Fair, fair. I'm over-accustomed to markets where standards and expectations are tilted far in the "caveat emptor" direction—where people are still working on big things like "don't use poison to make your turmeric look yellower."
I think what made me react (with fondness, not criticism, to be clear) was the framing: casually noting the departure from the technical standard specifically regulating "hole diameter adequate for sufficient airflow upon accidental swallowing in baby-facing bead-related amusement products" or what have you.
Not only have they thought about that very specific aspect of a choking hazard, but they've figured out what the right parameters are, published them, and hold manufacturers to them—and that specific dimension of the problem is common enough knowledge that a Guardian journalist just tosses it off casually for a general audience.
I think what made me react (with fondness, not criticism, to be clear) was the framing: casually noting the departure from the technical standard specifically regulating "hole diameter adequate for sufficient airflow upon accidental swallowing in baby-facing bead-related amusement products" or what have you.
Not only have they thought about that very specific aspect of a choking hazard, but they've figured out what the right parameters are, published them, and hold manufacturers to them—and that specific dimension of the problem is common enough knowledge that a Guardian journalist just tosses it off casually for a general audience.