Peter, I cannot answer for the committee of test laborarories, but I have been a member of the committees involved with writing IEC 60950-1 and its predecessors for many years and so I can at least provide my perspective on what the intended requirements are.
For me, the question is clearly answered by looking at clause 1.3.1, which states that "The requirements detailed in this standard shall be applied only if safety is involved". If you want further evedence of the intent then take a look at 1.4.1. I accept what Rich Nute says about custom and practice, but your question was related to the interpretation of the standard. There are a few good reasons I can think of why a manufacturer may choose to include a customer-replacable fuse that has no safety function, and even more bad reasons! However, it is not for me to speculate on such questions (especially since you are not paying me to do so!). On a passing note, I will say that just because one or more tests have shown that replacing the recommended value of fuse with a nail does not produce a hazard is not proof that replacing the fuse with some other value of fuse, or perhaps a fuse of a different type, would not give rise to a hazard. We all know that the prospective fault current of IEC 60127 fuses varies on the type of construction (glass without sand, glass with sand, ceramic with sand) and also that the prospective fault current of IEC 60127 fuses varies with the rated current (in the case of glass-bodied fusing without a sand filling). Depending on the construction of the product, the type of fuseholder and the likely proximity of the rupturing fuse to a person, etc. there may actually be a hazard to the user caused by an incorrect fuse rupturing. This is something for you to consider when determining whether safety really is not involved - for any reason! All the best, Richard Hughes Safety Answers Ltd.
