Too Many Lists of Unsafe Toys?
There were apparently some real duds in Santa’s toy bag this year.
In Massachusetts, there were Barbie packages that were found on Christmas morning to contain pornographic photos, tucked in there by some sicko like a razor blade in Halloween candy. Then there were all the dangerous toys on the news, accompanied by statistics on toy-related child deaths.
But let’s not get carried away. The Halloweenization of Christmas is pretty nasty, notwithstanding all the bad jokes about how Barbie was asking for it, given the way she dresses. But it wasn’t razor blades, or any of the other poisons periodically reported in Halloween candy.
And the unsafe toy lists are almost a Christmas tradition, virtually ignored the rest of the year. All kinds of people produce these lists--consumer advocates, trial lawyers, lobbying groups, news reporters, broadcasters.
In fact, the lists are increasingly perfunctory, sometimes even mindless, to the point that one must ask whether they just spread a Halloween-type hysteria or perform some useful function. If they encourage toy-buyers to think at all, it’s to think of demanding more government protection from such shocking hazards, rather than protecting themselves.
Take the “Ten Most Dangerous Toys” put out by Edward Swartz, a Massachusetts trial lawyer who has surfaced with such lists periodically for two decades. This year’s was a bit strange, not least because it was backed by California’s Trial Lawyers Assn., billing itself as a “consumer group” and calling on toy stores to take such toys “off the market.”
Swartz didn’t like a gum-ball machine because it had gum balls, a battery-operated robot because it had batteries: Children could choke on gum balls or batteries. He didn’t like a slingshot because slingshots can “propel hard objects,” a toy sword because toy swords can cause “impact injuries,” a Sony Walkman because it could be played at high volume.
This isn’t information, an alert to unperceived dangers--flammable materials, lead in paint, sharp edges. It’s personal philosophy.
The Public Interest Research Group lists were similar, if somewhat more educational. They attacked a single issue--toys with small parts, which the California PIRG called “the leading cause of toy-related deaths.”
Indeed, federal regulations specify that toys for children under 3 have no small parts, and that toys that do have small parts be labeled specifically for older children. And the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission regularly recalls toys that do not conform--pacifiers and teethers that come apart, blocks, stuffed animals, preschool puzzles whose parts are too small.
Many of the toys cited by the various PIRGs were little kids’ toys--bath toys, pull toys--but had small parts and no age labeling. Others were labeled for children as young as 1 to 2 years old, but had small or breakable parts anyway. Finally, there were certain toys--work benches, little cars, finger puppets--obviously made for younger children but labeled for over 3 years just to slip by the regulations.
“It’s not enough just to slap a label on something,” says Jeffrey Francis, CALPIRG’s consumer program director in San Diego. “If it has play value for small children, if it’s appropriate for a small child, it should be free of small parts.”
But using “play value” as a criteria makes regulation impossible. Toddlers find play value in everything--Barbies, tiddlywinks, Erector sets, Monopoly pieces, pennies, peanuts and paper clips. It’s play value, and the inherent danger of child play, that caused most of those oft-mentioned toy-related deaths. Of 32 choking deaths from January, 1989, to September, 1991, two-thirds involved balloons (torn or deflated), small balls and marbles--none capable of design change and none made for small children. Could anyone ask that their sales be controlled?
Sure. There’s Ed Swartz, damning gum balls, batteries, adjustable volume. And there’s CALPIRG, which wants all small balls, all balloons and all marbles labeled as choking hazards.
This seems a sad state of affairs--that grown-ups, parents even, might need labels saying “This is a marble. Small children can choke on items this size.” One would think that people buying toys for children must know that slingshots propel hard objects, that swords are used to hit, that small children chew on batteries, cut themselves on sharp edges, eat small parts. One would think they need protection only against the hidden or unpredictable hazards--flimsiness, exposed wires, fire hazard, lead content in paint.
But maybe not. Some people obviously found new information on these lists. Some may need even more. There are people, for example, who think age-labeling refers to intellectual ability. Seeing a note that some toy is for 3 years and up, and “having a precocious child, they think, ‘My kid’s smart enough to play with this,’ ” says Inez Hope of the Children’s Advocacy Institute, headquartered in San Diego. “They don’t think they can also choke on it.”
The choice of any toy, says Jeff Francis, is “somewhat of a judgment call.” Maybe the more judgments involved, the more lists, the more discussion, the more responsibility put on toy-makers, regulators and parents, the better.
It beats leaving it to the children.
