missing "not" // toxic children's' toys

Two errors were found in Shock and Owe in Common Ground, February 2008.

#1
Property owners considered taking legal action, but were saved the bother when the City of Vancouver launched its own action against the province, reasoning that homeowners should have to go to court to force the government to provide compensation.

My comment: Is it just me, or does the sentence above only make sense once the word not is placed between should and have?

#2
Yet ever since Red China became a card-carrying member of the WTO, and valued supplier to the US consumer market, any ethical concerns beyond poisoned pet food and toxic children’s’ toys are considered almost laughably irrelevant.