May 1, 2007

Stupid-Dangerous Hanger On Target Infant Socks

alleke_baby_mouth.jpg

DT reader Adam sent along a photo of the insanely stupid, tiny plastic hanger that his son managed to shake off of his brand new Target/Circo socks. Why the hell is a dime-sized, barbed arrow-shaped, hard plastic hook anywhere near a pair of socks for 6-12 month olds?

adam_fields_target_death_sock.jpg

See more photos at Adam's blog.

In completely unrelated news, I'm sure, the #2 lobbyist for the National Assocation of Manufacturers has been nominated to chair the Consumer Products Safety Commission. His Senate confirmation hearing is scheduled for Thursday. Your Senator's contact information is here.

Circo Socks Hazardous Packaging [aquick.org, image: adam's flickr stream]
note: the baby in the image from Alleke's flickr photo stream was not harmed in the making of this photomontage]

5 Comments

Its called parental supervision.
If you watch your kids instead of watching TV, this kinda thing wont be a problem.

Americans...always looking for someone to blame instead of stepping up and accepting responsibility.

[I agree, Target should just step up and accept responsibility for the Chinese prisoners they paid to stick fish hooks in their infant socks. The point here is twofold: to make parents aware of an obvious hazard in an otherwise unexpected place, and to make Target take responsibility for its stupid design choice by publicly calling them out on it. You'll notice neither of those involves blaming or suing or dodging parental responsibility.

Forget for a moment--as you apparently did--that Adam was watching as his kid played with the socks and the hook disappeared. What SHOULD the minimum level of government-mandated safety be for an infant product? I would argue that it has to be at least safe enough to prevent an infant from choking to death even if their parents are, say, non-English speakers who can't read the label, or are uneducated about choke hazards in the first place. Or are clueless teenagers, or are, in fact, idiots. If you are actually not American, then chances are you came from a country with more government involvement in child safety regulation enforcement. So your comment sounds like the kind of reflexive anti-Americanism favored by the lazier Brits or self-hating French who've chosen to live in this troubled land. Either way, it makes little sense. -ed.]

First, I actually don't have a TV. Second, even if I did, I probably wouldn't have brought it shopping with me. Third, if I had some reasonable expectation that the packaging for socks would be lethal, I'd sort of understand your point. However, it's clearly one of the pillars of civilized society that sock packaging does not pose a mortal danger. Chainsaws, yes. Sock packaging, no.

RTFL, Anonymous. Adam clearly stated in his blog that he wasn't dodging his own participation. He also made the totally fair point that any parent gauges his amount of attention based on the risks of any given situation, and I would also not have expected a pair of baby socks to have a tiny plastic hangtag to fall right off.

Hate to play the parent card, but clearly you aren't one, and your comment is so trolly it's impossible to take seriously.

The hanger design is dangerous. Target should take responsibility and change the design. Find the solution, not the problem.

Why would you give your child something to play with without inspecting it completely first? Anything that is not an age appropriate toy should be properly inspected first. Knowing they come with tags and hangers you should not allow your child to play with them.

Google DT


Contact DT

Daddy Types is published by Greg Allen with the help of readers like you.
Got tips, advice, questions, and suggestions? Send them to:
greg [at] daddytypes [dot] com

Join the [eventual] Daddy Types mailing list!


Archives

copyright

copyright 2014 daddy types, llc.
no unauthorized commercial reuse.
privacy and terms of use
published using movable type

advertisements