The symbol you should always look for on kids' sunglasses
We all know the importance of protecting our children's eyes from the sun's rays, particularly on sunny days. But a disturbing new report has found some kids' sunglasses bought online do not meet UK safety standards.
The investigation by consumer champion Which?, found that a third of children's sunglasses purchased from online marketplaces, including Amazon, eBay, AliExpress and Temu, were unsafe to wear.
Researchers bought 20 pairs of sunglasses from six e-commerce marketplaces and put them through lab tests. They found that two pairs of the glasses let in too much ultraviolet light (UV), five pairs had different levels of UV protection on each lens, and all of the pairs were missing key information, labels and markings required for them to be legally sold in the UK.
The unsafe sunglasses have since been removed from the online platforms.
Calling for stricter safety regulations for online marketplaces under the government's Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, Which? director of policy and advocacy Rocio Concha said: "Our research shows many of these models are so ineffective as to be dangerous for children to wear and this is a consequence of online marketplaces having no real responsibility or incentive for taking safety seriously."
So if you're buying sunglasses for your children, what should you be looking for to ensure they protect their eyes and meet UK safety standards? Denise Voon, clinical adviser at The College of Optometrists explains.
"A lot of parents are aware that in order to protect their children's skin from the sun, they need to put sunscreen on, and it's exactly the same for eyes," Voon tells Yahoo UK.
"Protecting your eyes with sunglasses is really important. Prolonged exposure, even to small amounts of UV, can cause eye conditions such as cataracts in later life, and there's emerging evidence to say that it can cause macular degeneration as well."
Wearing sunglasses is particularly important for children, she adds. "Their pupils tend to be bigger and the lens inside their eyes tend to be clearer. So if an adult and a child stood outside, the child would probably get more UV to the back of their eyes."
Sunlight can also cause short-term problems, such as temporary but painful burns to the surface of the eye, according to the NHS.
Any sunglasses sold in the UK should have either a CE mark or a UKCA mark, some will have both. A CE mark shows they meet all the legal health and safety requirements to be sold in the European Union, while a UKCA mark shows they meet the requirements to be sold in the UK. These marks will be on the inside arms of the glasses.
If sunglasses don't show one of these marks, Voon says to avoid them.
Which? also advises looking for glasses with UV400 protection, which blocks out almost 100% of UV rays, and choosing category 3 lenses. Category 3 is the most common type in the UK and is for use on bright days. If you're going skiing, choose category 4. You'll find the category number marked on the inside of the sunglasses arm.
"It is quite a common misconception that the darker the lenses, the more protection they offer but that's not actually true," explains Voon. "You can get all different colours and lighter and darker tints but, as long as they bear a safety mark, the best choice is whatever suits your child."
Getting the fit of sunglasses right is particularly important for children as, if they're uncomfortable or too tight, they won't want to wear them. Voon also advises against sunglasses that are too big.
"If they're too big, they'll let in a lot of sun round the sides," she says. "And if they're too wide and they slip down, they're not going to be helping much at all.
"If your child is spending a lot of time outdoors, you might wish to consider a more wraparound-style frame that offers slightly more protection. But the important thing is getting something that your children want to wear and that fit."
When it comes to choosing sunglasses for your child, Voon says an optometrists is a good place to start.
"If you're worried about your children's eyes or want advice about sun protection or how sunglasses fit, an optometrist will be able to advise," she says. But she adds that you don't need to spend a lot of money to get appropriate glasses.
"When we've been caught out, we've actually just bought sunglasses at seaside shops and as long as they have the appropriate markings, they don't have to be expensive."
4 tips to keep your baby cool and help them sleep in hot weather (Yahoo Life UK, 4-min read)
The 4 most important things to check on your sunscreen, according to a dermatologist (Yahoo Life UK, 5-min read)
6 hidden health hazards to watch out for in your garden this summer (Yahoo Life UK, 6-min read)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
The healthiest cornflakes and the ones to avoid
Back in 1969, Neil Armstrong's one small step for man was fuelled by one big bowl of cornflakes, according to Kellogg's, who sent cubes of their cereal into orbit for his Apollo 11 trip to the moon. The cereal was already a favourite back on firmer ground in Britain, having been a staple on supermarket shelves since 1922 – and it's still going strong today. Around 60 million boxes are produced in the UK every year – and that's for Kellogg's alone. Despite the rise of smashed avocado on toast and fancy Greek yogurt and berries, a bowl of simple cereal remains the go-to breakfast for around a quarter of the population, providing around half of fibre intake for the average adult, according to the latest National Diet and Nutrition Survey. But how healthy is the perennially popular breakfast? 'Cornflakes are generally low in fat and calories and often fortified with vitamins and minerals, such as iron and B vitamins, which is a positive,' says Nichola Ludlam-Raine, a nutritionist and author of How Not to Eat Ultra-Processed (£16.99, Telegraph Books). 'However, they are also fairly low in fibre and protein, and some versions contain added sugars.' Plus not all cornflakes are equal, so it's important to choose your box wisely. It's for this reason that we gathered the nutritional information and ingredients for 10 different types of cornflakes – from the classic Kellogg's to an 88p box from Aldi – and asked our nutritionist to rate them based on their nutritional values. Although each box has near identical calorie counts (from 111 to 118 per 30g portion), as well as fat and protein levels, Ludlam-Raine sifted through the sugar, fibre and salt content to unpick the best from the worst. Skip to: Nestlé Sainsbury's M&S Kellogg's Tesco (Free From) Waitrose Aldi Asda Tesco Lidl The main ingredient in cornflakes is, unsurprisingly, corn, but they also contain barley, which is a source of gluten. This gluten-free option, made without barley, is high in sugar, with 2.6g per 30g portion, making them more sugary than Kellogg's. 'These have the highest sugar content on the list, still fortified and gluten-free, but worth noting if keeping sugar intake low is a priority,' Ludlam-Raine says. The original Kellogg's cornflakes is not the healthiest as it contains 2.4g of sugar per 30g portion (0.7g more than the top-ranked cornflakes). 'It's higher in sugar than supermarket own brands, though well fortified,' Ludlam-Raine notes. It is also one of the highest in salt, with 0.34g per 30g portion. This organic cereal from Sainsbury's contains 0.6g of sugar per 30g portion, around a third of the sugar found in most other own-brand cornflakes. However, as it is organic, it is not fortified, Ludlam-Raine notes. It's a good option if you're trying to reduce your sugar intake but it won't offer the vitamins and minerals that many people are lacking in, such as vitamin D, adds Alison Clark, a registered dietitian and spokesperson for the British Dietetic Association. Part of the M&S range made with few ingredients, the one-ingredient cornflakes contain only corn and naturally-occurring sugars. As a result, they are the lowest sugar cornflakes from major supermarkets, with 0.2g per 30g portion. However, their ranking has been nudged down because they are not fortified. 'This option is good if you're specifically looking to avoid sugar, but lacks the micronutrient benefits of fortified options,' Ludlam-Raine says. This gluten-free option from Tesco has a similar calorie and fat level to standard cornflakes but is higher in sugar (2g per 30g) than most other options. However, it is also higher in fibre (1.2g) and lower in salt (0.08g) than other cornflakes. 'This is a good gluten-free option with moderate sugar content and full fortification – a strong choice for those with dietary needs,' Ludlam-Raine says. Waitrose Essential cornflakes contain slightly higher sugar than the option from Aldi (2g per 30g) but have a bit more fibre (0.8g per 30g). 'It is still a reasonable choice with fortification,' she says. The cornflakes from Aldi contain a slightly higher amount of sugar (1.9g per 30g) and they're also lower in fibre, with 0.5g compared to the 0.8g found in most of the other supermarket own brand versions. 'But the sugar level is still low overall and the cereal is fully fortified,' Ludlame-Raine notes. 'This option from Asda is comparable to other supermarket own-brand offerings, low in sugar (1.8g per 30g) and fully fortified – a good choice,' Ludlam-Raine says. The cornflakes from Tesco contain slightly more sugar (1.8g per 30g) than the top-ranked cornflakes, but less than most options on this list, with 1.8g per 30g serving. 'This is a good low-sugar option from Tesco, with full fortification,' Ludlam-Raine says. It's the Crownfield Corn Flakes from Lidl that come out on top, according to Ludlam-Raine. They are low in sugar, containing 1.7g per 30g portion, she notes. This is the lowest out of all other options, apart from M&S Only 1 Ingredient cornflakes, which are not fortified. As these are fortified with vitamins, they are the best choice. The portion size listed on the box of cornflakes, and other cereals, is 30g. But pour out your usual bowl and weigh it for a shock on how little 30g is. 'In reality, many adults naturally pour a larger portion (closer to 40–50g),' Ludlam-Raine confirms. Rather than greed, most adults will need more than a 30g portion to not only keep them full but provide enough nutrients, as cornflakes are low in fibre and protein, she explains. 'If you want a larger portion, that's OK, especially if you're quite active – but be mindful of balancing it by adding protein fibre, and healthy fats.' Obviously, milk is the first addition to start with. Around 150ml to 250ml is a good guide, as it's enough to moisten and cover the flakes, but the exact amount you choose to add depends on preference and if you are drinking more milk later in the day, she notes. Choosing semi-skimmed or whole milk will provide protein and fat to support fullness, or you could try combining your flakes with Greek yoghurt or kefir (a fermented milk drink) for extra protein and gut-friendly probiotics, Ludlam-Raine says. 'Unsweetened fortified plant-based milks (such as soya or pea milk) can also be good options, as they provide protein and contain added calcium and vitamin D (note that organic versions do not have nutrients added),' she says. 'We use fortified oat milk at home.' For toppings, she recommends fresh fruit such as berries, sliced banana or grated apple and pear for extra minerals, fibre and natural sweetness. A small handful of nuts or seeds, for example chia seeds, flaxseeds or almonds, will add even more healthy fat, protein and fibre. It will benefit your health to add these top-up ingredients if you're regularly having cornflakes for breakfast, as, on its own, cornflakes are too low in protein and fibre to keep us sufficiently fuelled for the morning. 'It can be fine as part of a more complete breakfast if you add other foods for example fruit, nuts and kefir,' Ludlam-Raine adds. Cornflakes are low in calories and fat, making them healthier than many other types of cereal, like sugar-coated Frosties (which are one-third sugar, containing 11g per serving, compared to the 0.2g to 2.6g in cornflakes) or granola, which despite appearing healthy, are often very high in calories, fat and sugar, Ludlam-Raine says. Saying that, there are healthier cereals. Shredded wheat, for example, has no added sugar and is high in fibre, Ludlam-Raine notes. 'Weetabix too is good as it's high in fibre and fortified with nutrients,' she says. 'These are cereals which can be added to easily too – from different milks to fruits and nuts too.' For a healthier everyday breakfast that isn't cereal, she recommends porridge oats with milk, fruit and seeds; wholegrain toast with nut butter and fruit; Greek yoghurt with fruit, seeds and muesli; and wholegrain cereals with a good fibre content, mixed with fruit and seeds. 'These options provide more lasting energy, better support blood sugar control and help meet your fibre needs, which many people (over 90 per cent) in the UK fall short on,' Ludlam-Raine says. 'Cornflakes can form part of a healthy breakfast, but on their own they aren't the most balanced choice,' Ludlam-Raine says. 'They are low in fibre and protein, meaning they may not keep you full for very long, which can lead to impulse or excessive snacking later in the morning.' Clark agrees. 'I wouldn't recommend cornflakes as a healthy cereal due to the low fibre content,' she says. While most options are fortified with vitamins, this is the case for most cereals so it doesn't make cornflakes especially healthy, she adds. 'If you enjoy cornflakes, choose those that are fortified with added nutrients,' Ludlam-Raine adds. 'Pair them with a protein source (such as milk or kefir, yoghurt and nuts) and fibre (fruit and seeds),' for an extra health boost. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Was '28 Years Later' worth the wait? Beauty in the frightening madness of zombie movie
It's been 23 years since Danny Boyle and Alex Garland collaborated on 28 Days Later, and with such a large gap in films, a big question for 28 Years Later has been whether it can reinvigorate the excitement of the first. Starring Jodie Comer, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Ralph Fiennes, Jack O'Connell and Alfie Williams, the new movie feels electric. It's becoming increasingly more difficult to really feel surprised by a movie, with so many clinging to familiar and beloved plot points and storytelling elements. But 28 Years Later is able to fully shock and surprise. 28 Years Later release date: June 20Director: Danny BoyleWriter: Alex GarlandCast: Jodie Comer, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Alfie Williams, Ralph Fiennes, Jack O'ConnellRuntime: 115 minutes It's been, as the title states, almost three decades since the rage virus escaped a biological weapons laboratory and decimated the U.K., prompting a strict quarantine. A small group of survivors live on an island, connected to the mainland by a causeway, which can only be crossed during a low tide. The film is focused on 12-year-old Spike (Alfie Williams), who we meet on his first day of an excursion to the mainland with his father Jamie (Aaron Taylor-Johnson). It's a rite of passage for Spike to take the intimidating journey for his "first kill," as he says goodbye to his sick mother Isla (Jodie Comer), who suffers from a condition that's impacted her both physically and cognitively. While on the hunt Spike finds out about Dr. Kelson (Ralph Fiennes) and hopes that he could help his ailing mother. Jamie is adamant that won't be the case, but Spike doesn't listen and travels back with his mother to reach Dr. Kelson on the mainland. Garland and Boyle certainly aren't giving us the expected with 28 Years Later. The film is firmly planted in the horror genre, while including rich commentary on modern society, without sacrificing any off the gruesome elements. The first portion of the movie is largely focused on intense chase scenes and terrifying zombie surprises with the introduction of the Alphas. The naked creatures are some of the most terrifying zombies we've gotten in a long time, while the film also suggests that the zombies may not be as mindless as many believe. Boyle's direction takes a brisk pace through the film. It feels sharp and impactful with a really satisfying execution of something thrillingly chaotic. Using elements like stock footage of British soldiers and clips of other films, it adds to the startling nature of the movie. Notably, the movie was filmed on iPhones, an evolution from the digital cameras used in the first film, as Boyle provides terrifying frenzied shots, in addition to breathtaking images of the landscape. As we get deeper into the story, there's more time spent on the film's examination od humanity, including our relationship with death and questions about the ecosystem, while adding a sprinkling of dark comedy. But that's what Garland does well, he adds a compelling richness to films while making room for visual impact, and creating a foundation to elevate both elements. While some may think 28 Years Later is too wacky for them, while the story could have more cohesion overall, there's no denying the spectacle of the film as we lean into the feeling of dread throughout the story.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Rantzen warns peers not to hamper progress of assisted dying law
Assisted dying campaigner Dame Esther Rantzen has urged members of the House of Lords not to block landmark legislation on the issue. The Terminally Ill Adults (End Of Life) Bill cleared the Commons with a majority of 23 votes on Friday, but opponents have vowed to continue their resistance in the unelected chamber. The legislation could face a difficult passage through the Lords, with critics poised to table amendments to add further restrictions and safeguards to the Bill. Dame Esther told BBC Radio 4's Today: 'I don't need to teach the House of Lords how to do their job. They know it very well, and they know that laws are produced by the elected chamber. 'Their job is to scrutinise, to ask questions, but not to oppose. 'So yes, people who are adamantly opposed to this bill, and they have a perfect right to oppose it, will try and stop it going through the Lords, but the Lords themselves, their duty is to make sure that law is actually created by the elected chamber, which is the House of Commons who have voted this through.' Dame Esther, who turns 85 on Sunday and has terminal cancer, acknowledged the legislation would probably not become law in time for her to use it and she would have to 'buzz of to Zurich' to use the Dignitas clinic. Paralympian and crossbench peer Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson told BBC Breakfast: 'We're getting ready for it to come to the Lord's and from my personal point of view, about amending it to make it stronger. 'We've been told it's the strongest Bill in the world, but to be honest, it's not very high bar for other legislation. 'So I do think there are a lot more safeguards that could be put in.' Conservative peer and disability rights campaigner Lord Shinkwin said the narrow Commons majority underlined the need for peers to take a close look at the legislation. He told Today 'I think the House of Lords has a duty to expose and to subject this Bill to forensic scrutiny' but 'I don't think it's a question of blocking it so much as performing our duty as a revising chamber'. He added: 'The margin yesterday was so close that many MPs would appreciate the opportunity to look at this again in respect of safeguards as they relate to those who feel vulnerable, whether that's disabled people or older people.' Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, who steered the Bill through the Commons, told the PA news agency she hoped peers would not seek to derail the legislation, which could run out of parliamentary time if it is held up in the Lords. She said: 'I would be upset to think that anybody was playing games with such an important and such an emotional issue.' A group of 27 Labour MPs who voted against the legislation said: 'We were elected to represent both of those groups and are still deeply concerned about the risks in this Bill of coercion of the old and discrimination against the disabled, people with anorexia and black, Asian and minority ethnic people, who we know do not receive equitable health care. 'As the Bill moves to the House of Lords it must receive the scrutiny that it needs. Not about the principles of assisted dying but its application in this deeply flawed Bill.' Meanwhile, one of the leading opponents of the Bill, Conservative Danny Kruger, said 'these are apocalyptic times'. In a series of tweets on Friday night, the East Wiltshire MP – who is at odds with his mother, Great British Bake Off judge Dame Prue Leith in her support for legalisation – accused assisted dying campaigners of being 'militant anti-Christians' who had failed to 'engage with the detail of the Bill'.
