The initial reaction from Hobbycraft was:

“We have been made aware of a customer claim relating to laboratory testing of a children’s play sand product sold by Hobbycraft. While we have not been provided with the underlying samples or methodology, we take any such claim extremely seriously. Product safety is of the utmost importance to Hobbycraft.

As a precaution, we have voluntarily removed the product from sale while we carry out independent testing through an accredited UK laboratory, working in line with regulatory and product-safety guidance. 

We are also aware that an incorrect certificate for this product was briefly displayed on Hobbycraft’s website. This certificate did not relate to the product sold and has since been replaced with the correct certification, which meets all UK regulatory requirements. 

At this stage, no UK authority has advised that this product presents a risk, and there is no evidence of harm to customers. We will act swiftly on the results of independent testing and will update customers as soon as we are in a position to do so.” 

The response from the Office for Standards was:

“Given there is an investigation ongoing we won’t be able to put something on the record. However we understand how alarming this is for parents and they’d rightly expect that the Government to have a stance on this, so grateful if you could please include the below quote from a Government source ahead of us being able to provide a formal response at a later date.”

Office for Standards subsequently contacted BOHS to understand why we had said in our press release that products declared to be asbestos-free and made in China could contain up to 5% asbestos.

The reason for asking is fairly sensible. The UK’s ban on the import of asbestos depends on the country of origin not exporting asbestos, or declaring that a product contains asbestos. We don’t have a total ban on the import of asbestos (and we also export it), but there are relatively few permitted products that meet the Prior Informed Consent model which relies on declarations before a product leaves its home country. Unlike Australia and New Zealand, we don’t undertake any form of systematic testing, relying on the accuracy of documentation and intelligence to determine whether asbestos is present.

However, it is a reasonable assumption that if a country has banned the use of asbestos in products, like China has, then exports would be asbestos free.

However, it’s a little more complicated than that. To understand why a China manufactured asbestos-free product can contain up to 5% contamination, you need to understand Chinese regulation.

China imposed restrictions on the use of asbestos progressively in the 2010s. However, Chinese regulatory systems are complex and such national prohibitions don’t necessarily translate to regional regulation. The system is an aspirative one, rather than a regulatory one. This means that national laws set what the destination should look like, not what is to be delivered on the day a law is made.

Thus, while asbestos content in friction products (such as brake pads) was subject to a law saying that there should not be asbestos present in brake pads, compliance looks like reduction of asbestos use in brake pads and progressive moves to replacement. Last year South Korea tested all of the range of imported brake friction products originating in China and found hundreds with asbestos content in them.

Compliance will also vary by region, so Hong Kong and Shenzen will try to immediately achieve low asbestos  (export markets are targets and therefore product compliance is a benefit), while other regions, where export is a secondary market, this will not be high priority. The requirement to produce export product data sheets will be set by the local regulatory standards, rather than according to the importing country’s product analysis standards. However, SDS will be translated and added to if the importing customer asks.

Thus, while the Hobbycraft Sand SDS had no mention of asbestos, the fact it contains silica is highlighted, together with warnings associated with respirable crystalline silica as a carcinogen. This was an export sheet designed for the Australian market where silica products are regulated in a different way.

So, the question about what percentage of asbestos is “permissible” in China, is not a regulatory one. Officially, China is moving toward restricted use of silica in certain products and applications where there is a high risk of illness (flat construction components and friction products, for example). However, asbestos is a ubiquitous product element and there is no national enforcement and testing body which can provide reliable guidance on content.

Understanding what business from China consider to be asbestos free is therefore dependent on reliable product testing. Australia started having serious concerns around ten years ago, which resulted in consideration by the Senate of the Australian Parliament.

The body which undertakes import testing in Australia is the Customs Brokers and Forwarders Council of Australia. In 2017, they provided evidence to the Senate that their testing revealed that Chinese products tested which were under 6% were being consistently declared as asbestos free https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:EU:5f205a43-043a-4f00-84d1-2ceb3a2e881a.

In 2023, the CBFC reported that their testing confirmed their testing profile was at 5%. The analytical testing in Australia is undertaken by members of the Faculty of Asbestos Assessment and Management of New Zealand, which is our partner professional organization and which tests to the same standards as in the UK, as they are training using our qualifications and standards. They are currently undertaking the sampling of play sand to determine levels of asbestos contamination.

The volume of import testing for asbestos in Australia is higher than in most countries and because of their geography they can implement testing controls in the way the UK and the EU cannot.

We therefore can conclude that the test findings for CBFC constitute the most reliable independent source of determination of the level of asbestos contamination within products declared to be asbestos free for the purpose of import. We would be happy to facilitate further technical data being shared to provide the underpinning of this conclusion.

The findings of CBFC seem in line with targeted asbestos testing by other countries of Chinese export products by other national regulatory and standards bodies.

It is a significant challenge for bodies concerned with protection of the UK from asbestos contaminated products, which is made nearly impossible by international drop shipment firms (drop shipment is where retailers sell products without holding the stock). It is therefore hardest to determine where the greatest risk may be, but children are at particular risk, as are those working with friction and brake products for different reasons.

With the proliferation of global trade, drop shipping and the dominance of countries such as China, it is genuinely impossible to say just how much asbestos is still be imported, at the very least as a contaminant of many products. It is interesting to note that the proactive removal of play sand products because of asbestos contamination was under the Toys (Safety) Regulations 2011. Although asbestos is not specifically mentioned, unlike nickel or fragrances, the regulations do provide certain powers to protect consumers. Other products are regulated differently and may not be subject to the same opportunity for control.

Last year, when the Product Safety and Metrology Act was going through Parliament, BOHS, supported by some MPs and some members of the House of Lords, sought to have the power to withdraw products from the UK market on a precautionary basis written into the Act. This was defeated on the basis that we can do everything with scientific evidence!