What were they thinking writing that headline?

Australia can now sell 'date rape' toy

They were probably looking to attract readers, like any good tabloid I suppose, but the article only got worse after the headline.

"Australia's most populous state, New South Wales, has lifted a ban on a Chinese-made children’s toy, which converted to a dangerous chemical when eaten."

Sure, it's in past tense, but it leaves out a very important detail. The last paragraph of the article, where every good journalist knows he or she should put the least vital information, was this;

"New South Wales has taken the beads off the banned list because the toy company has assured authorities that Bindeez will no longer contain the chemical."

Is it just me, or should this assurance be put in the lead? From reading the rest of the article, you get the idea that the state of South Wales could care less about handing its children toys with unsafe chemicals. Obviously the toy company's word is all the state has before the toy is actually put on the shelves.

The journalist who wrote this clearly has a bit to learn about bias and story organization.