Yet more unsafe products from China

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-11-08 11:45am

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/274693

Aqua Dots toy pulled on fears of poison risk
Beads' coating metabolizes into 'date rape' drug

Nov 08, 2007 04:30 AM
Bill Taylor
Feature Writer

What was touted as one of the hottest new toys this Christmas is being pulled off store shelves because of fears it could poison children.

Aqua Dots, distributed in North America by Toronto-based Spin Master, are liquid-filled beads that can be arranged into designs and sprayed with water to hold them together. But if swallowed, the beads' coating reportedly metabolizes into the hallucinogenic "date rape" drug gammahydroxybutyrate, also known as GBH. An overdose can cause seizures, coma or death.

The toy, aimed at kids age 4 and older and heavily advertised on TV, is made in China by Australian company Moose Enterprise. Marketed in Australia as Bindeez, it was withdrawn there this week when three children needed hospital treatment after swallowing beads.

The Toys `R' Us chain was the first here to take Aqua Dots off its shelves, followed by Mastermind, which has stores in Toronto and across the GTA. It had been on Wal-Mart's list of top 12 Christmas toys.

Spin Master issued a statement yesterday saying it was asking retailers across North America to stop selling Aqua Dots.

"Out of an abundance of caution, we have stopped shipping this item and are working with the Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada," the firm said. "Our company is working diligently to identify any shipments that could potentially be included in a recall by . . . Canadian officials."

Wow.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2007-11-08 11:56am

So much for that particular drug smuggling plan.

Now that the word is out, I can just see a bunch of young people buying up Walmart's remaining stock of Aqua Dots so they can all get high as a kite.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2007-11-08 12:00pm

IMHO, shit like this is mostly the fault of companies that outsource production to the lowest bidder without (sometimes deliberately) exercising due diligence WRT just how such low prices are achieved.

After all, if you substitute cheaper lead paints and chemical formulations in place of their safer counterparts, it saves money.
A totally free market at work.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2007-11-08 12:08pm

On a related note, I think there was a Steven Segal movie a while back where the Chinese bad guys were smuggling heroin or cocaine by baking it into T-shirts. And now the Chinese are putting GHB precursors into children's toys. When reality matches a Steven Segal movie, you know you're living in a fucked up world.

FireNexus · Post by **FireNexus** » 2007-11-08 03:07pm

The stuff they used is a pretty common industrial solvent, 1,4-Butanediol, I believe. It's very similarly named to the non-toxic stuff they were supposed to use.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2007-11-09 01:49am

Would it be ok to swallow the beads if they were not poisonous ? Is not the choking experience alone enough to keep them away from small children ?

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2007-11-09 01:51am

Dude, kids beads that metabolise into GHB? Fucking jesus. I mean, fucking JESUS. That's some fucked up designer drug, right there.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2007-11-09 02:01am

I can't believe I'm only finding out about this shit now that it's been recalled. I could have seen a bunch of shitty movies, then ate an aquadot and forget them!

Seriousely people, this is what happens when you put former industry spokemen in as the heads of regulatory agencies. Luckily it's just poor kids whose parents can only afford to buy them cheap toys from China. But next time it could be a rich kid. Or even worse a white rich kid!

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2007-11-11 06:22am

While I agree with you that Bush's regulatory people are way too big business friendly and overlook too many things, this incident isn't really proof of it.

After all, this affected Australia as well (Aussie kids got sick and the company that designed, marketed, and ordered the toys from China is Australian), and going by what I've heard in the past, Australia has some pretty damn effective consumer protection laws that they do enforce.

Of course if I'm wrong, Stark or one of our other resident Aussies will correct me.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2007-11-11 06:35am

Glocksman wrote:While I agree with you that Bush's regulatory people are way too big business friendly and overlook too many things, this incident isn't really proof of it.

After all, this affected Australia as well (Aussie kids got sick and the company that designed, marketed, and ordered the toys from China is Australian), and going by what I've heard in the past, Australia has some pretty damn effective consumer protection laws that they do enforce.

Of course if I'm wrong, Stark or one of our other resident Aussies will correct me.

I'd agree that that's a fair point if within the last few weeks the dumb twat Shrub appointed to the agency that oversees product safety hadn't said that increasing the budget and adding more personell would "cripple" it.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2007-11-12 02:45am

So all of the non-recalled aquadots are in the hands of the extended Kennedy family by now right?

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2007-11-12 07:39am

Sarevok wrote:Would it be ok to swallow the beads if they were not poisonous ? Is not the choking experience alone enough to keep them away from small children ?

Seeing them on the TV they look pretty tiny. Small enough that a four year old could probably swallow one safely but a baby would choke.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2007-11-12 01:25pm

Still I don't think swallowing something not meant to be edible is an acceptable risk. I grew up playing with legoes. LEGO is very serious about hazards of small children getting hold of tiny plastic blocks. Small children's range of LEGO were big bulky blocks not even most adults could swallow. They put age range on the boxes with choking hazard warnings and other stuff. I was under the impression this was common practice.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2007-11-12 01:56pm

They do but if you've been around babies and small children then you know that everything goes in their mouths. Hence the need for parents to keep small objects away from them. If you were to swallow a plain plastic aquadot though, it would probably just pass through your system. Similar to a penny.

General Trelane (Retired) · Post by **General Trelane (Retired)** » 2007-11-12 03:22pm

Sarevok wrote:Would it be ok to swallow the beads if they were not poisonous ? Is not the choking experience alone enough to keep them away from small children ?

In Canada, toys with small parts that may be choking hazards to small children need to be labelled as being not suitable for children 3 and under. Hence why these toys are marketed towards children 4 and over as stated in the article.

But just because kids are 4 or older doesn't mean that they won't swallow the beads.