Teething sos amber necklaces recall

taxus_baccata

http://www.nca.ie/index.jsp?p=103&n=127&a=994

Hi all, just heard about this today. Need to have proof of purchase for refund though which is making my blood boil! Who keeps receipts for such small items!?


anyhow just thought I'd pass on the news

Chucken

What about necklaces bought elsewhere I wonder?:(

taxus_baccata

I think from now on teething amber bracelets etc are no longer advisable for those under 36 mths. I don't know if other companies will follow suit and recall products, I remember when I bought the necklace reading the blurb that assured me that the product was totally safe, I feel so foolish now

RubyGirl

Did u pay by visa/laser. My sister has them but she put's them around her daughters ankle under her baby grow. She did swear by them aswell.

pwurple

Let an adult wear them as a bit of jewellery maybe if you don't have the receipt. Or bin them and forget about it.

liliq

Im leaving my sons necklace on him.
From what I've read they are categorised by regulators as toys and as such (with the small parts etc), can't be sold for use in under 3 year olds.

How Strange

My sons is staying put too and I've got one for our next baby when he/she starts teething too.

NextSteps

I'm leaving my son's on too - he's never even noticed it. I took it off briefly a few weeks ago and he got a horrible nappy rash, for nearly the first time ever (and he's 2).

annamcmahon

Leaving them on my two as well

Hobbitfeet

My son is keeping his too. You have to use your common sense with things like this. He never wears his at night, if your child is always pulling at it then take it off because then there is a real chance of it breaking. My lo is totally oblivious to it I never once seen him touch or notice it so I'm not worried about him breaking it. I don't see a huge choking hazard, I see people all the time with bottles propped up on blankets in their child's mouth, now that's a real choking hazard yet there are numerous products available for 'hands free feeding' and not a word about them. I think the nca need to get their priorities right or maybe it's just preferred that parents medicate their children instead I using a natural product

Ms2011

I emailed teethingsos to get clarification on this & this was there reply:

We have been requested by the NCA to recall out Honey Bean products.  It is not an issue over the amber itself, or the colour, but an issue with the make up of the product of small beads.  In the absence of a directive to deal with these products speciffically, the authorities have tested this product under criteria devised for toys and if they are treated as a toy, they can break and may give rise to a potential choking hazard.  You can read the details here.  Having heard the advice from the NCA, and seeing it in use, a parent needs to make their own decision regarding it's use.   

As Liliq said there was no catagory to test the necklaces so the criteria used was the same as what would be used for a toy & therefore recommended for children over 36 months.
I took my son's amber beads off while I await a reply to my email. I walked the floors with him that night as he screamed crying with burning cheeks, I've NEVER in 11 months had to do that, it took 3 hours to get him to sleep & he only fell asleep through sheer exhaustion. I put the beads back on the following day after reading the above email reply & my son slept that night for 13.5hrs straight.
My OH & made an informed decision after that that his beads were staying on!!

taxus_baccata

Hi all,

Thanks for all the replies. I've decided that we are keeping them too! Baby loves them and to be honest, I really hadn't considered what we'd do without them. Thinking logically I wouldn't ever have allowed baby to play with the beads. I think pride is my problem at the moment, I came under a bit of criticism for putting beads on my baby boy- I really hope the inlaws don't hear about the recall!

Neyite

I have it under his sock around his ankle. In a few months when he gets a bit more adept at taking off his socks I'll figure out where to put it that he cant get at it. (tights?? lol)

I dont think they are safe around the neck - day or night though.

pwurple

taxus_baccata wrote: »

Hi all,

Thanks for all the replies. I've decided that we are keeping them too! Baby loves them and to be honest, I really hadn't considered what we'd do without them. Thinking logically I wouldn't ever have allowed baby to play with the beads. I think pride is my problem at the moment, I came under a bit of criticism for putting beads on my baby boy- I really hope the inlaws don't hear about the recall!

At least put them somewhere away from his neck. I cringed when I saw this fad starting with celebs. At least this ban should stop them being sold for a while... The fashion will hopefully pass before some child gets strangled.

Cienciano

Got them for my child, to be honest they don't make a bit of difference at all. Any child that seems to be in better form after them is pure coincidental.
Got ours on teethingsos but don't have the email from them.

taxus_baccata

Cool, I had bought the necklace and had it wrapped around his ankle, no fear of strangling my poor dude!

Chucken

I told my daughter about this thread. Her little guy is nearly 5 months. She had the necklace around his neck but with dribbles etc his little neck was getting sore, so she has it around his ankle for the last week or so.She doesn't leave it on when he's in bed.

dublinlady

They DO work for my daughter and she's keeping them. I put them on her ankle as I am afraid shed pull at them or something get caught on them when around her neck but that's my decision. Def staying on tho!

How Strange

The owner of teething SOS told me that it works on skin contact so it doesn't matter where they're placed. We always wrapped them around my sons ankle at night and at nap times until he got so big that we couldn't wrap them around twice anymore.

He knows he has a necklace but he never bothers with it. It's just there.

pwurple

How Strange wrote: »

The owner of teething SOS told me...

What profession is that person, out of interest? I am wondering what qualifies them to make that statement about how they work. I assumed they were some kind of jeweller, rather than a scientist or medic.

Hobbitfeet

Does anyone know what tests were carried out in this product? How did they determine that the beads could crack and break easily?
Also I've been trying to find out if there has actually been any cases of choking, swallowing, beads breaking or strangulation but I haven't been able to find anything.

How Strange

They got a hammer and applied brute force to see if the beads would shatter. Then an adult pulled the necklace apart until it broke. The beads did not separate from the necklace but they deemed it a sufficient enough risk.

As liliq said it was categorized as a toy so they based their assessment on the fact that a baby/toddler would have it in their hands all the time and would put it in their mouth.

There was one case in the UK over the last few years but the choking was due to the metal clasp not the beads. The necklaces I have don't have a metal clasp but a screw in type of bead.

There have been no incidence of either because of the beads (thankfully as no one wants a child to choke or strangle) in UK, US, Canada, Australia or Ireland.

Cot bumpers and baby wakers, on the other hand, have been the cause of serious injuries and even deaths but neither are banned.

pwurple

Hobbitfeet wrote: »

Does anyone know what tests were carried out in this product? How did they determine that the beads could crack and break easily?
Also I've been trying to find out if there has actually been any cases of choking, swallowing, beads breaking or strangulation but I haven't been able to find anything.

There are hundreds of cases of strangulation and choking on various objects of that size and shape. Blind chords are the most recent notable one. There are size and shape laws and regulations for objects that are regulated for sale to under 3's. the pieces have to be above a certain size. That's why you see 3+ on so many things in toy shops. See the EU General Product Safety Derective and EN71 safety standards.

They prefer to ban and recall the dangerous products BEFORE a child is harmed.

pwurple

How Strange wrote: »

Cot bumpers and baby wakers, on the other hand, have been the cause of serious injuries and even deaths but neither are banned.

I know, this is madness too. I often wonder how they are still sold.

mariebeth

How Strange wrote: »

They got a hammer and applied brute force to see if the beads would shatter. Then an adult pulled the necklace apart until it broke. The beads did not separate from the necklace but they deemed it a sufficient enough risk.

I work in a baby room of a creche, and we've banned the amber necklaces after two of them broke apart while being worn by babies in the room, so brute force and a hammer do not need to be used to break them.

MrCreosote

Wow! Tiny coloured beads on a flimsy string wrapped around an infant's neck, and there's a choking hazard! Inconceivable!

They don't work. Best just to throw them in the bin.

dollybird2

It's a generalisation to say "they don't work". For me the proof is in the pudding, and I was a total cynic when I heard about amber necklaces.

I have a bracelet on my daughters ankle. When I took it off & left it at my mam's accidentally, my little one developed an angry, red and blistering nappy rash that used to wake her at night resulting in a nappy change and tears. I put the amber bracelet back on and hey ho the nappy rash cleared up and we both got our nights sleep again.

I know of babies that these haven't worked for also so I wouldn't call them a necessity for every child, but they work for mine so she'll be keeping hers on where she cannot pull at it.

Jesus Christ

*koff* coincidence *pardonme*

Ericaa

How Strange wrote: »

Cot bumpers and baby wakers, on the other hand, have been the cause of serious injuries and even deaths but neither are banned.

Walkers are banned in Canada. I wonder why no one sees that as a serious warning light for getting one here.

dollybird2

Jesus Christ wrote: »

*koff* coincidence *pardonme*

I hope your "koff" clears up soon. A coincidence is something that occurs simultaneously to a change as a one off. When a change is noted on more than one occasion that is a result.

Ericaa

dollybird2 wrote: »

I hope your "koff" clears up soon. A coincidence is something that occurs simultaneously to a change as a one off. When a change is noted on more than one occasion that is a result.

Have you taken it from her more then once?

dollybird2

Ericaa wrote: »

Have you taken it from her more then once?

I have, the first time was accidentally, when removed for a bath & left at my mother's house. This was when the nappy rash flared up. I took it off again for a bath and just didn't think to put it back on. The dribbling and rash started up about two days later iirc and cleared up when it was put back on. The last time I left it off was for a wedding last November, I had thin tights for my daughter and the bracelet looked so prominent underneath them that I took it off. This time the rash started up overnight literally. Once again, it cleared when I replaced the amber beads.

As much as I advocate them for my daughter, I know they aren't of benefit to all children. My husband's nephew who is 11 months old doesn't get any relief from them at all. He has worn them but there isn't any difference between teething pain/rash/drooling when the beads are off or when they are on. I guess it's an individual choice as to what works for each child.

Ericaa

dollybird2 wrote: »

I have, the first time was accidentally, when removed for a bath & left at my mother's house. This was when the nappy rash flared up. I took it off again for a bath and just didn't think to put it back on. The dribbling and rash started up about two days later iirc and cleared up when it was put back on. The last time I left it off was for a wedding last November, I had thin tights for my daughter and the bracelet looked so prominent underneath them that I took it off. This time the rash started up overnight literally. Once again, it cleared when I replaced the amber beads.

As much as I advocate them for my daughter, I know they aren't of benefit to all children. My husband's nephew who is 11 months old doesn't get any relief from them at all. He has worn them but there isn't any difference between teething pain/rash/drooling when the beads are off or when they are on. I guess it's an individual choice as to what works for each child.

That's amazing!

My six month old isn't really showing any signs of teething yet, except for gnawing on my fingers haha.
I'd be curious enough to try the amber, but I'm just gonna stick with the hope that he won't be a bad teether :P

pwurple

Ericaa wrote: »

That's amazing!

My six month old isn't really showing any signs of teething yet, except for gnawing on my fingers haha.
I'd be curious enough to try the amber, but I'm just gonna stick with the hope that he won't be a bad teether :P

It's not amazing. It's Regression to the Mean.
http://plus.maths.org/content/maths-minute-regression-mean
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_fallacy

Things like nappy rash, bruising, colds, coldsores, teething etc, get worse, then get better all on their own. Random magic bean is applied just as things are at their worst, and they are deemed to have been a cure as the thing gets better in its own natural way. The "It worked for me" shrug is a good warning sign of this. You hear the same thing from advocates of physic surgery, homeopathy, drinking urine and other poppycock.

dublinlady

pwurple wrote: »

It's not amazing. It's Regression to the Mean.
http://plus.maths.org/content/maths-minute-regression-mean
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_fallacy

Things like nappy rash, bruising, colds, coldsores, teething etc, get worse, then get better all on their own. Random magic bean is applied just as things are at their worst, and they are deemed to have been a cure as the thing gets better in its own natural way. The "It worked for me" shrug is a good warning sign of this. You hear the same thing from advocates of physic surgery, homeopathy, drinking urine and other poppycock.

I respect your opinion pwurple but not your way of protraying it. I appreciate we are on the Internet but its still appropriate to be respectful of others and have manners.

I wonder about the effects of homeopathy being so insignificant that arnica isn't always recommended as it can interfere with blood clotting... Hardly the work of an inert product.

Anyway my point is I do think amber works in a lot of cases - I appreciate you don't and I won't mock your point of view just because we are not face to face.

Ericaa

pwurple wrote: »

It's not amazing. It's Regression to the Mean.
http://plus.maths.org/content/maths-minute-regression-mean
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_fallacy

Things like nappy rash, bruising, colds, coldsores, teething etc, get worse, then get better all on their own. Random magic bean is applied just as things are at their worst, and they are deemed to have been a cure as the thing gets better in its own natural way. The "It worked for me" shrug is a good warning sign of this. You hear the same thing from advocates of physic surgery, homeopathy, drinking urine and other poppycock.

Yes, while that is a fair point, it has nothing to do with the fact that stuff flared up every time she removed them.

pwurple

Sugar-coating is never my strong point... I'll try to be more diplomatic.

I actually have no problem with complimentary stuff being used by adults who choose it for themselves, or even for children where they are safe. Whatever helps. I've given plenty of kisses to banged knees that sort everything out straight away.

But applying things that can choke them, or worse, withholding treatment in favour of the 'alternative' method, I'm afraid I go right for the straight-talking every time.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/parents-guilty-of-manslaughter-over-daughters-eczema-death-20090605-bxvx.html

Either internet or in person, putting children in danger needlessly is not something I pussyfoot around.

Jesus Christ

dublinlady wrote: »

I wonder about the effects of homeopathy being so insignificant that arnica isn't always recommended as it can interfere with blood clotting... Hardly the work of an inert product.

Arnica isn't contained in homeopathic remedies, they're composed exclusively of dihydrogen monoxide, which is an incredibly dangerous substance.

Neyite

pwurple wrote: »

Sugar-coating is never my strong point... I'll try to be more diplomatic.

I actually have no problem with complimentary stuff being used by adults who choose it for themselves, or even for children where they are safe. Whatever helps. I've given plenty of kisses to banged knees that sort everything out straight away.

But applying things that can choke them, or worse, withholding treatment in favour of the 'alternative' method, I'm afraid I go right for the straight-talking every time.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/parents-guilty-of-manslaughter-over-daughters-eczema-death-20090605-bxvx.html

Either internet or in person, putting children in danger needlessly is not something I pussyfoot around.

I also differ from you in my opinion re amber beads, but I do agree with you that these are complimentary therapies - no harm if used in conjunction with medical treatment and advice. This is the opinion of my rather excellent and thourough GP also.

If their use causes continued pain, discomfort or hazards to the child then I would not be using them. I think that most fans of amber beads here use them around the ankle where babies cant get at them, because they understand the risks and seek to minimise them.

wmpdd3

Before I got pregant, I didnt trust anything unless it had drugs in it. I thought it was all crap and a load of clap trap. I used yoga while pregnant for sciatica and it gave better relief than paracetamol tablets.

With my daughter, she never dribbled or had nappy rash, I never used any cream on her bot. But my son was in a agony with colic and finally CranioSacral Therapy worked.

His dribble burned his chest when he started teething and his skin peeled on his bum from rash. Within 3 days of putting on the beads the rash had receeded on his bum and he stopped dribbling. The only issue he has had was an asthmatic episode before the last tooth!

He has had the beads off twice, once at my mums as she would not allow him in to the house with anything around his neck. He came home with nappy rash.

And the second when I took the beads off to clean them and left them off for 24 hours, he was dribbling when I took him up the next morning.

I would respect the creche if they asked for them to be removed while he attended, but I would let him wear them at home.

My only concern is that if another child pulled them from behind, they will not break and they would apply pressure to the baby's neck at the front. The ones I have, each bead is knotted before and after the bead and the clasp is made of amber. The day I got them I put them around my foot and pulled them with my havd to see how strong they were.

I can only offer my opinion, each parent has to decide for themselves.

January

This will be the first and final warning on this thread. The charter states to attack the post and not the poster and anyone breaking this rule after this post will receive an infraction and possible ban from the forum.

What works for one parent/child, might not produce the same results for another.

Cienciano

My child uses amber, and I'm a firm believer that it's for the benefit of the parent, not the baby
If I had a skin condition or swollen gums I would definitely get proper medication, I wouldn't wear an amber necklace! Bonjella ftw.
And that teetha is a load of crap too!
I think the whole choking hazzard is blown out of proportion too. Your child could pick up a bit of dirt off the ground that's bigger than one of the beads.

Ms2011

Did anyone find any stats regarding the numbers of beads sold v the number of children harmed by the beads??

Hobbitfeet

Some people really have a problem with amber and the possibility of choking or any other 'side effects' but the majority of people have no problem with giving their baby calpol, nurofen or both for teething. Both of these have actual real reported cases of numerous side effects some being minor and some being serious. Calpol has additives that are banned for consumption in some European countries. Yet it is totally unacceptable to question the use of them. There has been 2 threads on here recently about the dangers and negative side effects, both were closed pretty quickly because people got so angry at the suggestion that giving your child these medications might not be a good idea.
Some people prefer to use a more natural method of relief for their children some prefer to use medication instead.

pwurple

Hobbitfeet wrote: »

Some people really have a problem with amber and the possibility of choking or any other 'side effects' but the majority of people have no problem with giving their baby calpol, nurofen or both for teething. Both of these have actual real reported cases of numerous side effects some being minor and some being serious. Calpol has additives that are banned for consumption in some European countries. Yet it is totally unacceptable to question the use of them. There has been 2 threads on here recently about the dangers and negative side effects, both were closed pretty quickly because people got so angry at the suggestion that giving your child these medications might not be a good idea.
Some people prefer to use a more natural method of relief for their children some prefer to use medication instead.

And here is an example of someone telling people to stay away from a licensed tested medication advised by GP's. Calpol. There is no ban on consumption of that orange food colouring, it just isn't licensed for use in medicine.

And the big difference is, calpol is for fevers. Untreated High temperatures in infants can cause febrile convulsions, which in turn results in brain damage.

Untreated teething causes teeth .

See the difference?

How Strange

Ms2011 wrote: »

Did anyone find any stats regarding the numbers of beads sold v the number of children harmed by the beads??

As far as I can ascertain there are none because there are (thankfully) no recorded incidents of choking, strangulation or death arising from the use of amber necklaces.

Hobbitfeet

pwurple wrote: »

And here is an example of someone telling people to stay away from a licensed tested medication advised by GP's. Calpol. There is no ban on consumption of that orange food colouring, it just isn't licensed for use in medicine.

And the big difference is, calpol is for fevers. Untreated High temperatures in infants can cause febrile convulsions, which in turn results in brain damage.

Untreated teething causes teeth .

See the difference?

I did not tell anybody to stay away from GPs or Calpol. A lot of parents use it for teething.
Brain damage from febrile convulsions is rare and there has been no studies that prove the use of calpol or any fever lowering drug has any effect on convulsions. Here explains about febrile convulsions and if you read the paragraph on "How are febrile seizures prevented?" you will see it states there is no proof calpol helps. http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/febrile_seizures/detail_febrile_seizures.htm

I understand the worry of something like that happening, I would hate to see my boy go through it but all studies show children who have them are perfectly fine and if giving calpol does nothing then why give it?
I also understand your concern and worry about children wearing amber but there are steps you can take to prevent accidents, of course something could happen it could in all aspects of life. People have different views of risk and safety.

pwurple

Hobbitfeet wrote: »

if giving calpol does nothing then why give it?

You are seriously setting this website up for a serious legal action with that kind of stuff. Medicines here (like Calpol) are licenced for sale only after proven clinical efficacy and safety.

Efficacy means they are proven to work as claimed. How exactly can you justify it 'does nothing' and then advise people to ignore febrile convulsions? It's medical advice verging on the psychotic.

Hobbitfeet

pwurple wrote: »

You are seriously setting this website up for a serious legal action with that kind of stuff. Medicines here (like Calpol) are licenced for sale only after proven clinical efficacy and safety.

Efficacy means they are proven to work as claimed. How exactly can you justify it 'does nothing' and then advise people to ignore febrile convulsions? It's medical advice verging on the psychotic.

Setting The National Institutes of Health up for legal action?? Are you serious?Do you know what this organisation is? The National Institutes of Health are the ones doing the clinical trials Did you read the full link? Please do

Quote from the link "If a child has a fever most parents will use fever-lowering drugs such as acetominophen or ibuprofen to make the child more comfortable, although there are no studies that prove that this will reduce the risk of a seizure.
Prolonged daily use of oral anticonvulsants, such as phenobarbital or valproate, to prevent febrile seizures is usually not recommended because of their potential for side effects and questionable effectiveness for preventing such seizures."

Orion

pwurple wrote: »

It's medical advice verging on the psychotic.

Calm down pwurple. Attack the post not the poster. Calling someone psychotic is not acceptable. You know the rules about reporting posts if you have a problem with them.

Orion

pwurple wrote: »

And here is an example of someone telling people to stay away from a licensed tested medication advised by GP's. Calpol.

Let's clarify something here - Calpol is just sugar coated paracetamol. That drug can reduce fever - but it purely treats the symptom not the cause. I've used Calpol but it would never be my drug of choice. If anything, I've given my kids actual paracetamol but only if deemed necessary. Hobbitfeet isn't saying not to give it but is stating, correctly, that it has ingredients classes as food additives that are banned in some countries. It's not unreasonable to not use calpol on those grounds - especially when there are other remedies available.