The Mulberry Bush Blog

There’s a nicely written piece about traditional games on Time Magazine’s website with the author describing how he and his primary schoolmates played marbles in the playground in the 1970s.  No doubt he thinks that makes him sound old, but I could have written the same about my primary school in the 1950s and I reckon if I asked my father - now in his 80s - he could have done the same for the 1920s and ’30s.  But in a way that’s the point of the article.

The author reckons marbles are as popular as ever - and they have been played since Roman times - and by-the-by points out that a child needs no instructions on how to play with them, nor ever did.  That pretty much sums up the appeal of so many traditional toys.  Simple, straightforward but still fun.  And isn’t there something reassuring, in this constantly changing world, in knowing that children get the same enjoyment out of a simple game that their forebears did generations ago? 

Since the autumn of 2007 there have been very quick moves by the authorities on both sides of the Atlantic towards greater control of magnets in toys. This has been matched, it seems to me, by a very evident alarm amongst toy-buyers as to the safety of magnets in any form. A programme screened in December 2007 on Channel 4 – equally contentious for its scaremongering on the one hand and the pathetic attempt at defence of the toy industry by a senior representative of the British Toy and Hobby association on the other - sparked these fears for many. This post is an attempt to put what I understand to be the facts, in the hope of going some way to allay those fears.

Firstly it is important to realise that magnets are not suggested to be dangerous in themselves. As explained in this release from the US Consumer Safety Commission in Washington the potential danger comes only from swallowing them, and injury can only occur when more than one magnet is swallowed.

Specifically they say: “…if a child swallows more than one tiny powerful magnet …. or one such magnet and a metallic object, the objects can attract to each other inside the intestines and cause perforations and/or blockage, which can be fatal, if not treated immediately.”

The problem has become heightened because of the increasing use and reducing cost of high powered magnets in many products. Have a look at the Wikipedia entry to learn more about NIB magnets as they are known.

And for a graphic illustration of the strength of these magnets take a look at the picture at the foot of this page, again from the US safety agency.

But these small but powerful NIB magnets are, so far as I can find out, mainly used by hobbyists and in certain magnetic construction sets for older children. They are not likely to be used in wooden toys or toys for younger children. And, to reiterate, the fact that a toy might use magnets does not make it dangerous of itself. It is the risk of swallowing those magnets that does.

So what of the toys specifically made for younger children that might contain magnets? Is there any new danger there? Probably not. It is important to remember that all toys sold by reputable retailers will have passed safety tests and the manufacturers or importers will have test certificates. In particular, for those toys approved for play by the under threes, any component, such as a magnet, will have been checked to ensure it cannot be detached. More and more toys that use magnetism have the magnet encapsulated or secured within the product itself so it cannot be prised out or even got at at all.

In Europe the EU Commission has now approved a temporary emergency measure requiring a warning label be put on toys containing loose or detachable magnets which will come into effect in the Summer of 2008. Knowing the seriousness with which the toy industry takes these things, no doubt some manufacturers will use the same label on their magnetised products even if the magnets are firmly fixed.

This is only a holding measure put in place until the European standardisation body has fully researched the issue and produced a set of standards for magnets in toys, but this could be some time off.

For our part we will continue to sell toys that contain magnets, although we have already seen some very popular products withdrawn by manufacturers who want the whole issue resolved before venturing back into what they now see as dangerous waters. Mulberry Bush will certainly be ensuring that we are satisfied that all our products carry the appropriate warning and that any magnets in any products we sell are securely fixed or, better still, encapsulated and present no danger in normal play.

So to sum up, the message is very clear. If there is any chance that a child, of whatever age, is going to put things in their mouth, do not give them toys with small removable parts, particularly with detachable magnets. This means that younger children prone to putting things in their mouths should not be given the toys of their older siblings. And that is equally true of the myriad other things found around the house, such as pins, screws, paperclips, medicines etc. The list of dangers around the home is endless, as it always has been, but with proper supervision and awareness of the facts there is no reason to fear magnets more than any other.

We didn’t realise it but it turns out we’re celebrating our 400^th anniversary this year, in a here-we-go-round-the-mulberry-bush sort of way. Today’s Times carries a fascinating letter – if slightly arcane – from the Master of the Garden of the Inner Temple, London (no less) explaining the provenance of the two mulberry trees that grow there. It emerges that the mulberry was introduced into England exactly 400 years ago, in 1608, by James I in an attempt to build a luxury goods manufacturing base here. Only he chose the wrong kind of Mulberry. I thought that sort of flawed decision making was a more recent British thing, but obviously we’ve been doing it for centuries.

What would children have sung about I wonder, and what would we have called our company, if the first Jacobean monarch had not shown this entrepreneurial flair?

Apparently the makers of Monopoly in USA are “dropping Water Works and Electric Company in favour of Wind Energy and Solar Energy” according to globeandmail.com .  They quote the games owner’s CEO as saying this is “a nod to the efforts of countries worldwide to increase the effectiveness and availability of renewable energy and resources.”

A “nod to the efforts”?  How patronising can a company get. But should we be surprised at the cynical attempts of one the world’s largest toy-makers to consider global warming to be just another bandwagon to jump on?   Unless they know something we don’t and wind farms and solar panels are about to be installed in Mayfair or the Old Kent Road.

Call me old fashioned but I like my traditional games to stay as I remember them as a boy - and still occasionally enjoy now.  You can’t mess with tiddlywinks or solitaire and that, no doubt, is why they are just as popular as ever

It’s no secret that a huge proportion of the world’s toy manufacturing has found its way to the Far East, particularly to China, in recent years. Very few of the wooden toys we sell now come from anywhere other than that part of the world. Don’t get me wrong - some of these people produce fantastic quality products. Have a look at this Fire Engine if you have a moment, made in Thailand in a state of the art factory. The quality of the finish of the rubberwood is fantastic. Or this dolls house , until very recently made by the British craftsman who had been producing in the UK for years, and now unable to produce economically himself. There’s no doubt the Chinese factory has done a great job in producing a sturdy and well made toy and at a fantastic price. But I’m uneasy.

I know I’m not alone thinking that too much reliance on foreign manufacturing is unhealthy, for a whole host of reasons, not least the loss of skills and the loss of jobs in Britain and Europe. It is now virtually impossible to find any toy that is made here, and believe me we do try. So I was quietly pleased to see this article in Time Magazine. It looks as if the honeymoon period for Chinese manufacturing is coming to an end. Maybe some of the British manufacturers should start dusting off their machinery and putting up the job vacancy adverts. We can only hope.

I never cease to be amazed at the number of Junior Carpenter sets we sell – certainly one of our most popular toys. Although it shouldn’t really be described as a toy because these are real tools that really work, and certainly should be used under supervision, at least to start with.

Perhaps that’s part of the reason for these sets’ popularity. They are to be used “to start with”. They are bought by people who want their children to develop practical skills that they can use throughout their lives. The tool-kits are an introduction to woodworking, which is as popular a hobby as it ever was, and one that is invaluable throughout life. And it’s fun too.

The tools themselves have to be considered as “to start with” as well. There’s a good selection in the set – a junior saw, a hammer, screwdrivers, pliers and a mallet. There’s even a small plane and some sandpaper. The tools all work, but eventually they’ll need to be updated, although some may last a lifetime. I still use my first hammer from a set my father put together for me in about 1958. Don’t remind me how long ago that is. I used those tools incessantly then, and I don’t believe I had much supervision, sawing up bits of wood and knocking them together with nails. There was a particularly unattractive and unsuccessful chair I recall. I didn’t think it was dangerous, sawing and hammering on my own, but I guess it was a bit risky at seven years old.

I think that’s another reason why these sets are so popular. It’s no coincidence that “The Dangerous Book For Boys” has been a bestseller. Many people are anxious that this generation of children are being cocooned, maybe over protected, and when will they ever face and assess risk for themselves? Perhaps that’s being over-dramatic, and no doubt today’s children will make perfectly good adults. And I know for sure that thousands of them will be very proficient carpenters.

Whenever we go the Nuremberg Toy Fair we’re always horrified by the realism of what can only be collectors’ dolls - full size, very realistic baby dolls. But why do they - like so many real babies - always look like Winston Churchill? We’re sorry if that upsets the true collector - who must think they’re lovely. But thank heaven children’s dolls are more attractive and we don’t have to select these monstrous things for our range!

Mulberry Bush take the issue of Toy safety very seriously. All the toys we sell come from reputable manufacturers and safety testing certificates are held by them, or by the company that imports them into Europe. The test certificate for any toy – be it a wooden toy, game, doll etc - will show an age for which the toy has been agreed to be suitable, but these are, in effect in bands, dependent on the age test for which the toy has been entered.

As a toy retailer we are fortunate in that, not manufacturing or importing directly, we are not immediately involved in the testing process, but we know that the tests for toys for children over three years old are a little less exhaustive than for those under three. There are good reasons for this – for example the choking hazard is less of an issue for the slightly older child, and therefore the test process may not be so rigorous for this aspect. This of course means the testing is cheaper. It also means that if a manufacturer then badges the product as suitable for a child of three plus and has a toy certificate to support this, then should there ever be any safety issue they can say they have done all that is required of them.

What this can sometimes mean though is that a toy originally envisaged as suitable for a toddler, and of little interest to an older child, is marked as 3+. Some purchasers will be put off, because they can see that the child for whom they are buying will not be sufficiently challenged. But the toy is no less safe than had it been tested and marked for the younger age. You can be sure the paint will be safe, for example, and if there are no small or removable parts then sometimes it’s difficult to see how a toy can be “unsafe” – which of course it is not.

There isn’t a foolproof answer to this conundrum – except perhaps to say that there is no substitute for sensible parental guidance. If you think your child is bright enough to play with a toy marked as appropriate for one a bit older, well give it a try – initially under supervision of course. Just make sure there are no removable bits, and if the child is prone to suck or chew, well just keep it in reserve for a few months. They’ll soon grow into it – sadly all too fast, and before you know it they’ll be taking their A-levels !

For up to the minute toy safety information visit the British Toy and Hobby Association Website.