Reported risk evidence comparison

Decorative articles: detachable parts — reported risk evidence

The acquired cohort contains 88 official alert references published from 2007-02-02 to 2025-12-05. This page compares 8 selected, distinct product descriptions, including decorative grapes, decorative cherries, christmas decoration. The other 80 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.

Decorative grapes · SR/04204/25

Report published 2025-12-05 · notifying country United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland · reported origin Unknown

Reported product description: Soft plastic black grapes with fabric leaves and a fabric stalk. [1]
Reported risk explanation: The product can easily be mistaken with foodstuff due to its appearance, colour, form and shape. A small child may put them in the mouth and choke. The product does not comply with the General Product Safety Regulation. [1]
Reported measures, verbatim: Type of economic operator taking notified measure(s): RetailerCategory of measure(s): Seizure of goodsDate of entry into force: 08/10/2025 [1]

Read the official alert ↗

Decorative cherries · SR/03568/25

Report published 2025-10-17 · notifying country Austria · reported origin Unknown

Reported product description: Set of 12 small decorative red cherries with removable stalks. Product sold online, in particular via dpi-online.de [2]
Reported risk explanation: The product can easily be mistaken with foodstuff due to its appearance, colour, form and shape. A small child may put them in the mouth and choke. The product does not comply with the General Product Safety Regulation. [2]
Reported measures, verbatim: Type of economic operator taking notified measure(s): RetailerCategory of measure(s): Stop of salesDate of entry into force: 03/10/2025 [2]

Read the official alert ↗

Christmas decoration · SR/00683/25

Report published 2025-02-21 · notifying country United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland · reported origin People's Republic of China

Reported product description: Christmas tree decoration in the form of sweets, with sprinkles. Product sold online, in particular via www.matalan.co.uk. [3]
Reported risk explanation: The sprinkles of the decoration can easily detach and due to their characteristic appearance, colour, form and shape, the sprinkles can easily be mistaken as foodstuff. A small child may put them in the mouth and choke. The product does not comply with the requirements of the General Product Safety Directive nor with the requirements of the Food Imitating Directive. [3]
Reported measures, verbatim: Type of economic operator taking notified measure(s): ImporterCategory of measure(s): Recall of the product from end usersDate of entry into force: 09/12/2024 [3]

Read the official alert ↗

Christmas decoration · SR/00686/25

Report published 2025-02-21 · notifying country United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland · reported origin People's Republic of China

Reported product description: Christmas tree decoration in the form of doughnuts, with sprinkles. Product sold online, in particular via www.matalan.co.uk. [4]
Reported risk explanation: The sprinkles of the decoration can easily detach and due to their characteristic appearance, colour, form and shape, the sprinkles can easily be mistaken as foodstuff. A small child may put them in the mouth and choke. The product does not comply with the requirements of the General Product Safety Directive nor with the requirements of the Food Imitating Directive. [4]
Reported measures, verbatim: Type of economic operator taking notified measure(s): ImporterCategory of measure(s): Recall of the product from end usersDate of entry into force: 09/12/2024 [4]

Read the official alert ↗

Christmas decoration · SR/00685/25

Report published 2025-02-21 · notifying country United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland · reported origin People's Republic of China

Reported product description: A red and pink Christmas tree decoration. Product sold online, in particular via www.matalan.co.uk. [5]
Reported risk explanation: The toy has small parts which can easily detach. A small child may put them in the mouth and choke. The product does not comply with the requirements of the General Product Safety Directive. [5]
Reported measures, verbatim: Type of economic operator taking notified measure(s): ImporterCategory of measure(s): Recall of the product from end usersDate of entry into force: 09/12/2024 [5]

Read the official alert ↗

Cushion · OR/00025/25

Report published 2025-02-07 · notifying country Ireland · reported origin People's Republic of China

Reported product description: A reindeer-shaped novelty cushion. Product sold online, in particular via www.therange.co.uk. [6]
Reported risk explanation: The fibrous stuffing material of the product is easily accessible due to the weakness of certain seams. A small child may put the filling material in the mouth and choke. The product does not comply with the requirements of the General Product Safety Directive nor with the European standard EN 71-1. [6]
Reported measures, verbatim: Type of economic operator taking notified measure(s): ImporterCategory of measure(s): Withdrawal of the product from the marketDate of entry into force: 29/11/2024Type of economic operator taking notified measure(s): ImporterCategory of measure(s): Recall of the product from end usersDate of entry into force: 29/11/2024 [6]

Read the official alert ↗

Christmas decoration · INFO/00012/25

Report published 2025-01-31 · notifying country United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland · reported origin People's Republic of China

Reported product description: Christmas tree decoration, in the form of a pink lolly with icing and sprinkles. Product sold online, in particular via www.matalan.co.uk. [7]
Reported risk explanation: The sprinkles of the decoration can easily detach and due to their characteristic appearance, colour, form and shape, the sprinkles can easily be mistaken as foodstuff. A small child may put them in the mouth and choke. The product does not comply with the requirements of the General Product Safety Directive and the requirements of the Food Imitating Directive. [7]
Reported measures, verbatim: Type of economic operator taking notified measure(s): ImporterCategory of measure(s): Recall of the product from end usersDate of entry into force: 09/12/2024 [7]

Read the official alert ↗

Christmas decoration · INFO/00014/25

Report published 2025-01-31 · notifying country United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland · reported origin People's Republic of China

Reported product description: Christmas tree decoration, in the form of a gingerbread man. Product sold online, in particular via www.matalan.co.uk. [8]
Reported risk explanation: The buttons of the decoration can easily detach. A small child may put them in the mouth and choke. The product does not comply with the requirements of the General Product Safety Directive. [8]
Reported measures, verbatim: Type of economic operator taking notified measure(s): ImporterCategory of measure(s): Recall of the product from end usersDate of entry into force: 09/12/2024 [8]

Read the official alert ↗

What this acquired cohort contains

88 distinct official alert references, published between 2007-02-02 and 2025-12-05. Counts describe the acquired reports, with no market denominator.

Report year	Recorded alerts
2007	5
2009	2
2010	1
2015	12
2016	10
2017	5
2018	4
2019	13
2020	9
2022	11
2023	4
2024	1
2025	11

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, Choking, Fire: 1 recorded references
Chemical, Choking: 1 recorded references
Choking: 83 recorded references
Choking, Injuries: 2 recorded references
Choking, Suffocation: 1 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; 80 cohort records not displayed. Missing fields: {'description': 2}.

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 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.