Reported risk evidence comparison

Cosmetics: detachable parts — reported risk evidence

The acquired cohort contains 26 official alert references published from 2010-03-12 to 2023-09-08. This page compares 8 selected, distinct product descriptions, including soap, bath fizzer, bath product. The other 18 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. 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.

Soap · A12/00668/23

Report published 2023-04-07 · notifying country France · reported origin Unknown

Reported product description: Soap in the form of a red and white cupcake with a cherry on top. Product sold online. [1]
Reported risk explanation: Due to the characteristic appearance, form, colour and size, this product may be mistaken for foodstuff. A small part (cherry) can easily detach from it. A small child may put it in the mouth and choke. The product does not comply with the requirements of the Food Imitating Directive nor with the European standard EN 71-1. [1]
Reported measures, verbatim: Type of economic operator taking notified measure(s): RetailerCategory of measure(s): Withdrawal of the product from the marketDate of entry into force: 28/10/2022Type of economic operator taking notified measure(s): RetailerCategory of measure(s): Recall of the product from end usersDate of entry into force: 30/01/2023 [1]

Read the official alert ↗

Bath fizzer · A12/01234/22

Report published 2022-09-02 · notifying country Slovakia · reported origin People's Republic of China

Reported product description: Bath fizzer in the shape of foodstuff (such as different pieces of fruit, or chocolate). The product was also sold online. [2]
Reported risk explanation: Due to the characteristic appearance, form, colour and size, this product may be mistaken for foodstuff. Small parts can easily detach from it, in particular if the product is bitten. A small child may them put it in the mouth and choke on them. Additionally, due to the product's composing ingredients, the small parts ending in the digestive tube can damage the health of the child. The product does not comply with the Cosmetic Products Regulation and the requirements of the Food Imitating Directive. [2]
Reported measures, verbatim: Type of economic operator to whom the measure(s) were ordered: RetailerCategory of measure(s): Removal of this product listing by the online marketplaceDate of entry into force: 15/06/2022Type of economic operator to whom the measure(s) were ordered: RetailerCategory of measure(s): Withdrawal of the product from the marketDate of entry into force: 15/06/2022 [2]

Read the official alert ↗

Bath product · A12/00270/22

Report published 2022-02-18 · notifying country Slovakia · reported origin United Kingdom

Reported product description: 1piece/180g, bath product in a shape of donut. The product was also sold online. [3]
Reported risk explanation: Due to the characteristic form, appearance, colour and size, this product may be mistaken for a foodstuff. The product has small parts that can be easily detached. A small child/vulnerable user may put them in the mouth and choke on them. The product does not comply with the requirements of the Food Imitating Directive. [3]
Reported measures, verbatim: Type of economic operator to whom the measure(s) were ordered: ImporterCategory of measure(s): Ban on the marketing of the product and any accompanying measuresDate of entry into force: 22/11/2021 [3]

Read the official alert ↗

Bath product · A12/01148/21

Report published 2021-07-30 · notifying country Slovakia · reported origin People's Republic of China

Reported product description: Bath product to create foam, sold in the shape of a donut of a teddy bear (150 g. each). The product is also sold online. [4]
Reported risk explanation: Due to their characteristic appearance, form, colour and size, the product may be mistaken for foodstuff. Small parts can easily detach from it, in particular if the product is bitten. A small child may them put it in the mouth and choke on them. Additionally, due to the product's composing ingredients, the small parts ending in the digestive tube can damage the health of the child. The product does not comply with the Cosmetic Products Regulation and the requirements of the Food Imitating Directive. [4]
Reported measures, verbatim: Type of economic operator to whom the measure(s) were ordered: RetailerCategory of measure(s): Ban on the marketing of the product and any accompanying measuresDate of entry into force: 22/04/2021 [4]

Read the official alert ↗

Soap basket · INFO/00083/20

Report published 2020-07-03 · notifying country Bulgaria · reported origin Unknown

Reported product description: Cosmetic set consisting of 8 different miniature soaps imitating pieces of food stuff (fruits and egg) in a wicker basket. [5]
Reported risk explanation: Small parts can be easily detached from the product.Due to its characteristic form, appearance, colour and size, the product may be mistaken for a foodstuff. This may lead consumers, and specially children, to put the product in the mouth, which could entail the risk of choking. The product does not comply with the Cosmetic Products Regulation and the requirements of the Food imitating Products Directive. [5]
Reported measures, verbatim: Type of economic operator to whom the measure(s) were ordered: RetailerCategory of measure(s): Withdrawal of the product from the marketDate of entry into force: 12/06/2020 [5]

Read the official alert ↗

Bath product · A12/0212/19

Report published 2019-02-08 · notifying country Latvia · reported origin Poland

Reported product description: A bath product in the shape of a cupcake, decorated with imitation whipped cream, with colourful sprinkles and flowers. Packed in a paper cake-case wrapped in plastic film. [6]
Reported risk explanation: Due to its characteristic form, appearance, colour and size, this product may be mistaken for a foodstuff and small parts can be easily detached from it. This may lead consumers, and specially children, to put them in the mouth and ingest them, which could entail the risk of choking.The product does not comply with the Cosmetic Products Regulation and the requirements of the Food imitating Products Directive. [6]
Reported measures, verbatim: Type of economic operator to whom the measure(s) were ordered: DistributorCategory of measure(s): Ban on the marketing of the product and any accompanying measuresDate of entry into force: Unknown [6]

Read the official alert ↗

Bath product · A11/0094/18

Report published 2018-12-07 · notifying country Czechia · reported origin United Kingdom

Reported product description: Bath product in the shape of a cupcake with an imitation of whipped cream and six red beads imitating bonbons topping it. The product iis scented as small forest fruit and is single shrink-wrapped. [7]
Reported risk explanation: The small red beads in the product can easily detach. Due its characteristic form, colour and size, the product might be mistaken for foodstuff. This may lead consumers, and specially children, to put it in the mouth, swallow the red beads and choke on them.The product does not comply with the Cosmetic Products Regulation. [7]
Reported measures, verbatim: Type of economic operator to whom the measure(s) were ordered: RetailerCategory of measure(s): Withdrawal of the product from the marketDate of entry into force: 27/10/2018 [7]

Read the official alert ↗

Soap · A12/1550/18

Report published 2018-10-26 · notifying country France · reported origin France

Reported product description: 5 different soaps in the form of ingredients to make a hamburger (bread, cheese, steak, tomato, lettuce) The assembled ‘hamburger’ is wrapped in plastic film and presented in a cardboard box resembling a fast-food hamburger box. [8]
Reported risk explanation: Due to its characteristic form, colour and size, the product may be mistaken for foodstuff. Small parts can be easily detached or bitten off the product. Children may put them in the mouth and choke.The product does not comply with the Cosmetic Products Regulation and the requirements of the Food-imitating Products Directive. [8]
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: 20/09/2018Type of economic operator taking notified measure(s): ManufacturerCategory of measure(s): Recall of the product from end usersDate of entry into force: 20/09/2018 [8]

Read the official alert ↗

What this acquired cohort contains

26 distinct official alert references, published between 2010-03-12 and 2023-09-08. Counts describe the acquired reports, with no market denominator.

Report year	Recorded alerts
2010	1
2015	2
2016	1
2017	4
2018	11
2019	1
2020	1
2021	1
2022	2
2023	2

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.

Chemical, Choking: 8 recorded references
Choking: 18 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.

8 distinct descriptions displayed; 18 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.

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.
Reported context: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]
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.
Useful evidence: Supply-chain responsibility map, applicable-law review, investigation scope and documented decision/communication workflow.

Work packages and dependencies

Conditional: Product-risk evidence and operator-role review — Compare the reported cosmetic-product features and formula/label evidence with your formulation, use and markets. Review current ingredient conditions, safety-assessment inputs and RP/PIF responsibilities separately; an alert is not an automatic safety or legality determination.

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.