BACKLASH AGAINST BAN ON TEETHING NECKLACES

Ordinarily I would support the National Consumer Agency and their plight to protect the Irish consumer. 

 

But there's one case recently that has me screaming NANNY STATE as I shake my head intending to defy the new ruling.

 

This is the effective ban on amber teething necklaces aimed at babies.

 

 

 

 

From a parents' point of view, we will adopt anything that reduces our children's pain and calms them down. Parenting is a tough job, so any small help when they're sick is very welcome.

 

Because they do get sick when they're teething. It reduces their immune systems, it blocks up their noses and makes them cough, it gives them ear infections and fevers, and it makes them very cranky.

 

Amber is a natural anti-inflammatory which reduces the swelling and pain around the ear, nose and throat area when teeth break through the gums into the mouth.  

 

I've used it for all 3 of my kids - with impressive results. It does work - they have less problems cutting teeth and it reduces the sleepless nights and the amount of Calpol/Nurofen you have to administer to relieve their pain. My youngest, who is 23 months, is still wearing his now. He never seems to get teething pains (something I put down to the necklace).

 

That's not just my opinion, thousands of other mums swear by them.

 

One mum I asked about this, said: "I'm not worried about the ruling and I'm not taking my son's off. If I take it off the cheeks go red, the drool starts and he's crankier than usual. I honestly thought it was a crock but got one as a gift and put it on him because I thought it was cute, made him look like a little surfer dude!

"It was only a week or two later when I took it off to wash it I realised within an hour all the symptoms of teething showed up - red cheeks, runny nose, drool - when I put it back on they stopped again, so I was sold! The good ones have safety features built in and to be honest he's swallowed much worse than a minuscule amber bead - I do baby led weaning so he's always gagging, little beads are the last of my worries!"

In my own house, little Lego is everywhere - heads of legomen the same size as the amber beads are all over the floor discarded by my 5 year old. The youngest bites them off too - and guess what, he's never choked on one. He spits them out.

If we're banning amber beads, why not ban grapes? They are far more dangerous in choking terms because their size can block the windpipe - there has been incidents where grapes have killed toddlers who have swallowed them whole. Grapes or cherry tomatos are the size we need to be worried about, not tiny nuggets of amber that would just get swallowed whole if the unthinkable happened and the necklace broke.

Which brings me to the inbuilt safety feature of these necklaces - they don't break off: they are so tightly woven and with an extra safety stitch after each bead that they don't naturally break away from the necklace. And in safety tests, when smashed with force they just crumble into dust.

It's quite ironic really that the NCA's own research into amber teeting necklaces revealed that no instances of choking were found. It is simply the fear of the unknown that is driving this decision.

Because they need to give it a label, they reclassified the teething aid as a ‘toy’ - which means that because it contains 'small parts' it is not suitable for children under 36 months. But who would put a teething necklace on a 3 year old? It is effectively putting a whole segment of the market out of business.

 

One online retailer Teething SOS weighed up its business options and decided safety was paramount over staying in business, so quickly issued a recall. Its entire business model is based on selling amber as a teething aid to babies so will this drastic move put it out of business?

 

EarthMother.ie was a bit more savvy, simply putting a disclaimer on the product: "According to EU Toy safety regulations EN-71-1 necklaces are not suitable to use as toys for children under 36 months. Our necklaces are not toys, please do not allow your children to play with or chew on them. Our children's jewellery must be worn under adult supervision. Under a European wide investigation into amber teething products some jurisdictions have changed the labeling requirements to "use over 36 months only". This is because of it's composition of small parts and is not because of any question over the amber itself."

 

Since talking to mums about this issue, my feeling is that these necklaces totally polarise parents to the point that they either love them or hate them.

 

There'll always be Fearful mums who never let little Jonny out of their sight and would never put something so crazy like a necklace on him. The opposite are the Alternative mums who never even give their kids Calpol when they're sick. I'm somewhere in the middle - but I will be joining in the backlash against the NCA and the European directive and staying true to what's already worked for us. Lorcan still wears his teething necklace today and I've zero fears about it as a choking hazard.

 

Personally I think the NCA is scaremongering distressed mums by this new ruling, demonising something they've already been using problem-free for years. Thankfully, not every one is listening - they're using common sense and staying with their instincts.

Grannies already like to tut tut when they see my 23 month old boy wearing his necklace - what will they say now?

Maybe I should just tell them that grapes are more dangerous and watch the shock on their faces...

 

 

 

 

 

HOISTED BY THEIR OWN PETARD

Ruthless Ryanair relishes in handing out fines to customers who forget to print boarding cards or carry a few extra pounds in their luggage. 

So it's nice to hear when the tables are turned against them. 

News today reaches Consumer Tiger of the airline being slapped on the hands for treating Dutch consumers badly. 

The Consumer Authority in the Netherlands has imposed a penalty of €370,000 on Ryanair for being quite rotten to customers. 

Go the Dutch!

It's great to see a national consumer protection agency standing up to the muscle of Ryanair, which has been moving the goalposts every year in terms of decent customer service. 

The issues the authority found were:

• Ryanair’s airfares displayed on its website did not include all foreseeable and unavoidable costs
• The online booking process did not offer consumers the option to review the information they entered and to correct any mistakes before finalizing the booking
• On its website, Ryanair fails to publish an email address, which makes it difficult to communicate directly with the company
• Ryanair’s customer services is offered in English only, but this was not mentioned anywhere on its Dutch website  

 

The airline has said it will appeal the decision which "is littered with errors" and that its website "fully complies with all EU and Dutch consumer protection regulations."

Still, it's good to hear that Ryanair is being kept on its toes.

At the end of last year, Ryanair was finally forced to scrap its unlawful 'credit card handling fee', after pressure from the UK's Office of Fair Trading, but turned around straight away with the cynical introduction of a 2% credit card fee and a €6 administration fee.

He's clever at getting round rules and regulations that Michael O'Leary. I wouldn't put it past him to somehow avoid the hefty fine from the Netherlands by some nifty maneuvering. 

 

VODAFONE DON'T WANT YOUR CUSTOM

Ironic that Vodafone spends so much money on advertising to get new customers but is happy to lose a customer without a second thought. 

If a customer doesn't top up in eight months they are cut off, but perhaps Vodafone should first check whether 1) calls are being to and from that phone and 2) if there is still money still the account

In the following case, there was €15 on the account, and calls were being made.

WHAT THEY DID
Cut off a pay-as-you-go phone because it wasn't topped up for eight months.

WHY FRUSTRATING?
It's used as a charity number, for receiving calls mainly, not making them. It was registered five years ago to a person no longer involved, so a new person has spent a month trying to convince them to reconnect number.
 
ANY SOLUTIONS?
Vodafone said in a phonecall that they would reconnect, and also in an email, but phone still says: 'sim card registration failed' and calls to the number says: 'Number is not recognised'. 

 

WHAT TRIED?
A month of frustration: 40 minute phone calls, emails back and forth to care@vodafone.ie

WHY THIS IS WRONG?
Because a lot of elderly people rely on mobile phones as security but rarely make calls from them or top them up. Young people too might only use phones for incoming calls. Irish people living overseas often like to keep an Irish mobile so that they can use it when they visit home, which may only once a year. 

In this case, it was a charity contact number that was cut off.

By purging accounts in this way, Vodafone is effectively making more money out of dormant accounts - because it forces people to top up more regularly and for those that don't, it cuts them off and keeps their money. 

Now Vodafone does say that if people contact them to reconnect, then their phones will be switched on straight away, but in this particularly case, it has been one month and counting...

If you want to read more about Vodafone and why it cuts people off, there's an Indo article here.



TIGER ACTION
Have emailed this blog link to Vodafone PR. Normally as soon as you take it to PR dept, the threat of negative publicity spurs them into action.

TIGER SUGGESTION
Vodafone please give people a little more time, an extra few months would be nice - extend the period to a year at least. 

WELCOME TO CONSUMER TIGER

Ever felt that companies no longer care about you?

Left hanging on the line for an eternity and then fobbed off, your questions unanswered, that's if you ever get to speak to a real person at all?

Being an aggrieved customer can sometimes feel like you're banging your head against a brick wall.

I've been there. Many times. Until my head is sore from all the banging.

For the last five years, I've felt a burning need for Irish companies to be more accountable to customers.

I've sat back and watched people get treated like pondlife.

My conclusion: there is little in the way of decent customer service in this country - yet Irish citizens seem to accept that's ok, heck we're all tightening our belts aren't we?

NO!

It's time to stand up and be counted.

It's time to kick them back when they treat customers poorly.

It's time to make them realise we have consumer rights.

We're spending our hard-earned money on their services and products so they need to start listening to us when we're not happy with their sub-standand services.

Phone companies take note - I can imagine this site could end up being a forum for complaints about mobile companies in particular, because everyone always has so many problems with them.

So come on, this is your website, your forum to vent your frustrations with companies. Send me your gripes, grievances and complaints, and I'll post them on here and tell the companies to respond. Email consumertiger@gmail.com

Don't worry, I know what I'm doing, I used to do this for a living years ago when I worked for the Daily Mirror and Daily Express as a consumer editor.

Now, I'm a full time mum-of-3 who is trying to get back to writing because I love writing and it makes me feel normal again. See my other blog The Daily Muttering

I don't know the Irish market as well as the UK, where I lived and worked, but this blog wiill help me sink my tiger teeth into it.

I'll let you into a wee secret, I like giving companies hell! I've missed it. It's great to keep them on their toes. Watch them squirm when you embarrass them for poor customer service.

In my experience, companies only move to help people when they know they might be embarassed by negative publicity. So in the absence of a newspaper behind me, which means I don't have to kowtow to advertisers (yes newspapers won't go after companies who advertise with them, did you know that?), I'm going to do this all for free via a blog.

I earned the nicknamed "little tiger" when, as a consumer journalist, I used to argue a customer's rights with giants such as BT, NTL and Tesco in the UK. Hence the name of the blog is Consumer Tiger.

Perhaps we'll finally put the negative connotations of the name (Celtic) Tiger to bed for good.