellknown already. Otherwise the heavy discussions would have been not come from industry up to the public. So there are also many interested to get it improved as I see in the different groups I am involved. The hope dies last.

BiBi Dieter

Are importers, retailers and users really able and willing to judge a product with regard to its safety? In Dieter's opinion most of them without reservation.

But are users really able to assess or judge the products? Products can have attributes which a user can't judge for him- or herself. Is a safety glove actually resistant against specific chemicals? No user can judge this without own lab. Is a machine control reliable? Does the viewing glass of a milling machine protect good enough against ejected objects? You don't know, you have to rely on what the manufacturerer says. 

And what about the retailers? A few years ago Price WaterhouseCoopers published a study "Global Sourcing: Shifting Strategies. A Survey of Retail and Consumer Companies"
(http://www.pwc.com/at/en/publikationen/branchen-und-wirtschaftsstudien/global-sourcing-shifting-strategies.pdf). According to this study, a lot of retailers don't care about safety: "As respondents look to the future, product quality is tapped as their highest priority – but a surprising percentage is not confident that they are effectively managing the risk of product safety.." (page 5). Perhaps the situation for PPE is different?

If I look at these aspects, I feel a big need for safety marks / labels.

    I provided three references of how I select PPE for chemical resistance.  This is the method that is commonly taught by ACGIH instructors, recommended by the ABIH, and used by both DoL's OSHA, Dept of Health's NIOSH in Cinncinatti, and the DoD.  There are probably others who may choose other methods and that is okay for their consultant practices.  Personally, as a trained environmental chemist and industrial hygienist, I wouldn't do it. 

    As far my unsubstanciated comment about the US court system, would seem to indicate that the procedure for licensed and bonded testimony by expert witnesses may be unknown outside of the US.  Having participated in the process in the past and having a retired US Federal District Court Judge as a mentor these past two years in my Business Mgt graduate degree program through Empire State College in NY State, I stand by my statement.  In US courts, when punitive damages are sought in strict liability cases, a jury decides who wins and who loses; the judge's role is to abjugate the admissibility of the evidence presented in the preliminary hearing, and access the amount $$$ of damages, based on prior precedent of damage awards in similar cases.  There is not a lot of leeway in these types of cases.   The legal intent here is that a corporation, considered a legal person under the law, can recoup its losses by spreading out its losses by adding such costs incrementally to its future sales of its products.  This is quite simply, "The cost of doing business."  A plantiff has no such recourse for damages incurred; e.g., medical bills, lost work, loss of (body) function, temporary or permament impairment, pain & suffering, etc... (We don't have socialized (public) medicine in the US, you pay for what you get with insurance companies sponsoring many such lawsuits to mitigate claim costs brought by insureds.)  Therefore; under the US system, the burdon of proof rests solely with the manufacturer regarding product claims to include the safety and health of expected product use under the conditions of use specified by the manufacturer either orally or written, or included under Stated or Implied Warranties as interpreted by the respective State Courts.   The people who make up juries are not experts in the field.  They are common people whose individual sympathies tend to align with plaintiffs.  This makes strict liability cases very difficult for corporations to win "in full" outright.  (In many cases, the manufacturer may be held responsible for a percentage of total damages sought.)  These cases are not impossible for manufacturers to win, but usually the publicity surrounding such a "win" isn't good for business either.  Winning the battle to lose the war isn't a solid business strategy.  For this reason, corporations, in many cases choose to settle out-of-court for an undiclosed sum under the provision that the plantiff does not discuss the matter further and the manufacturer does not have to admit to any wrong-doing (culpability) and is absolved of any further (legal) indemnity regarding the particular case brought forward.   The expression "Ambulance Chaser" comes to mind when we are trying to picture just how a plantiff gets legal assistance to bring a case against a corporation to court.  Right, wrong or indifferent, this is how the system works.