
Kids Around the World Are Still Swallowing Magnets at an Alarming Rate
Young children often put things in their mouths that they shouldn't. Even seemingly harmless objects, such as toys, could have components small enough for a baby to swallow—such as magnets. Despite an increase in regulations, thousands of children around the world are still swallowing magnets.
In a sweeping international review, researchers from the University of California, Davis (UC Davis) and UC Davis Health investigated pediatric magnet ingestion reports from around the world alongside their corresponding national policies addressing the issue. Their results indicate that children in the U.S. might be especially vulnerable. While the study was only able to analyze 23% of the world's countries, the researchers hope that their comparisons will inform regulatory policies moving forward.
'This data demonstrates that paediatric magnet ingestion is an international problem that must be addressed,' the researchers wrote in a study published today in the journal Injury Prevention. 'Every geographic area has different availability of products and types of restrictions in place, yet the problem remains the same: If magnets are accessible to children, some children will inevitably ingest them, leading to a wide range of severe consequences.'
Children from around the world, especially under the age of four, are at risk of swallowing small, high-powered magnets found in household items like remotes, toys, and small appliances. While the researchers point out that swallowing a single magnet might not be problematic, swallowing more or swallowing one alongside a metallic object might necessitate invasive medical intervention.
To get a better picture of global trends, the team studied papers published between 2002 and 2024 on the prevalence and consequences of children swallowing magnets up to the age of 18. Most of the 96 papers came from Asia, the Middle East, North America, Europe, Chile, Australia, Egypt, and Tunisia. The researchers also assessed any policies regarding magnet production, sales, and use in their countries.
The average age of children swallowing magnets was between two and eight years old, and most children overall swallowed magnets from toys or school and office supplies, while at home, in nurseries, or in daycare. Many of the children needed medical interventions.
The U.S. represents the highest number of incidents (23,756) though this might be because individuals from the U.S. report such cases more frequently than others. Several countries, including the U.S. and China, saw an increase in reported cases over time. It could also result from more accurate reporting or changes in magnet cost, marketing, availability, or regulations, the researchers say.
On the topic of regulatory policies, the team found policies regarding pediatric magnet ingestion in only 10 countries or geopolitical zones: the U.S., Canada, the European Union, the U.K., France, the UAE, Taiwan, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. The policies included (few) outright bans of small magnets, limits on magnet strength, and/or labelling regulations.
'Many countries still lack national policies aimed at limiting access to small, ingestible magnets, even countries with published incidence of morbidity and mortality from paediatric magnet ingestions,' the researchers explained. In the U.S., regulations keeping high-powered magnets out of the market were overturned in 2016, after which the number of pediatric magnet ingestion reports soared by 444% until 2022 when new—but still questionable—policies came into effect.
Overall, the researchers argue that the true number of pediatric magnet ingestions is likely even higher than what they outline in their study, since many incidents that don't need medical intervention likely go undocumented. And while their study was 'limited by information availability,' the bottom line is that children are still swallowing magnets at a high rate.
Fortunately, 'this data also provides some insight about potential solutions,' the researchers pointed out. 'Removal of magnets from the market is linked to a decreased incidence of injuries related to magnet ingestions and thus, such policies should be proposed, promoted and enforced.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Medscape
36 minutes ago
- Medscape
HHS Journal Ban Won't Stop Corruption — It'll Make It Worse
Robert F. Kennedy Jr has threatened to bar federal scientists from publishing in top medical journals. This move risks backfiring on two major fronts. First, it will only accelerate private industry's sway over the scientific record. Second, launching new, government-run journals will demand vast resources and years of effort — and still won't earn the credibility of established publications. With nearly five decades in medical and scientific writing, editing, and publishing — across nonprofit and commercial organizations, legacy print and digital platforms, and both subscription-based and open-access models — I write from experience. To see the flaws in Kennedy's proposal, we need to understand what works and what doesn't in science publishing. Primary, peer-reviewed medical/scientific literature has evolved and thrived in a culture of self-criticism, through letters columns, corrections, retractions, and open debate. The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) , The Lancet , and JAMA remain the gold standards in medical publishing because of their rigorous peer review, global reach, and editorial independence from government or corporate influence. Here's where RFK Jr's main objection with the current system seems to lie. The Secretary has portrayed medical journals as hopelessly corrupted by industry. Extensive firewalls, guidelines, and rules have been established to govern the relationship of industry to medical journals. They rest largely on honest disclosure with authors, editors, and readers paying attention. Cracks in those barriers are not unknown. But the solution lies in strengthening these firewalls, not sidelining them. A ban on government employees from submitting to NEJM , The Lancet , JAMA, and other top-tier titles will deliver more power — not less — to pharmaceutical, device, and biotech companies to set the scientific agenda. Far from reducing 'corruption,' such a misguided policy would magnify the role of the very stakeholders RFK Jr decries. And if federal grant support diminishes, the research that is published will become increasingly supported by industry, compounding the mistake. The notion of creating new government-owned medical journals from scratch is not an absurd idea. But Kennedy's illusion of fast-tracking NIH-affiliated "preeminent journals" that stamp federal‐funded work as unquestionably legitimate is a gargantuan endeavor. Building editorial boards, peer‐review standards, submission platforms, indexation in PubMed, and marketing to researchers worldwide takes years of work from countless individuals and would cost a substantial amount of money. Even then, a journal's reputation rests on trust and perceived independence. Readers judge not only the science but also the integrity of the editor–owner relationship. The hazard is that the owner (the government) would have to be trusted by the readers, or no one would bother reading these publications. A government 'house organ' would likely be viewed skeptically if the federal government can withdraw or prohibit publications at will. Banning federal scientists from submitting to journals the administration doesn't like does not cleanse the literature of industry influence — it deepens those ties. And while government-run journals might one day exist, they won't arrive fully baked, credible, or conflict-free. Better to invest in the proven mechanisms of editorial independence, enhanced peer review, and clearer disclosure than in a rushed, state-controlled alternative destined to struggle for trust and impact. If RFK Jr wants a better list of reforms, here's what I suggest: Take on predatory publishers and their fake journals, fake authors, and fabricated institutions and references — a threat that existed even before generative chat powered by artificial intelligence (AI). Take aim at rapacious mainstream publishers, whose excess profit margins and subscription price gouging represent a financial drain on researchers, readers, and academic libraries. Crack down on excessively large author fees to have an article considered/reviewed/published. Promote the publication of reproducibility studies. Raise the alarm about the use of AI in peer view and the creation of manuscripts — including the data in them. These steps aren't as sexy as proclaiming publishing bans for government scientist or launching new journals on whose mastheads you can put your own name. But they have the virtues of solving real problems and not making existing problems worse — which, as a physician, seems like something I've heard before somewhere …


Bloomberg
2 hours ago
- Bloomberg
Musk Is the $350 Billion Rocket Man Who Fell to Earth
The popcorn emoji is out in force as the world's richest person feuds with its most powerful leader. Even Thierry Breton, the European regulator who was a frequent target of Elon Musk's ire, is at it. Still, as entertaining as the billionaire's spat with Donald Trump may be, it also carries costly lessons for a $630 billion space economy dominated by Musk's Space Exploration Technologies Corp. — such is the danger of codependence between de facto monopolies and increasingly protectionist states. This danger wasn't high on the agenda at the peak of Trump's bromance with Musk, when the president-elect described SpaceX's reusable rocket revolution in the way a Renaissance monarch might have praised a successful colonial expedition — with a mix of national pride, geopolitical influence and financial potential: ' I called Elon. I said, 'Elon, was that [landing maneuver] you?' He said, 'Yes, it was.' I said, '...Can Russia do it?' 'No.' 'Can China do it?' 'No.' 'Can the United States do it, other than you?' 'No, nobody can do that.' 'That's why I love you, Elon.''


CBS News
3 hours ago
- CBS News
Sen. Warren asks for contingency plans on national security after Trump and Musk's social media fallout
Sen. Elizabeth Warren is asking Secretary of State Marco Rubio for information on the Trump administration's contingency plans if billionaire Elon Musk breaches his companies' current contracts with the U.S. amid the ongoing public fallout between him and President Trump. In a letter to Rubio as acting national security adviser and obtained by CBS News, Warren said Mr. Trump and Musk's public disagreements about the upcoming reconciliation bill that escalated into a public online spat could "have serious implications for U.S. national security." The Massachusetts Democrat mentioned Mr. Trump's proposal to terminate Musk's government contracts and subsidies, which the world's richest man followed with a threat that SpaceX would "begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft immediately." Musk has since walked back his threat. "No petty social media fight between the president and a billionaire should jeopardize U.S. national security," Warren said. In addition to contingency plans for SpaceX, the senator asked for information regarding the impact on U.S. agencies' satellite communications if Musk's Starlink is turned off. Additionally, she asked Rubio to provide any analysis that the Trump administration has conducted "of its authorities and options under the Defense Production Act to address vendor lock, monopolies, or contractor refusal to meet national security needs." She asked to receive answers to her questions by June 14, whether through a classified briefing or preferably a public response that can be released to Congress and the public, the letter said. Warren has been a vocal opponent of Musk and his involvement in the Trump administration. Last week, she released a report that outlines instances her office has found of Musk benefiting from it. Musk's rocket company has received tens of billions of dollars from the federal government over the last decade, including $3.8 billion in the 2024 fiscal year alone, according to federal records. The bulk of those federal grants are from NASA, which has paid SpaceX billions over the last decade to ferry astronauts and supplies to and from the International Space Station. The agency has also awarded SpaceX upwards of $2 billion in recent years to design and build a lunar lander, as part of NASA's Artemis program, which aims to return humans to the moon for the first time in a half-century. While the public spat appears to have cooled somewhat, Mr. Trump told NBC News' Kristen Welker in a phone interview on Saturday that he has no plans to make up with the mega-billionaire. "I'm too busy doing other things," Trump continued. "You know, I won an election in a landslide. I gave him a lot of breaks, long before this happened, I gave him breaks in my first administration, and saved his life in my first administration, I have no intention of speaking to him." When asked by a reporter Friday if he's still considering rolling back subsidies to Musk as a money-saving move, Mr. Trump suggested he was open to it. "He's got a lot of money, he gets a lot of subsidy. So we'll take a look at that," the president said on Air Force One. "Only if it's fair for him and for the country. I would certainly think about it, but it has to be fair." This isn't the first time the president has needled Musk over his companies' federal subsidies. In a 2022 feud, Mr. Trump claimed Musk would be "worthless" without hefty subsidies for "electric cars that don't drive long enough" and "rocketships to nowhere." The two mended their relationship then and Musk spent hundreds of millions to help elect Mr. Trump in 2024. The billionaire went on to lead the Trump White House's cost-cutting Department of Government Efficiency until last week. contributed to this report.