Decorative articles: accessible magnets, detachable parts — reported risk evidence
This comparison covers 6 official alert references, including magnetic gemstones, fridge magnet, magnets, published from 2012-08-03 to 2024-05-24. The recorded risks raise separate evidence questions about accessible magnets, 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.
Magnetic gemstones · A12/01361/24
Report published 2024-05-24 · notifying country Ireland · reported origin People's Republic of China
The product is made of small magnets with a high magnetic flux.A child may put the magnets in the mouth, which may lead to choking, or if swallowed, they could attract one another, causing intestinal blockage or perforation. The product does not comply with the requirements of the General Product Safety Directive. [1]
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: 28/02/2024Type of economic operator taking notified measure(s): ImporterCategory of measure(s): Withdrawal of the product from the marketDate of entry into force: 28/02/2024 [1]
Report published 2019-03-15 · notifying country Poland · reported origin People's Republic of China
Reported product description
Fridge magnet depicting little bread rolls; sold in transparent plastic packaging. [2]
Reported risk explanation
Due to its characteristic form, colour, appearance and size, the product may be mistaken for foodstuff. This may lead a small child to put it in the mouth, which could cause the magnet to detach and the child to choke on it.The product does not comply with the requirements of the Food Imitating Products Directive. [2]
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: 11/02/2019 [2]
Report published 2019-03-15 · notifying country Poland · reported origin People's Republic of China
Reported product description
Fridge magnet depicting a garnished croissant, sold in transparent plastic packaging. [3]
Reported risk explanation
Due to its characteristic form, colour, appearance and size, the product may be mistaken for foodstuff. This may lead children to put it in the mouth, which could cause the magnet to detach and the child to choke on it.The product does not comply with the requirements of the Food Imitating Products Directive. [3]
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: 11/02/2019 [3]
Report published 2019-01-04 · notifying country Cyprus · reported origin People's Republic of China
Reported product description
Soft squishy articles used as fridge magnets, imitating food products in a variety of cake forms with a small magnet attached to it. Packaging: transparent plastic box. [4]
Reported risk explanation
Due to their characteristic form, colour and size, the products may be mistaken for foodstuff. This may lead children to put them in the mouth and choke on it or small parts of it. The small magnet can easily be detached.The product does not comply with the requirements of the food imitating products Directive. [4]
Reported measures, verbatim
Type of economic operator to whom the measure(s) were ordered: ImporterCategory of measure(s): Withdrawal of the product from the marketDate of entry into force: 04/12/2018 [4]
Report published 2019-01-04 · notifying country Cyprus · reported origin People's Republic of China
Reported product description
Soft squishy articles, used as fridge magnets, imitating food products in a variety of shapes with a small magnet attached to it. Packaging: transparent plastic box. [5]
Reported risk explanation
Due to their characteristic form, colour and size, the products may be mistaken for foodstuff.his may lead children to put them in the mouth and choke on it or small parts of it. The small magnet can easily be detached. The product does not comply with the requirements of the food imitating products Directive. [5]
Reported measures, verbatim
Type of economic operator to whom the measure(s) were ordered: ImporterCategory of measure(s): Withdrawal of the product from the marketDate of entry into force: 04/12/2018 [5]
Report published 2012-08-03 · notifying country Denmark · reported origin People's Republic of China
Reported product description
6 round magnets with a diameter of 19,75 mm, in 6 different bright colours. The product is child appealing as the magnets look like marbles or balls of chewing gum. Sold in a square plastic box, 60 x 90 mm2. [6]
Reported risk explanation
null The product poses a risk of choking because the magnets have a high magnetic flux index (100-134 kG2mm2). In addition, the items are small parts and could cause injuries if two or more of them were swallowed by a child. [6]
Reported measures, verbatim
Type of economic operator taking notified measure(s): OtherCategory of measure(s): Withdrawal of the product from the marketDate of entry into force: Unknown [6]
6 distinct official alert references, published between 2012-08-03 and 2024-05-24. Counts describe the acquired reports, with no market denominator.
Report year
Recorded alerts
2012
1
2019
4
2024
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.
Choking: 5 recorded references
Choking, Injuries: 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.
6 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.
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.
Magnet accessibility and configuration — what evidence do we have?
Identify each magnet, its dimensions, flux-related evidence, encapsulation and retention, and the intended users. Compare accessibility and ingestion conditions with the report before agreeing an investigation; no universal flux limit or legal scope follows from the word magnet.
Useful evidence: Magnet/component specifications, encapsulation and retention drawings, accessibility/use context and relevant measurement 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.
