The European Commission adopted Implementing Decision (EU) 2026/2003 on 4 September 2026. It was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 7 September 2026. The decision updates the EU’s list of harmonised standards for radio equipment. Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2026/2003

One relevant change concerns the harmonised reference for EN 50566, a standard for assessing compliance of wireless communication devices with basic restrictions and exposure limit values related to human exposure to electromagnetic fields. The decision provides for EN 50566:2017, together with amendments A1:2023 and A2:2025, to be included in the updated harmonised standards list from 7 March 2028.

What Does the Amended EN 50566 Standard Cover?

The decision updates harmonised standards for several categories of radio equipment. These include location-tracking equipment, cellular communication base stations, ultra-wideband devices, fixed radio systems and other radio technologies.

EN 50566 has a more specific scope. It covers handheld and body-mounted wireless communication devices used close to the human body and operating between 30 MHz and 6 GHz. It provides a product standard for demonstrating compliance with applicable basic restrictions and exposure limit values.

The 2025 amendment, EN 50566:2017/A2:2025, forms part of the updated harmonised reference for assessing human exposure to electromagnetic fields from wireless communication devices used close to the body.

Source access: NEN lists the English-language amendment as published on 1 November 2025 and available for purchase. The full text is not freely available on the catalogue page. Readers should consult the amendment itself for its specific technical provisions.

What Are Harmonised Standards?

Harmonised standards provide technical procedures that manufacturers can use to demonstrate that their products meet applicable EU legal requirements. References to these standards are published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Under the Radio Equipment Directive, compliance with a harmonised standard whose reference has been published in the Official Journal confers a presumption of conformity with the essential requirements covered by that standard.

For RF-exposure assessment, EN 50566 specifies procedures for assessing compliance with applicable exposure requirements.

What Is the Transition Period?

The decision provides a transition period for the earlier EN 50566 references. The updated harmonised reference, which includes amendments A1:2023 and A2:2025, applies from 7 March 2028. On that date, the references to EN 50566:2017 and amendment A1:2023 are scheduled to be withdrawn from the Official Journal of the European Union. This gives manufacturers time to adapt to the updated standard.

What Does This Mean for Consumers?

Compliance assessments apply to specified device configurations and test conditions. An important question is how well those conditions represent the different ways people carry and use wireless devices in everyday life, particularly when body-worn accessories are involved.

The following international documents provide further technical context. They describe approaches to exposure assessment and SAR measurement, but neither automatically replaces or amends EN 50566. Their publication does not, by itself, establish a new universal RF-exposure limit.

Two International Documents Provide Further Context

ITU-T Recommendation K.160 — Exposure Assessment Guidance

Approved: 14 December 2025

ITU-T Recommendation K.160 provides guidance on assessing human exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields from wireless communication devices used close to the body.

It covers several assessment methods, including specific absorption rate (SAR), absorbed power density (APD) and incident power density (IPD). It also addresses device operating conditions, proximity sensors, time-averaged SAR and exposure from multiple transmitters or operating modes.

K.160 refers to existing international standards for measurement and assessment. The applicable exposure limits depend on the relevant regulatory framework or guidelines.

Read the official ITU-T K.160 Recommendation

IEC/IEEE 62209-1528 — SAR Measurement Procedures

Amendment 1 published: 2 September 2026

IEC/IEEE 62209-1528 specifies procedures for measuring SAR from handheld and body-mounted wireless communication devices used near the head and body. It covers frequencies from 4 MHz to 10 GHz.

Amendment 1:2026 addresses hand SAR, motion sensors, time-averaged SAR algorithm validation, proximity sensors, separation distances and procedures for reducing certain SAR tests.

Sources:

• IEEE: Amendment 1 details
• IEC: Amendment 1 publication record
• IEC: Consolidated standard details

What Does Amendment 1 to IEC/IEEE 62209-1528 Change?

Amendment 1 adds or revises procedures for assessing SAR from wireless communication devices. The main areas addressed are outlined below.

Hand SAR

The amendment introduces an applicability check and a measurement procedure for hand SAR in specified circumstances. This is relevant to the assessment of devices used in the hand. It does not mean that every existing phone model will automatically be retested or that hand exposure has suddenly increased.

Motion and proximity sensors

The amendment adds procedures for measuring SAR in devices with motion sensors, including a sensor-validation annex. It also addresses proximity-sensor assessment.

These sensors can affect how a device operates when its position, movement or proximity to the user changes. The amendment specifies procedures for assessing relevant sensor behaviour during compliance testing.

Time-averaged SAR

The amendment revises procedures for validating algorithms used to assess time-averaged SAR. Some devices use power-control mechanisms that manage transmission over time. The updated procedures address how these algorithms are validated during compliance assessment.

They do not establish that every device using power control will produce lower exposure in every circumstance.

Separation distances and test reduction

Separation distance affects the configuration used during testing. Amendment 1 also introduces a conditional procedure that can reduce the need for certain head-SAR tests.

For devices used next to the ear, a test using a SAM (Specific Anthropomorphic Mannequin) head phantom may not be required for a particular antenna and frequency combination if specified conditions are met. These include:

• Testing the device’s front side in direct contact with a flat phantom at a separation distance of 0 mm, using the same operating conditions that apply to use next to the ear.
• Confirming that the device’s front side is planar.
• Demonstrating that the time-averaged output power next to the ear is no higher than the power used in the flat-phantom measurement.
• Documenting the justification in the test report.

The flat-phantom result must also meet at least one of two criteria:

1. The peak spatial-average SAR (psSAR) must be at least 5 dB below the applicable head-SAR limit; or
2. The centre of the psSAR cube must be at least 95.4 mm from the device’s acoustic output along the specified vertical centreline, and the spatial-average SAR at all locations within 95.4 mm of the acoustic output must be at least 5 dB below the applicable head-SAR limit.

This is a conditional test-reduction procedure, not a general exemption from head-SAR testing. The amendment cautions that some regulatory authorities may not accept flat-phantom SAR measurements as a substitute for SAM-phantom measurements. National regulatory requirements must therefore be considered.

Sources:

Official IEC publication record

Official IEEE amendment record

What Do These Changes Mean for RF-Exposure Assessment?

Changes to measurement procedures can affect compliance results because the test arrangement, assumptions or procedures may differ. A change in a reported result does not, by itself, establish that a person’s actual RF exposure in everyday use has increased or decreased.

Similarly, a lower measured SAR value does not automatically establish lower exposure across every operating mode or device configuration. SAR is one measure used in RF-exposure assessment. APD and IPD are also relevant to particular assessment methods and frequency ranges.

Publication of Amendment 1 does not, by itself, establish that earlier phones were inadequately tested, that newer phones will have higher or lower SAR values, or that regulators in every country will immediately adopt the revised procedures.

These questions require separate evidence and consideration of the applicable regulatory framework.

How Confidently Can a Compliance Result Be Applied to Everyday Use?

A compliance result applies to the device and conditions assessed under the relevant procedure. Applying it to a different configuration depends on whether the differences are covered by the test method or otherwise accounted for in the assessment.

Factors such as the device’s position relative to the body, separation distance, operating mode and accessories may affect the assessment. A phone tested in one configuration should not automatically be assumed to have the same exposure characteristics when used with a different case or body-worn accessory. The significance of any difference depends on the device and the conditions assessed.

This does not mean that every change in configuration invalidates a compliance result. The scope of the assessment and the manufacturer’s instructions are important when interpreting the result.

What Does SAR Testing Establish—and What Does It Not?

Specific absorption rate (SAR) measures the rate at which radiofrequency energy is absorbed per unit mass of tissue. It is expressed in watts per kilogram (W/kg). Standardised SAR testing assesses compliance with applicable SAR limits under specified test conditions.

SAR is a physical measurement quantity, not a direct test for biological effects. SAR testing does not directly measure biological endpoints such as changes in cellular signalling, oxidative stress or gene expression. Researchers have investigated these endpoints in studies of possible non-thermal effects.

A compliant SAR result does not, by itself, establish the absence of every possible biological effect.

RF-exposure guidelines aim to protect against established adverse effects. For RF fields, current guidelines are principally based on established effects associated with excessive tissue heating. Questions about other possible effects, and whether the evidence supports additional protective measures, are separate from whether a device meets the applicable exposure limits.

Read the ICNIRP RF-EMF Guidelines (2020)

ITU-T Recommendation K.160 does not introduce a test for non-thermal biological effects. It provides guidance on assessing exposure against applicable limits using existing measurement standards. Depending on the frequency range and assessment method, the relevant physical quantities include SAR, absorbed power density (APD) and incident power density (IPD).

A measurement standard specifies how exposure is assessed. It does not, by itself, resolve every scientific question about possible health effects.

The iPhone 12 A2403 Example: Contact Measurements and Software

The European Commission’s 2025 decision on the iPhone 12 A2403 illustrates how test procedures and software behaviour can affect RF-exposure compliance.

France’s market surveillance authority, ANFR, found that the iPhone 12 A2403 exceeded the applicable limb SAR limit. Apple disputed the original measurements and proposed an alternative test procedure.

Disagreement Over the Test Procedure

Apple’s first proposal, known as Protocol 1, used a separation distance of 1 mm. It also used an external motorised system to trigger the phone’s Body Detect function.

ANFR rejected this procedure for three reasons. First, it considered that the maximum SAR was more likely to occur at a separation distance of 0 mm. Second, it considered the artificial triggering mechanism potentially unrepresentative of normal use. Third, the test configuration used to isolate a particular antenna could have an undetermined effect on the measurements.

Apple then proposed Protocol 2, which used a separation distance of 0 mm. It also required the volume button to be pressed every 20 seconds to trigger Body Detect. ANFR accepted the revised procedure.

However, measurements conducted in August 2023 still found that the phone exceeded the applicable limb SAR limit. The measured value was 5.740 W/kg, against a limit of 4 W/kg.

Software Correction and EU-Wide Requirements

Following the release of iOS 17.1, further measurements in September 2023 showed that the phone met the limb SAR limit under the reported test conditions. The tests used equipment simulating a mobile network in France. The software update permanently activated the on-body state of Body Detect, reducing the device’s transmission power and SAR.

The Commission also examined whether the corrective software operated throughout the EU. Apple confirmed that the relevant software behaviour applied only to iPhone 12 A2403 devices using cellular networks in France.

Article 40(3) of the Radio Equipment Directive requires corrective action for non-compliant radio equipment throughout the EU.

The Commission therefore considered the measure insufficient because the corrective software did not operate throughout the Union.

In its decision of 19 August 2025, the Commission concluded that France’s measure to withdraw the iPhone 12 A2403 from the market was justified. This finding concerned the specific A2403 model. It should not be interpreted as a finding that every iPhone 12 model was non-compliant.

Read Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2025/1760

The case illustrates why test procedures, separation distances, software behaviour and corrective action matter when interpreting compliance results.

It also provides context for the later EU standards update. Contact-distance testing is not entirely new. In its 2025 decision, the Commission noted that EN 50566:2017 allowed test distances between 0 and 5 mm and that the worst-case scenario should be considered. It also referred to guidance that typically uses a separation distance of 0 mm, or contact, for head SAR, limb SAR and SAR measurements involving known accessories.

The precise technical changes introduced by Amendment A2:2025 should be checked against the amendment itself. The publicly available catalogue description alone is insufficient to establish the full scope of those changes. Until the complete text has been reviewed, the specific requirements for separation distances should not be presented as confirmed. Nor should any change be interpreted as a blanket requirement to test every phone in direct contact with the head.

Sources

1. European Commission. Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2025/1760 of 19 August 2025 concerning the measure taken by France with respect to Apple iPhone 12 A2403. Official Journal of the European Union, 1 September 2025. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dec_impl/2025/1760/oj Relevant sections: paragraphs 18–32 cover the original limb SAR finding, Apple’s proposed test protocols, the 5.740 W/kg result, the iOS 17.1 update and the requirement for corrective action throughout the EU.
2. European Commission. Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2026/2003 of 4 September 2026 amending Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/2191 as regards harmonised standards for radio equipment. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dec_impl/2026/2003/oj Relevant sections: recitals 6–7 and 11–13, and the Annex, address EN 50566:2017 and amendments A1:2023 and A2:2025, including the transition arrangements.
3. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut (NEN). NEN-EN 50566:2017/A2:2025 en. English-language amendment, published 1 November 2025. https://www.nen.nl/en/nen-en-50566-2017-a2-2025-en-344126 The catalogue identifies the amendment and its publication details. The full text is available for purchase; the catalogue description alone does not establish the precise technical changes introduced by the amendment.

Compliance, Everyday Exposure and Health Questions

International standards provide an important technical framework for assessing RF-exposure compliance. However, the interpretation of a compliance result depends on the measurement procedure, the device configuration and the conditions assessed.

The updated standards and the iPhone 12 A2403 case illustrate why these details matter. A compliance result establishes whether a device meets the applicable requirements under the specified assessment procedure. It does not, by itself, establish the exposure a user will experience in every everyday-use scenario or resolve all scientific questions about possible long-term health effects.

Consumers should consult the manufacturer’s guidance for their specific device, follow any stated separation distances and use accessories in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. For researchers and regulators, the continuing challenge is to ensure that assessment procedures remain technically robust and relevant to how wireless devices are used in practice.

Disclaimer: This article summarises published regulatory documents, technical standards and related research for general information. It is not legal or medical advice, nor a product-specific RF-exposure assessment. Readers should consult the relevant primary sources and the manufacturer’s guidance for their specific device.

Further reading Legal Accountability of a Guideline versus a Standard

EMFSA | 17 October 2026

The post EU Decision 2026/2003: RF-EMF Exposure appeared first on EMFSA.

Could the metal components in your phone case or belt clip matter for RF-exposure compliance? Many users know the recommended distance between a smartphone and the body. But what about metal in phone cases and other accessories?

Why Do Some Smartphone Manufacturers Issue This Warning?

Some smartphone manufacturers specify restrictions on metallic components in accessories used to carry their devices close to the body. Their guidance may also state minimum separation distances and permitted accessory configurations. These instructions vary by device model and jurisdiction.

Why Can Metallic Components in Body-Worn Accessories Matter?

Metallic components in body-worn accessories can interact with a smartphone’s antenna and the electromagnetic field around the device. The effects depend on the accessory’s properties, its position relative to the phone and body, and the phone’s operating conditions.

Metal Can Change Local SAR

Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) measures the rate at which radiofrequency energy is absorbed per unit mass of tissue. It is expressed in watts per kilogram (W/kg). Researchers use numerical models and measurements with tissue-equivalent phantoms to assess SAR under specified test conditions.

The direction and magnitude of any change in SAR depend on the configuration and assessment conditions. An increase in local SAR does not, by itself, establish that a device exceeds an applicable regulatory limit.

Research by Whittow and colleagues illustrates this complexity. Their 2008 numerical study examined a mobile phone positioned in the front trouser pocket of a truncated male anatomical body model. Using a finite-difference time-domain (FDTD) method, the researchers investigated frequencies from 0.9 to 4 GHz and introduced three everyday metallic objects into the model: a coin, a ring and a zip.

The researchers reported that these objects increased SAR in the body at certain frequencies. The combined effect of all three objects generally increased SAR in the waist section across the frequency range studied. However, the findings relate to the specific objects, phone configuration and numerical model investigated; they should not be assumed to apply directly to every commercial phone case or belt clip.

Research source: Whittow et al. (2008), Indicative SAR Levels Due to an Active Mobile Phone in a Front Trouser Pocket in Proximity to Common Metallic Objects. https://doi.org/10.1109/LAPC.2008.4516888

Published in: 2008 Loughborough Antennas and Propagation Conference (conference paper).

Metal Can Also Affect Antenna Performance

A smartphone antenna operates within a carefully designed electromagnetic environment. Nearby conductive materials can alter antenna impedance, tuning, radiation patterns and efficiency. The effects depend on the device, the material’s electrical properties and its position and geometry.

Changes in antenna performance can affect a phone’s radio link and may influence its transmit-power control under some operating conditions. However, the presence of a metal accessory does not, by itself, establish that a phone will transmit at maximum power or that RF exposure will increase. The outcome also depends on network conditions and the phone’s power-control mechanisms.

Specially Designed Metal Structures Can Produce Different Results

Not all metallic structures have the same effect. Researchers have investigated specially engineered structures designed to reduce SAR under specific test conditions.

For example, Sufian and Hussain published a 2024 study of a commercially available phone case modified by printing a slotted metallic metasurface onto it. Using a mannequin model resembling a human head, the researchers measured a reduction in SAR from 1.387 W/kg to 0.985 W/kg. The authors reported a reduction of more than 26%.

This was a purpose-designed metallic structure, not an ordinary metal case or belt clip. The findings therefore cannot be generalised to commercially available accessories simply because they contain metal.

Research source: Sufian, A. and Hussain, N. (2024), Metasurface-Based Phone Case for the SAR Reduction of the 5G Mobile Phones. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEMC.2023.3348110

What Does FCC Guidance Say About Metal Components in Body-Worn Accessories?

The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) publishes guidance on assessing radiofrequency (RF) exposure from mobile and portable devices. This guidance describes procedures used to evaluate compliance with applicable RF-exposure requirements as part of the equipment-authorisation process.

For body-worn use, the relevant assessment conditions may include the position of the device, its distance from the body and the accessory configuration. Smartphone manufacturers may therefore specify minimum separation distances or advise against using accessories containing metal for particular models.

Users should follow the RF-exposure instructions provided for their specific phone.

Source: FCC KDB Publication 447498 — Mobile and Portable Device RF Exposure, Equipment Authorisation Procedures

International Standards for RF-Exposure Assessment

The International Telecommunication Union (ITU-T) approved Recommendation K.160 in December 2025. It provides guidance on assessing human exposure to radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields from wireless communication devices operating close to the body, including mobile phones. The recommendation addresses compliance assessment using Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) and absorbed power density (APD), as well as reference levels for incident power density (IPD).

Source: ITU-T K.160 — Assessment of Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields from Wireless Communication Devices Operating Close to the Human Body

The International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) jointly publish IEC/IEEE 62209-1528, an international standard specifying procedures for measuring SAR from handheld and body-mounted wireless communication devices. It covers use near the head and body, including configurations involving accessories such as belt clips. Amendment 1 to the 2020 edition was published in September 2026.

Source: IEC/IEEE 62209-1528 — SAR Measurement Procedure

European Update: Changes to SAR and RF-Exposure Testing

In November 2025, the Netherlands Standardization Institute (NEN) published amendment EN 50566:2017/A2:2025 to the European standard for assessing RF-exposure compliance in handheld and body-mounted wireless communication devices. On 4 September 2026, the European Commission adopted Implementing Decision (EU) 2026/2003, published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 7 September 2026. The decision includes EN 50566:2017, as amended by A1:2023 and A2:2025, in the list of harmonised standards under the EU Radio Equipment Directive. The references to the earlier standard and A1:2023 are scheduled to be withdrawn on 7 March 2028.

The decision updates the EU’s harmonised standards framework for demonstrating conformity with applicable RF-exposure requirements under the Radio Equipment Directive. The 7 March 2028 date allows a transition period before the references to EN 50566:2017 and amendment A1:2023 are withdrawn from the Official Journal of the European Union.

Sources:

• NEN — EN 50566:2017/A2:2025
• European Commission — Implementing Decision (EU) 2026/2003

Examples of Manufacturer Compliance Instructions

The following examples illustrate how manufacturers address metallic components and separation distances in their RF-exposure guidance. The instructions differ by device and, in some cases, by jurisdiction.

Google — Pixel 10, Pixel 10 Pro and Pixel 10 Pro XL

Body-worn use and separation distance: Google’s Safety and Regulatory Guide specifies that, in countries where the SAR limit is 1.6 W/kg averaged over 1 gram of tissue, body-worn use must provide at least 1.0 cm (10 mm; 0.4 inches) of separation between the device and the user’s body. It also restricts body-worn use to protective cases, holsters, armbands or similar accessories that contain no metallic components in their assembly. Consult the guide for the applicable device and jurisdiction.

Primary source: Google Pixel 10 series — Safety and regulatory guide

Apple — Metal Components in Specific iPhone Cases

Apple cautions that cases containing metal may affect an iPhone’s RF performance and compliance with RF-exposure guidelines, and states that this configuration has not been tested or certified.

Primary source: Apple — iPhone RF Exposure Information (models A2482, A2631, A2633, A2634 and A2635)

Xiaomi — Redmi Note 8 Pro

Xiaomi’s official Redmi Note 8 Pro user guide provides SAR information for body-worn use, including a minimum separation distance of 5 mm. It also advises users to choose belt clips or holsters without metallic components.

In its US FCC-related guidance, Xiaomi states that RF-exposure compliance has not been tested or certified for body-worn accessories containing metal and advises users to avoid such accessories. The US guidance specifies a minimum separation distance of 1.5 cm for the described body-worn configuration.

Primary source: Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro user guide

Xiaomi — 15T Pro

Xiaomi’s official 15T Pro user guide specifies a minimum separation distance of 5 mm for the described body-worn SAR compliance conditions. It recommends using a belt clip or holster without metallic components.

The guide also states that RF-exposure compliance has not been tested or certified for body-worn accessories containing metal and advises users to avoid them.

Primary source: Xiaomi 15T Pro user guide

Huawei — P30

Huawei’s official P30 regulatory information for the Australian market states that the phone complies with applicable RF specifications when used near the ear or at a distance of 0.5 cm from the body. It also instructs users to ensure that accessories, including phone cases and holsters, do not contain metal components.

Primary source: Huawei P30 — regulatory information

What Consumers Should Know

Metal components in body-worn accessories can affect the electromagnetic field around a transmitting smartphone. The effects depend on the device, the material, its position and the operating conditions.

Manufacturer instructions matter because RF-exposure compliance assessments are conducted under specified test conditions and configurations. Compliance should not automatically be assumed for accessory configurations that fall outside those assessed or specified by the manufacturer.

If you carry your phone close to your body, consult the manufacturer’s guidance for your specific model, follow the stated separation distance, and choose accessories that comply with the manufacturer’s instructions. These steps help consumers make informed decisions based on documented testing conditions, without implying that all metal accessories are unsafe or that guidance for one accessory or device necessarily applies to another.

This article summarises published research, technical standards and manufacturer guidance for general information. It is not a product-specific RF-exposure assessment or legal advice.

Related: From Research and Regulation to Corporate and Insurance Risk

EMFSA | 13 October 2026

The post Metal Components in Body-Worn Accessories: Smartphone Compliance Guidance appeared first on EMFSA.

Children and toys are a natural combination, and mandatory safety standards and regulations are intended to reduce the risk of injury from electric toys and other electrical products for children. However, it is still important for parents and caregivers to understand potential hazards and supervise children appropriately.

Published by EMFSA | 30th July 2026

Electrical Safety

Electrical toys and products powered by batteries or connected to mains electricity might introduce additional hazards that parents and caregivers should understand. These include: 

• Electric shock
• Burns
• Fire
• Short circuits

Water and Electricity

Explain to children that water and electricity don’t mix.

• Don’t allow children to play with electrical toys near water
• Never let children touch buttons, switches, or plugs with wet hands
• Never immerse battery-powered toys unless the manufacturer specifically states they are waterproof. (1)

Electrical Installations

• Electricity pylons, transformer houses, substations and railway electrical infrastructure can present serious hazards. Children should not play near these structures.
• High-voltage and overhead power lines: Adults and children should avoid flying helium balloons and kites near overhead power lines.

Fatal Electrocution of a Child During Kite Flying: A Case Report

A 2026 case report described the fatal electrocution of a child during kite flying after the kite string came into contact with an overhead power line. The case illustrates the potentially fatal consequences of flying kites close to electrical infrastructure.  (2)

Drones

• Remote-controlled drone: Remote-controlled drones should be operated in accordance with applicable aviation regulations and kept well away from overhead power lines and substations. (3, 4)
• Electric fences: Electric fences typically deliver brief high-voltage, low-current pulses and are designed not to be life-threatening under normal operating conditions. Nevertheless, children should never be left unattended near them. (4)

Batteries and Magnets

Take extra care with toys that contain small batteries (button or lithium coin cells) and small magnets, especially high-powered (rare-earth) magnets. These can become loose and pose a serious hazard to young children. Young children may swallow batteries or magnets, or insert them into their nose or ears. Swallowing powerful magnets can cause serious internal injuries. (5)

Button Batteries

Button batteries are a medical emergency if swallowed or inserted into the nose or ear. They can cause serious tissue injury within a short period of time. 

Button batteries can be found in small remotes, car key fobs, mini remotes that control MP3 speakers, calculators, bathroom scales, reading lights, flameless candles, talking and singing books, singing greeting cards, watches, thermometers, hearing aids, flashing jewelry, ornaments, games and toys. (6)

In 2022, the U.S. government enacted Reese’s Law to improve child safety regarding button batteries. (7)

Battery Safety Tips

• Keep spare and used button batteries out of children’s reach.
• Ensure battery compartments are secure and cannot be easily opened by children.
• Stop using toys with damaged batteries or battery compartments.
• Use only the charger recommended by the manufacturer.
• Replace damaged rechargeable batteries promptly.

Lithium-ion Batteries

In 2025, a medical journal documented the case of a young boy who was burned when a portable lithium-ion charger caught fire in his pocket while he was using his phone. The experience had an impact beyond his physical injuries. The family subsequently changed the way they approached battery safety, and both the child and his parents went on to share their experience to help raise awareness of the potential risks. (8)

E-bike and Electric Scooters/bicycles (e-scooters/bikes)

The Canadian Paediatric Society advises that children younger than 16 years should not operate or ride as passengers on e-bikes or e-scooters. The Society states that e-scooters and e-bikes are not toys and were not designed for children.  (9)

Riding Toward Danger: A Scoping Review of Burns Associated With Personal Mobility Devices, Including Electric Bikes (E-Bikes) and Electric Scooters (E-Scooters)

Burns associated with lithium-ion batteries in personal mobility devices, including e-bikes and e-scooters, are an emerging safety concern. Accordingly, the review highlights the importance of safety education, compliance with applicable regulations, and careful use of personal mobility devices, including products involving battery modifications or DIY conversion kits. (10)

Electric Scooter Battery Detonation: A Case Series And Review Of Literature

Lithium-ion battery failures can result in intense fires and thermal runaway, which can spread rapidly. 

Thermal runaway can result from several failure mechanisms and is not limited to batteries that are actively charging. (11)

Injuries Associated With Electrical Flash Burns in Children Caused by E-bike Batteries

A published report describes electrical flash-burn injuries in children associated with e-bike batteries and highlights the importance of recognising this type of injury and providing appropriate safety information to families. (12)

Hoverboards and Self-balancing Boards 

The batteries in these devices can present a serious fire risk if used, charged or sourced incorrectly. Counterfeit and substandard battery chargers can also pose serious safety hazards. (13) 

Heated Clothing

Full-Thickness Burn Resulting From an E-Sock: A Case Report

A published case report described a full-thickness burn associated with a lithium-ion battery-powered heated sock. The case highlights the need for caution when using battery-powered heated clothing and the importance of following manufacturer safety instructions. (14)

Laser Toys

A published case series has reported retinal injuries following childhood exposure to laser products marketed as toys. This highlights a potential public-safety concern. (15)

LED Toys

Some children’s toys—including cuddly toys, dolls, drawing tablets, toy trucks, spinning tops and illuminated board games—contain LEDs. Children’s eyes do not yet filter blue light as effectively as adults’ eyes, allowing more blue light to reach the retina. Some LEDs emit a high proportion of blue light, and ANSES has expressed concern that current toy eye-safety standards may not adequately protect children. 

Excessive close-range exposure to high-blue-light-emitting LEDs may pose a risk of retinal photochemical injury. Such exposure may also affect circadian rhythms and sleep, particularly when used in the evening. (16)

Social Media Toy Challenges

A case report and warning:

Severe pediatric burn injuries following a social media trend involving a microwaved toy.

A 2026 case report described significant facial burns in a 10-year-old girl. This was after an online activity involving a microwaved frozen stress ball. The authors highlighted the case as an example of the potential for social-media trends to expose children to serious injury risks. (17)

Additional Resources: 

Toy safety regulations 2026: Key updates for the EU, UK, US, and China https://www.eurofins.com/en/consumer-product-testing/softlines-hardlines/news-articles/toy-safety-regulations-2026-key-updates-for-the-eu-uk-us-and-china

Sources

Part 1

[1] ESFI. Electrical Gifts for Children. https://www.esfi.org/electrical-gifts-for-children/

[2] Vadysinghe AN, Seneviratne P, Ekanayake KB, Ekanayake NK, Wickramasinghe CU, Sanjaya B. Fatal Electrocution of a Child During Kite Flying: A Case Report. Arch Med Sadowej Kryminol. 2026 May 28;76(1):76-81. doi:10.4467/16891716AMSIK.26.007.23583. PMID: 42325150. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42325150/

[3] National Grid UK. Drone Safety. https://customer.nationalgrid.co.uk/advice-and-guidance/staying-safe/drone-safety

Part 2

[4] VDE. Children and Electricity. https://www.vde.com/topics-en/consumer-protection/children-and-electricity

[5] Montreal Children’s Hospital. Toy Safety. Trauma Injury Prevention. https://montrealchildrenshospital.ca/trauma-injury-prevention/toy-safety/

[6] UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospitals. The Dangers of Children Swallowing Button Batteries. https://www.ucsfbenioffchildrens.org/education/the-dangers-of-children-swallowing-button-batteries

Part 3

[7] Steelman SH, Carpenter C, Jordan KS. Button Battery Ingestion: A Tiny Object with the Potential for a Catastrophic Outcome. Advanced Emergency Nursing Journal. 2025;47(2):122–128. doi:10.1097/TME.0000000000000565. Copyright © 2025 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

[8] van de Warenburg MS, Riesmeijer SA, Hummelink S, Ulrich DJO, Vehmeijer-Heeman MLA W. Burn by Battery, the Dangers of Portable Devices – A Case Report. Burns Open. 2025;9(Supplement C):100388. doi:10.1016/j.burnso.2024.100388. Open Access under CC BY 4.0 License

[9] Canadian Paediatric Society. Electric Scooters and Bikes: Not Safe for Kids. Caring for Kids. Safety and Injury Prevention. https://caringforkids.cps.ca/handouts/safety-and-injury-prevention/electric-scooters-and-bikes

Part 4

[10] Warner-Levy J, Herieka M, Sheikh Z. Riding Toward Danger: A Scoping Review of Burns Associated With Personal Mobility Devices, Including Electric Bikes (E-Bikes) and Electric Scooters (E-Scooters). Journal of Burn Care & Research. 2024 Sep 6;45(5):1154-1159. doi:10.1093/jbcr/irae115. PMID: 38878005. Open Access under CC BY 4.0 License. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11379144/

[11] Hsieh MKH, Lai MC, Sim HSN, Lim X, Fok SFD, Joethy J, Kong TY, Lim GJS. Electric Scooter Battery Detonation: A Case Series and Review of Literature. Annals of Burns and Fire Disasters. 2021 Sep 30;34(3):264-276. PMID: 34744543. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8534310/

[12] Zhao X, Shen Y. Injuries Associated With Electrical Flash Burns in Children Caused by E-bike Batteries. Journal of Burn Care & Research. 2023;44(2):347–352. doi:10.1093/jbcr/irac072. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Burn Association

Part 5

[13] Electrical Safety First. Hoverboards and Self-Balancing Boards. https://www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk/safety-advice/products-and-appliances/transport/hoverboards-and-self-balancing-boards/

[14] Greenberg K, Chang KM, Supple MD, Goverman J. Full-thickness Burn Resulting From an E-Sock: A Case Report. Wounds. 2024;36(10):327-330. doi:10.25270/wnds/24024. Copyright © 2024 HMP Global. All Rights Reserved.

[15] Ophthalmology Times. Laser ‘Toys’ Can Cause Ocular Damage in Children. https://www.ophthalmologytimes.com/view/laser-toys-can-cause-ocular-damage-children

Part 6

[16] ANSES. LEDs in Toys: ANSES Calls for a Revision of the “Eye Safety” Section of the European Standard. https://www.anses.fr/en/content/leds-toys-anses-calls-revision-eye-safety-section-european-standard#

[17] Bonner R, Munro KJ. Severe Pediatric Burn Injuries Following a Social Media Trend Involving a Microwaved Toy: A Case Report and Warning. JPRAS Open. 2026 Mar 26;50:84-90. doi:10.1016/j.jpra.2026.02.017. PMID: 42099753. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13147427/

• Image credit: Generated with Lumo by Proton

The post Children and Toys appeared first on EMFSA.

Photo by Dave Hoefler on Unsplash

Fire hazards from malfunctioning electrical infrastructure are a serious risk, especially in systems that generate, store, or distribute energy. These hazards can arise from renewable energy sources like solar panels and wind farms, energy storage systems such as lithium-ion batteries, and monitoring tools like smart meters.

Power Lines and Wildfires: A Growing Concern

Damaged electrical powerline infrastructure poses a significant fire risk. When these components fail, the consequences can be severe.

Fire Risks in Renewable Energy Systems

•Can Solar Panels Catch Fire?

While fires caused by faulty solar installations are relatively uncommon when systems are properly installed and maintained, they can still occur. Some common causes include improper wiring, faulty or substandard components, inverter malfunctions, overloading circuits, and DC arc faults. Hot spots on solar panels and inadequate grounding can also increase fire risk. Environmental factors such as rodent damage, debris accumulation, and extreme weather further contribute to potential hazards. Proper grounding is essential for solar panel safety.

• Why Do Lithium-Ion Batteries Overheat?

Lithium-ion batteries used in solar energy storage systems are generally safe but can pose fire risks if not properly installed or managed. Factors such as thermal runaway, physical damage, electrical short circuits, overcharging, inadequate ventilation, and the use of low-quality batteries can lead to overheating and fires. High-risk scenarios include improper installation, system overloading, and aging batteries prone to failure. Reports of residential and utility-scale battery fires highlight the importance of rigorous safety protocols in these systems. Recent incidents and safety concerns regarding lithium-ion batteries highlight the importance of safety as highlighted in this article.

• Wind Turbines and Fire: Risks & Prevention

Wind farms with malfunctioning equipment can also pose fire risks due to overheating components, electrical faults, gearbox failures, lightning strikes, and combustible turbine materials. If energy storage systems, such as lithium-ion batteries, are integrated into wind farms, they bring additional fire hazards that require proper maintenance and monitoring. Implementing fire detection and suppression systems is crucial in mitigating these risks. The Scroby Sands Incident and its lessons about wind turbine fires.

• Are Smart Meters a Fire Risk?

Although rare, electrical smart meters have been linked to fires due to improper installation, defective equipment, overloaded circuits, and environmental damage. Power surges, in particular, pose a risk by stressing electrical components beyond their capacity, potentially causing overheating, arcing, or circuit board damage. Mitigation strategies include professional installation, regular inspections, and surge protection devices.

In 2014, the Saskatchewan government ordered its power utility SaskPower to remove 105,000 so-called smart meters installed at homes and businesses across the province, following concerns about eight unexplained fires associated with the units. Read more about the incident here.

How Malfunctioning Electrical Infrastructure Could Lead to Fire Hazards

Photo by Andrey Metelev on Unsplash

Power Lines and Wildfires: A Growing Concern

In the Pacific Palisades area of Los Angeles, speculation has arisen regarding whether a high-voltage transmission tower sparked the deadly Eaton Fire. Reports indicate a temporary surge in electrical current in the area before the fire started, possibly due to a “fault” on a line elsewhere in the region’s transmission network. Southern California Edison (SCE) has reported equipment issues near the fire’s origin, though the official cause remains under investigation (NBC News). A lawsuit has also surfaced, citing video evidence of sparks in the area (CNN).

2017 CA Fire

Edison is also under scrutiny regarding the destructive 2017 CA Fire, in which witnesses reported a snapped line on a high-voltage transmission tower. While Edison initially denied involvement, federal investigations suggest the utility may have suppressed evidence related to the fire (Fire Engineering).

How to Prevent Electrical Fires in Energy Systems

As renewable energy systems continue to expand, addressing these fire hazards is critical. Implementing stringent safety protocols, regular maintenance, and the use of high-quality components can significantly reduce risks. Proper grounding, installation, and environmental protection measures can enhance the safety and reliability of energy systems, ultimately preventing electrical fires and their devastating consequences.

The post Fire Hazards: Malfunctioning Electrical Infrastructure appeared first on EMFSA.