Stupid age guidelines on toys!

[boo64]

Can anyone tell me why the age guidelines on toys are so stupid!! I mean what exactly are kids under 3 meant to play with as nearly everything seems to say unsuitable for kids under 3.

I know that in theory there are choking hazards but surely if you select carfully/ use your judgement and supervise them what's the problem!!?

Take Duplo - why is it for 2 to 5 year olds - it's big so certainly isn't a choking hazard?

Rant over....anyone want to join in??!

[Furball]

I think it's because the rules for toys under 3 are far more stricter. But yes toys for 2 year olds are quite hard to find.

[paulaplumpbottom]

I remeber feeling this way. I think you just have to use your best judgement.

[Hulababy]

I think by saying no to under 3s they are protecting themselves against legislatin - guidelines are far stricter re moving/removable parts, etc. We didn't stick to the age ranges but used our own judgement and let DD enjoy toys in a supervised way.

[pinkdolly]

My girls (4,3 and 7 months) have always played with toys outside of their age rating. Like you say, I believe as long as you supervise them there is no problem

When shopping for the girls, I always look at the toy first and then the age rating. If I think it looks ok I buy it anyway.

[boo64]

ELC is really bad for this. There are loads of things in there that my ds would love but they say for older ages.

I agree - easier to just use your judgement and I always check toys over carefully.

We bought a toy microwave for him recently and it said it was unsuitable because of a small light bulb - but this is hidden behind a casing and would be practically impossible for an adult to access.

Yep I guess it's just all part of the much discussed litigation culture.

[LunarSea]

Someone in the toy industry once told me that to rate things for under 3's they have to go through an approval process, which is very expensive as it's a fixed cost regardless of the quantity you actually expect to produce. So for smaller manufacturers it's too expensive, and they just have to label things as 3+ and assume that parents will use their common sense. That's why you'll often see things with a 3+ rating on them, but pictures on the packaging of obviously younger children playing with them.

I've always had a lot of 2nd hand/passed on toys for ds, and as it's rare to get the packaging with them I don't know the age range recommendations and just go by what I think - ignorance is bliss sometimes!

[softmusk]

my sister got this her ds was playing with pens and he ate a bit of it when took him to the doctors was told he should not be playing with them as was not 3
he was 4 days away from being 3 so what the difference he still would of ate it in 4 days time

[boo64]

That's so stupid - like they magically morph into super sensible people the moment the clock strikes midnight on their 3rd birthdays.

That was a dumb doctor!

[boo64]

That's so stupid - like they magically morph into super sensible people the moment the clock strikes midnight on their 3rd birthdays.

That was a dumb doctor!

[GillL]

I totally agree. DD got a play kitchen last Christmas when she was 21 months which is supposedly for 3+. She is not exactly tall for her age but would definitely be too tall to use it when she's 3.

I always use my judgement when choosing toys although I think dd is quite sensible and very rarely puts things in her mouth anymore.

[deaconblue]

I think sometimes the guidelines are for when they will get the most out of said toy. For example a jigsaw for age 5 might be perfectly safe for age 2 but would be too difficult

[boo64]

True - maybe it's that as well. I know some of the stuff we've had as presents for older age groups just didn't work yet for ds as he wasn't at that stage yet.

Anyway I don't know why I bother with toys as ds, in classic toddler style, spends ages faffing with a few pans, a whisk and a few straws....thankfully without warning signs telling me they aren't to be played with by under 3s!