As a counterpoint, Canada (and presumably the US too) has seen a dramatic decrease in unintentional injury mortality among children over the last 70 years.
That study also suggests more vehicle-related accidents but it's hard to know what to make of that without knowing more about the type of accidents, population patterns, etc.
Maybe some people think that way. Colloquially, I've heard about a million times Europeans laugh at how ridiculous they think some laws are in that regard, such as Kinder eggs being banned in America.
The egg has been redesigned some years ago. The two parts now stay attached together.
All that said, I think there are ways to get exceptions, but they are shy to give them away. And it really is a shame in this case: though there have been perhaps a handful of suspected choking cases in children, overall they have been quite reasonably safe (based on years and years of them being sold to children elsewhere). It simply winds up being a silly ban done for a good overall reason.
At this point I guess it would be helpful to know the letter of the law/regulation, but it's also probably not important enough to bother.
Do big American Easter eggs sometimes come with plastic bags of smaller candies inside? Those seem less likely to be a choking hazard, but similar enough that they could fall afoul of the law that hits the Kinder eggs.
Perhaps there's a size limit on embedded non-edible components.
King cakes are another example — commonly enjoyed despite how many baby Jesuses have been swallowed or choked on.
(1) has partially or completely imbedded therein any nonnutritive object, except that this subparagraph shall not apply in the case of any nonnutritive object if, in the judgment of the Secretary as provided by regulations, such object is of practical functional value to the confectionery product and would not render the product injurious or hazardous to health
Since hidden pillars are neither hazardous to anyone's health and also provide functional value, seems like they'd be just fine.
Thanks for the research.
Extreme "get the government off our back" people are definitely arguing for that.
He grew up on a farm and one of his siblings was scaled to death and later when he had made money a tractor he had brought for his father overturned killing him.
It is hard to weight those against each other.
And I'd also wager that the number of kids negatively impacted by poor mental health today is a lot more than the number of kids negatively impacted by violent youth crime and teenage pregnancies in past years not so far removed from our own.
Furthermore we've got a baby/bathwater situation going on here specifically with respect to teenage pregnancy as it relates to minor autonomy. Teaching kids to use condoms and birth control needn't be thrown out with the bathwater that is overprotected children. In fact, I think you could argue that sex education for minors is an exception to the rule, where minors are being given more autonomy today than in the past.
And beyond that, I'd wager caffeine consumption is also through the roof. When I was a kid it was virtually unheard of for minors to drink coffee, and I never saw colas let alone energy drinks sold in vending machines in schools.
But are they getting pregnant less often per instance of intercourse?
There were a lot of articles lately that teenagers and young adults are having less sex now than ever before which IMHO would be a failure rather than a success of overparenting.
I knew a guy some years older than me who had been a bonafide hippie. He told me "TV cut off at 9pm. Not really anything to do after that but sex and drugs."
With the internet providing 24/7 entertainment, that particular issue -- "I'm bored. I think I shall get high and/or laid." -- is mostly a solved problem.
2.) Statistically, kids who are well informed about sex and have factual information tend to both start later and use protection. So no, later sex is not failure of parenting. It is result of kids making rational well informed choices. (Meaning them skipping sex with partner they don't trust, them being less likely to be manipulated or shamed into it, less likely do it just to acquired social status or for fear they will look gay.)
3.) There is nothing inherently good about soon sex. Self control is good thing and will be correlated with later sex (cause you skip some chances by choice). The idea that there is something wrong with you if you are not having sex at 17 is ridiculous anyway.
Is that you think it is lack of sex that makes people have less children (meaning that they would have them had they not be too lazy to have sex)? Or that there are less relationships or that people keep solely their own gender peer group? Mark of people caring about work more then humans? Or something else?