3 ms·

"The research by the British Toy and Hobby Association (BTHA) identified toys that...." https://www.btha.co.uk/about-us/ https://www.btha.co.uk/about-us/ The

"The research by the British Toy and Hobby Association (BTHA) identified toys that...." https://www.btha.co.uk/about-us/ https://www.btha.co.uk/about-us/ The British Toy & Hobby Association represents specialty retailers, local manufacturers, and a few (large) international toy brands. All of these groups lose out when a British parent buys cheap Chinese generic toys for their kid on eBay.

noja 5y ago
So? The toys might be cheaper for a reason. Are they wrong?
- nimonian 5y ago
  I think the parent comment is saying the people who wrote the study criticizing online toys sales would benefit from damaging the reputation of online toys sales. This makes it more likely the study doesn't really make sense, and just exists to further an agenda.
- kazinator 5y ago
  I think people should read the actual report (easily available from the https://www.btha.co.uk/ https://www.btha.co.uk/ website). After numerous pages of discussion, the report includes an appendix which gives a table of all the toys that were investigated. One commonly recurring thread seems to be that toys are marketed at babies, using images of children that are far younger than 3. But the organization's independent lab determined that these toys were safe only for older children, like 3+ or older. Another theme is missing labeling related to safety or age. Regarding the helicopter mentioned in the article and commented on by grandparent, in the table it is revealed that the toy was in fact labeled as for ages 3+. Something that breaks easily, releasing button cell batteries, should not be labeled 3+. The anecdote about the three-year-old girl who almost died due to swallowing the magnets actually revolved around a ten-year-old who the magnets were for. Those should have been accompanied by warning. Unfortunately, that anecdote is just that; it is not linked to anything in the data. The data does list neodymium magnetic balls (item #58 in the AliExpress table) which were accompanied by no safety labels at all (ouch! in spite of magnets being one of the top swallowing dangers: I heard this face to face from an ER doctor). The anecdote about does not specifically identify that product, though, or mention what the issue was (e.g. did the parents not know about the dangers of magnets, and received no warning from the packaging, which could have caused them to act differently, such as closely monitoring the ten-year-old's play with the items and subsequent tidying?)
  - jjeaff 5y ago
    It might be a different magnet story, but the one I remember was from a knockoff toy where the magnets broke loose due to a defective design. The original toy did not have this same problem as precautions had been taken to make sure the magnets did not come loose.
  - allturtles 5y ago
    Thanks for doing the research, I wish the author of the original article had done the same.

noja 5y ago

So? The toys might be cheaper for a reason. Are they wrong?

nimonian 5y ago
I think the parent comment is saying the people who wrote the study criticizing online toys sales would benefit from damaging the reputation of online toys sales. This makes it more likely the study doesn't really make sense, and just exists to further an agenda.
kazinator 5y ago
I think people should read the actual report (easily available from the https://www.btha.co.uk/ https://www.btha.co.uk/ website). After numerous pages of discussion, the report includes an appendix which gives a table of all the toys that were investigated. One commonly recurring thread seems to be that toys are marketed at babies, using images of children that are far younger than 3. But the organization's independent lab determined that these toys were safe only for older children, like 3+ or older. Another theme is missing labeling related to safety or age. Regarding the helicopter mentioned in the article and commented on by grandparent, in the table it is revealed that the toy was in fact labeled as for ages 3+. Something that breaks easily, releasing button cell batteries, should not be labeled 3+. The anecdote about the three-year-old girl who almost died due to swallowing the magnets actually revolved around a ten-year-old who the magnets were for. Those should have been accompanied by warning. Unfortunately, that anecdote is just that; it is not linked to anything in the data. The data does list neodymium magnetic balls (item #58 in the AliExpress table) which were accompanied by no safety labels at all (ouch! in spite of magnets being one of the top swallowing dangers: I heard this face to face from an ER doctor). The anecdote about does not specifically identify that product, though, or mention what the issue was (e.g. did the parents not know about the dangers of magnets, and received no warning from the packaging, which could have caused them to act differently, such as closely monitoring the ten-year-old's play with the items and subsequent tidying?)
- jjeaff 5y ago
  It might be a different magnet story, but the one I remember was from a knockoff toy where the magnets broke loose due to a defective design. The original toy did not have this same problem as precautions had been taken to make sure the magnets did not come loose.
- allturtles 5y ago
  Thanks for doing the research, I wish the author of the original article had done the same.