The acquired cohort contains 7 official alert references published from 2008-05-02 to 2022-06-03. This page compares 5 selected, distinct product descriptions, including children's crib, children's bicycle, pushchair. The other 2 records still contribute to the cohort counts but are not displayed: descriptions may repeat, lack the display inputs, or fall outside the eight-description display limit. The recorded risks raise separate evidence questions about accessible edges, stability/load. 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.
Children's crib · A12/00741/22
Report published 2022-06-03 · notifying country Bulgaria · reported origin Türkiye
Reported product description
Children’s crib in blue, pink and cream colours. [1]
Reported risk explanation
The distances between the crib base and the component of sides and between the side slats are too large which could cause the child’s limb to become trapped. The crib is not stable enough and could overturn. Furthermore, accessible and protruding parts of the crib are not rounded and have sharp points and edges. These can cause injuries to the child. The product does not comply with the requirements of the General Product Safety Directive nor with the European standard EN 1130. [1]
Reported measures, verbatim
Type of economic operator to whom the measure(s) were ordered: ImporterCategory of measure(s): Import rejected at borderDate of entry into force: 21/04/2022 [1]
Report published 2017-04-21 · notifying country Poland · reported origin People's Republic of China
Reported product description
Children's bicycles equipped with 12" or 16'' wheels and additional side wheels (stabilisers), depending on the model. [2]
Reported risk explanation
null The nuts on the cranks have sharp edges. During riding or maintenance of the bicycle, these sharp edges may cut the user's leg or fingers. The bicycle seat posts have a quick-release mechanism which may cause the seat to become unstable during the ride and the child may lose its balance and fall. The product does not comply with the relevant European standard EN 8098. [2]
Reported measures, verbatim
Type of economic operator taking notified measure(s): ManufacturerCategory of measure(s): Recall of the product from end usersDate of entry into force: 30/03/2017 [2]
Report published 2013-08-16 · notifying country Bulgaria · reported origin People's Republic of China
Reported product description
Pushchair sold in polyethylene packaging with a label containing information in Bulgarian. [3]
Reported risk explanation
null The product poses a risk of injuries because:- there are sharp edges,- the parking device does not activate simultaneously for all wheels,- it does not have sufficient stability and can overturn during use.The product does not comply with the relevant European standard EN 1888. [3]
Reported measures, verbatim
Type of economic operator to whom the measure(s) were ordered: OtherCategory of measure(s): Ban on the marketing of the product and any accompanying measuresDate of entry into force: 01/08/2013 [3]
Report published 2013-08-16 · notifying country Bulgaria · reported origin People's Republic of China
Reported product description
Pushchair sold in polyethylene packaging with a label with information in Bulgarian. [4]
Reported risk explanation
null The product poses a risk of injuries because:- there are sharp edges,- the blocking mechanism for folding may release accidentally,- it does not have sufficient stability and can overturn during use.The product does not comply with the relevant European standard EN 1888. [4]
Reported measures, verbatim
Type of economic operator to whom the measure(s) were ordered: OtherCategory of measure(s): Ban on the marketing of the product and any accompanying measuresDate of entry into force: 31/07/2013 [4]
Report published 2008-05-02 · notifying country Poland · reported origin Poland
Reported product description
A basic, non-folding, hexagonal, wooden playpen for self-assembly with bars of diameter 16 mm. Four bars are removable. Underneath the playpen are 6 small wheels – 3 of which are equipped with brakes. The floor of the product can be installed at 2 levels. Diagonal of product is 125 x 109.5 cm. [5]
Reported risk explanation
The product poses a risk of injuries because of:- unstable fastening when in the higher position – dowels become loose,- the bottom of the product is unstable when pushed on from above,- the bottom of the product can be installed at a height higher than 300 mm from the upper edge, - presence of sharp edges – springs –where removable bars connect with the frame of the playpen,- protruding tips of screws. [5]
Reported measures, verbatim
Type of economic operator taking notified measure(s): OtherCategory of measure(s): Voluntary withdrawal from the market.Date of entry into force: Unknown [5]
7 distinct official alert references, published between 2008-05-02 and 2022-06-03. Counts describe the acquired reports, with no market denominator.
Report year
Recorded alerts
2008
1
2011
1
2013
2
2015
1
2017
1
2022
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.
Cuts, Injuries: 1 recorded references
Injuries: 6 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.
5 distinct descriptions displayed; 2 cohort records not displayed. Missing fields: {'measures': 1}.
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.
Stability and load-bearing use — what evidence do we have?
Identify the intended loads, support/attachment design, adjustment positions and use surface. Compare the reported collapse or instability mechanism with the actual configuration and agree a supported investigation rather than copying another case’s response.
Accessible edges and points — what evidence do we have?
Compare the particular accessible edge or point, material, geometry and use conditions with the reported cutting mechanism. Ask a specialist to justify the applicable assessment and criteria for your actual product and users.
Useful evidence: Dimensioned edge/point drawings, material and finish specifications, use/accessibility context and relevant existing evaluation.
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.
