Parents are urged to exercise caution when buying small toys out of a vending machine or a food pack for young children under the age of 3. 
This advice was issued by the Consumer Council following a test on small toys commonly available at many retail outlets.
Toys that come in too small a size or with tiny components as determined by a standard test apparatus can pose a severe choking hazard to young children under the age of 3.
As many children are attracted to small toys, parents should be extra cautious to ensure that such toys do not fall into their hands.
Only last month, a 22-month-old infant boy was reported to have nearly swallowed a small toy that could choke the baby to death.
 |  |
 |  |
But small toys are being marketed innovatively - out of a vending machine or even a food pack. And at most affordable prices - from a mere $1 to $10 for vending machine toys and at some $10 to $20for most toys in food packs.
Concerned over young children safety, the Consumer Council has surveyed the market for the availability of such toys. A total of 67 samples - 21 from vending machines and 46 from food packs (mostly candy, chocolate and gum) - were put to a test.
The test aims to focus mainly on the small parts requirements in accordance with the prescribed safety standards of the Toys and Children's Products Safety Ordinance.
The standards require that toys intended for children under 36 months should not be of a volume so small that it can fit wholly within a test device, a truncated cylinder to simulate the throat of a young child. The toys should not also contain detachable components, marbles or similar objects.
In addition, they should not contain small balls or similar objects that are small enough to pass through a test template (measuring 44.5mm or 1.75 inch in diameter).
For toys intended for children above 36 months that have small parts, small balls and/or marbles are required to bear a warning to alert parents they are not suitable for children under 36months because of the choking hazard they pose.
The results of the test were unsettling. Many were dangerously small and/or with small detachable components and without the prescribed age warning.
Out of 67 samples, 17 were judged satisfactory: 6 were without any small components and 11 with small parts carried the prescribed warning to parents.
The majority (50samples) were judged unsatisfactory. Though 34 carried a warning, they were in Japanese only.
Bilingual warning or caution requirement will come into force next April when failure to carry the prescribed warnings in both Chinese and English will become an offence.
 |  |
 |  |
 |
The Council also examined the display cards of the vending machines for the age warning. Without such disclosure, parents may not be aware of the hazard in advance, at the point of sale, until they have purchased and opened the plastic shells of the toys.
As for the 21vending machines which the Council had surveyed, it was revealed that only 3 (21%) displayed the warning while 18 (79%) did not.
Retailers are urged to ask their suppliers for information to ascertain if the toys are too small in size or have small detachable parts, and to display the necessary safety warning on the vending machine for the information of customers. With regard to toys in food packs, retailers should also be attentive to find out if the merchandise contain the prescribed safety warning.
Parents are also advised that such small toys bought for elder children are not left around in the house that they may fall into the hands of children under 3 years old.
The Consumer Council has notified the Customs and Excise Department's Trading Standards Investigation Bureau of the test findings for any further action deemed necessary under the Toys and Children’s Products Safety Ordinance.
Beauty may be only skin deep. But for the beauty conscious, they take their skin care seriously.
Manufacturers of cosmetics are quick to meet this demand with ever new products, for instance, the AHA or Fruit Acid face cream.
 |  |
AHA or Fruit Acid(such as glycolic, lactic, tartaric, malic and citric acids) products have made claims that they can help shedding off dead skin cells, thus increasing moisture, smoothing fine lines and wrinkles, unblocking pores and improving skin tone and texture.
The Consumer Council today published the results of a test it carried out on 9 brands of such face cream. The test was conducted in association with the French consumer body, Union Federaledes Consommateurs.
The test was conducted with the help of 15 volunteer users for each brand using the product continuously in accordance with the usage instructions over a period of 28 days. Results were based both on the clinical evaluation and self-assessment of the volunteers.
The test findings were reassuring and positive with most samples able to improve the skin softness of the volunteers. By and large, the samples were well appreciated and accepted by the volunteers.
But there were some fine subtle differences in efficacy, among the brands, in respect of skin firmness, brightness and luminosity, skin sleekness, fineness and suppleness.
Most also produced long lasting (4 hours) and significant moisturing effect. A few had shorter moisturing time.
All shared one characteristic in common. They all provoked, in various degrees (rated moderately or well-tolerated), irritations such as drying, stinging, itching, pulling or heat sensations. Because of the nature of AHA, such initial irritations are not unexpected. But if the condition should persist or grow any worse, users should cease using the product and seek medical attention.
The industry's own Cosmetic Ingredient Review Panel has made the conclusion that AHAs are safe for use in cosmetic products at certain level of concentration (10% or less) and pH (acidity) value (3.5 or higher), and if the products contain also sunscreen ingredients or application is accompanied by directions for the daily use of sun protection.
Consumers are advised to pay heed to the level of concentration of AHAs and the pH value. The test found only some of the samples to indicate the concentration level and the names of AHAs on the packages. None indicated the pH although the test found all samples to have a pH value above 3.5.
While some of the samples contain sunscreens, those that are without do not have any directions indicated on the packages for the daily use of sun protection.
The report also calculated the cost of using these cosmetics. The finding is quite an eye-opener. Monthly expenditure, based on the frequency of use recommended by the manufacturers and the average dose applied in the test, varied from the most expensive of $496 to the least of only $63.
A few low cost samples were found among the best performing samples.
For details, consumers should consult this December (254) issue of the Council's monthly magazine 'CHOICE'.
Beware of leaking alkaline batteries: Sony Stamina LR6ST AA size with date codes: 01-99, 02-02, 03-02 & 04-02.
The local agent of the product has confirmed that the batteries in question has the problem of leaking corrosive electrolyte which may damage body tissues or electrical appliances.
Consumers who accidentally touch the corrosive material should immediately wash away with plenty of water, and if the material gets into the eyes or is ingested, they should seek medical attention after washing it away with water.
Consumers should watch out and refrain from buying or using batteries from that batch. Those in possession of the product should contact the agent's customer service hotline 2833 5129.