I think what made me react (with fondness, not criticism, to be clear) was the framing: casually noting the departure from the technical standard specifically regulating "hole diameter adequate for sufficient airflow upon accidental swallowing in baby-facing bead-related amusement products" or what have you.

Not only have they thought about that very specific aspect of a choking hazard, but they've figured out what the right parameters are, published them, and hold manufacturers to them—and that specific dimension of the problem is common enough knowledge that a Guardian journalist just tosses it off casually for a general audience.