The acquired cohort contains 9 official alert references published from 2010-01-15 to 2020-11-20. This page compares 4 selected, distinct product descriptions, including children's sweatshirt, children's onesies, girls' hair accessories. The other 5 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 detachable parts, accessible edges. 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 sweatshirt · A12/01512/20
Report published 2020-11-20 · notifying country Poland · reported origin Bangladesh
Reported product description
Children's sweatshirt, sizes: 62 - 86 (up to 36 months of age). [1]
Reported risk explanation
The zip of the garment can easily detach or break releasing small parts. A small child may put them in the mouth and choke on them. Furthermore, they could bear sharp edges that may cause cuts. / [1]
Reported measures, verbatim
Type of economic operator taking notified measure(s): ManufacturerCategory of measure(s): Withdrawal of the product from the marketDate of entry into force: Unknown [1]
Some parts (elements of the zip) may break, generating small parts with sharp edges. A child may put them in the mouth and choke on them or suffer from injuries due to the sharp edges. / [2]
Reported measures, verbatim
Type of economic operator taking notified measure(s): ManufacturerCategory of measure(s): Withdrawal of the product from the marketDate of entry into force: Unknown [2]
Report published 2010-06-05 · notifying country Bulgaria · reported origin People's Republic of China
Reported product description
Hair accessories - children's set: 1 hairband, 6 elastics, 2 elastics with hearts and ribbons attached to them and 2 hairpins. The products are available in various colours: red, purple, yellow, pink and blue. The hairband is made of plastic. On the inside there are two rows of sharp teeth. On the outside there is a textile band on which there is a plastic decoration - a flower and two hearts. The accessories are sold in cellophane packaging on which there are two stickers. [3]
Reported risk explanation
The hair band poses a risk of injuries due to the presence of sharp edges and a risk of choking because the flower can be detached and swallowed. [3]
Reported measures, verbatim
Type of economic operator to whom the measure(s) were ordered: OtherCategory of measure(s): Withdrawal from the market ordered by the authorities.Date of entry into force: Unknown [3]
Report published 2010-01-15 · notifying country Bulgaria · reported origin People's Republic of China
Reported product description
Children’s shoes – in pink and white colours, decorated with flowers that have caps and a rubber star on which there is a picture of two children and the inscription “Sitong”. The shoes have a strap with a pearl attached by means of a clip with sharp edges and points, which remains on the inner side of the child’s foot There is a sticker on the insole with pictures and the inscription "SHENFU shoes". [4]
Reported risk explanation
The product poses:- a risk of choking because the flowers, stars and pearls can be easily detached and swallowed;- a risk of injuries because the shoes contain easily detachable parts with sharp edges. [4]
Reported measures, verbatim
Type of economic operator to whom the measure(s) were ordered: OtherCategory of measure(s): Sales ban and withdrawal from the market and recall from consumers ordered by the authorities.Date of entry into force: Unknown [4]
9 distinct official alert references, published between 2010-01-15 and 2020-11-20. Counts describe the acquired reports, with no market denominator.
Report year
Recorded alerts
2010
2
2011
1
2012
2
2013
1
2020
3
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.
Choking, Cuts, Injuries: 3 recorded references
Choking, 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.
4 distinct descriptions displayed; 5 cohort records not displayed. Missing fields: {'measures': 4}.
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.
Accessible and detachable parts — what evidence do we have?
Document the intended users/age, accessible parts, attachment/retention design and relevant use or misuse conditions. Compare the source’s actual detachment or choking explanation with your product; agree justified methods and current criteria separately.
Useful evidence: Age/use rationale, part/attachment drawings, material and assembly data, existing retention/accessibility evidence.
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.
