In Russia, a new initiative is being discussed that could significantly change what children play with in public kindergartens and schools. The idea is to restrict the use of imported toys: if Russian manufacturers manage to capture at least 65% of the market in a particular product category, from 2026 public institutions may effectively switch to predominantly domestic alternatives.
According to the proponents, this approach should support domestic industry and reduce dependence on foreign supplies, especially in the context of sanctions and unstable logistics chains. Toys are not only entertainment but also a large market with its own infrastructure: design, production, certification, logistics. When kindergartens and schools mostly buy imports, a significant portion of public money flows abroad, and it becomes harder for Russian manufacturers to increase volumes and invest in expanding their product range.
The key figure is that 65% share of the market. Formally, it means that restrictions can be introduced only where domestic companies are already able to cover the main part of demand. In practice, however, many questions arise: how exactly will this percentage be calculated, based on what data, and will regional differences be taken into account? In one region, local manufacturers may offer a broad range and an established supply network, while in another the assortment may be much poorer, and a shift to “almost entirely Russian” toys would actually reduce choice for children.
Opponents of the initiative focus on a different principle: they believe the criterion should be safety and quality of toys rather than their country of origin. They propose mandatory psychological and pedagogical assessment for all children’s products, which would evaluate not only physical safety (materials, small parts, toxicity), but also content: imagery, aggression, stereotypes, noise level, color intensity, age appropriateness. From their point of view, a potentially harmful toy could just as easily be a cheap import or an ill-conceived domestic product, and the country printed on the box does not change that.
Introducing such an assessment, however, is not a trivial task either. It requires clear evaluation criteria, trained experts, transparent procedures, and protection against a purely formal approach where the conclusion turns into just another piece of paper for the file. Otherwise, there is a risk that under the banner of caring for children and supporting domestic producers, the system will simply redistribute budget flows without giving parents and educators real confidence that toys have become more useful and safer. In the end, the debate over imported toys grows into a much broader question: what matters more — supporting the national market or creating honest, uniform quality rules for all products that surround a child?