This comparison covers 2 official alert references, including hand disinfectant, published from 2020-12-25 to 2021-02-05. The recorded risks raise separate evidence questions about child-resistant fastenings, ignition/materials, labels/instructions, microbial evidence. Compare the product features and dated findings below before scoping an investigation. These historical observations do not determine your product’s compliance or a market failure rate.
Evidence retrieved 2026-10-07. Source versions and topic-specific limits are listed below.
Dated official observations
Compare the product features and reported failure mechanism
The source wording below describes the reported case at that time. Read each complete report before using it in an investigation.
Hand disinfectant · A12/00118/21
Report published 2021-02-05 · notifying country Sweden · reported origin People's Republic of China
Reported product description
Plastic bottle with green cap, 50 ml. The product is sold online, in particular via AliBaba Group. [1]
Reported risk explanation
The product contains an insufficient amount of ethanol (measured values: 11% by volume). Consequently, it does not kill bacteria or viruses, which could then reach the user, increasing the risk of infection. Moreover, the product contains methanol (measured value: 26% by weight), which is acutely toxic to the central nervous system and to the eyes. Furthermore, the required hazard pictograms and warnings are missing. Users have therefore no information on the toxicity and flammability of the product. The packaging is not fitted with child-resistant fastening. Ingestion or contact with methanol may lead to blindness and death. The product does not comply with the Biocidal Products Regulation. [1]
Reported measures, verbatim
Type of economic operator taking notified measure(s): OtherCategory of measure(s): Removal of this product listing by the online marketplaceDate of entry into force: 09/11/2020 [1]
Report published 2020-12-25 · notifying country United Kingdom · reported origin People's Republic of China
Reported product description
Hand disinfectant sold in a 50 ml bottle with green flip top and green labelling. The product is sold online, in particular via AliBaba Group and eBay. [2]
Reported risk explanation
The product contains an insufficient amount of ethanol (measured values: 7% by volume). Consequently, it does not kill bacteria or viruses, which could then reach the user, increasing the risk of infection. Moreover, the product contains methanol (measured value: 37.4 % by weight), which is acutely toxic to the central nervous system and to the eyes. Furthermore, the required hazard pictograms and warnings are missing. Users have therefore no information on the toxicity and flammability of the product. The packaging is not fitted with child-resistant fastening. Ingestion or contact with methanol may lead to blindness and death. The product does not comply with the Biocidal Products Regulation. [2]
Reported measures, verbatim
Type of economic operator taking notified measure(s): OtherCategory of measure(s): Removal of this product listing by the online marketplaceDate of entry into force: Unknown [2]
2 distinct official alert references, published between 2020-12-25 and 2021-02-05. Counts describe the acquired reports, with no market denominator.
Report year
Recorded alerts
2020
1
2021
1
Recorded risk labels within this evidence task
Label combinations are source facts within one comparison; they do not create separate guides with identical preparation tasks.
Burns, Chemical, Fire, Health risk / other: 2 recorded references
Source selection, exclusions and calculation method
Filter the acquired, completely parsed English weekly XML releases. Deduplicate official alert references. Group by product category and the complete set of conditional evidence-question topics supported by actual risk text. Risk-label combinations remain recorded cohort facets and do not create buyer intents. Brand, product name, model, origin, notifying country, measurement-only changes and different wording of the same questions do not create intents. Unrecognized mechanisms stay internal for enrichment. Count report years and notifying countries deterministically. Display at most eight newest descriptions with at least 40 characters after whitespace normalization, nonempty reported measures and distinct casefolded descriptions; break date ties by official identifier. All cohort records count even if their description is shorter or not displayed. This is not a representative sample. Counts concern this acquired corpus only.
One acquired version per official public alert reference. Display at most eight newest distinct product descriptions whose normalized whitespace-collapsed text contains at least 40 characters and has nonempty reported measures; ties sort by official identifier. The complete cohort includes shorter descriptions. This is an explicit display selection, not a representative sample.
2 distinct descriptions displayed; 0 cohort records not displayed. Missing fields: {}.
These are selected, dated enforcement observations in the acquired weekly reports, not a random market sample, market-wide failure rate, proof of current product status, or a determination about your product. Notification country is not a complete sales-market or jurisdiction-coverage field. A quoted legal/standard reference is the report’s statement, not independently verified current law or a mandatory test panel.
Calculation safety-gate-evidence-comparison-10; units recorded alerts; no incidence denominator.
Turn the reported failure mechanism into a scoped investigation
Use this checklist to gather your business or product details before speaking with a specialist. The items below explain what to record and suggest useful supporting documents. You can add your own answers in the editable project brief.
Microbial evidence, sampling and process handoff — what evidence do we have?
Where the product/formulation and use context make this mechanism relevant, identify the sampled batch, analytical method, packaging/use conditions and manufacturing controls. Have the specialist justify investigation and acceptance criteria for the actual product; the alert does not validate a preservative system.
Useful evidence: Batch/sample and method/results, formulation and packaging/use facts, manufacturing-control records and relevant existing microbiological evidence.
Labels, instructions and actual use — what evidence do we have?
Capture the exact label/instruction revision and destination/use context. Compare the information gap described in the report with your own product and current sector requirements, keeping a reported defect separate from a universal wording obligation.
Useful evidence: Current labels/instructions, revision and market/translation records, use/risk information and reviewed applicable requirements.
Material, ignition and use context — what evidence do we have?
Identify the relevant material/component and exposure to the reported ignition mechanism. Document product configuration and intended use before agreeing justified methods and criteria. The recorded fire concern does not select a complete mandatory test panel.
Child-resistant fastening and chemical exposure — what evidence do we have?
Identify the actual closure/fastening design, packaged substance and foreseeable access/use. Compare the report’s physical fastening concern with your packaging and chemical-exposure facts. Review current product-specific requirements and justified evidence separately from label wording.
Useful evidence: Closure/packaging drawings, substance identity and composition, access/use context, supplier and batch traceability, and relevant existing closure evidence.
Can we trace the affected component, formula or design revision across our supplied products?
Compare the reported descriptions with your own identifiers and change records. Treat missing or “Unknown” source fields as unresolved; they do not establish that no action was needed.
Useful evidence: Product identifiers, revision history, supplier/batch traceability and market/operator records.
Who would own an evidence review and any resulting corrective-action decision?
Read the reported measures as historical observations. Establish your own operator roles, sector-specific rules, decision owner and communication responsibilities before adopting another case’s response.
Conditional: Product-risk evidence and operator-role review — Compare the recorded product features and failure mechanism with your product. Confirm the applicable product regime, deciding evidence, operator responsibilities and justified next steps. This does not assume that GPSR or a representative appointment applies to every alert category.
Questions for providers
Which specific product features and reported risk mechanism make these cases relevant or irrelevant to our product?
What current legal, standards or scientific sources support your proposed investigation criteria, and what cannot be concluded from these dated alerts?
Which existing evidence can answer the risk question, what additional work is justified, and who owns any resulting corrective-action decision?
Sources and data dates
Read the official document in context. The audit details identify the precise locators and preserved versions used for this page.
