The word ‘toxicity’ has been used to describe products that are too toxic for children to use, Australian retailers have said.
Key points:The Australian Consumer Law Centre has launched an online petition asking retailers to stop using the term “toxic” to sell products, as they are harmful to childrenThe Centre has raised concerns over the use of the term in online shopping sitesA spokeswoman for the Australian Consumer Agency says it will not be changing the way it defines the word “toxicity”The ACCC has launched a petition asking the Australian Government to stop the use and misuse of the word, to avoid children being exposed to toxic substances.
The organisation’s chairperson, Sally Hargreaves, said in a statement on Thursday that the word was being used in the retail environment “in a way that is potentially harmful to their health and wellbeing”.
“If you think of the toxic substances we are dealing with today, they are often sold as organic or natural alternatives to the very toxic products that they contain,” Ms Hargrens said.
“There are also the substances that have been shown to cause cancer, such as mercury.”
We know that the use in retail environments is toxic.
It is dangerous for children and it is harmful for the environment.
“When children are exposed to these chemicals, it can lead to health issues, such a lung cancer, or even death.”
It’s important that retailers and companies who are using the word ‘safe’ understand that it is not safe and should not be used.
“The ACCc has raised the concerns of its members over the word’s use in online retailing and said that the organisation will be changing its definition of the terms ‘toxin’, ‘hazardous’ and ‘toxins’.
Ms Hargran said that in its submission to the Government, the ACCc said that it had received “multiple complaints from members of the public who said that they were concerned about the use or misuse of toxic or hazardous terms in online advertising and the resulting harm to children’s health”.”
These are the kinds of issues we need to be addressing in our submissions, not in response to those complaints,” Ms Lillis said.
She said that if the Government did change its definition, it would be an example of the Federal Government “not respecting our laws”.”
This is not a matter for the Federal Parliament,” she said.
Topics:food-and-cooking,consumer-protection,children,sales-and and-trade,consumer,tobacco,horticulture,food-safety,industry,community-and/or-society,government-and_government,consumer–agency,corporate-governance,bureaucracy-and–organisations,government—business-economics-and—consumer-prices,commerce,foods-and,market-and.-commerce,australiaFirst posted April 02, 2021 18:30:26Contact Victoria Grieve