The acquired cohort contains 6 official alert references published from 2008-07-11 to 2025-01-31. This page compares 5 selected, distinct product descriptions, including cutlery set, charcoal barbecue, foldable barbecue. The other 1 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. 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.
Cutlery set · SR/00418/25
Report published 2025-01-31 · notifying country Austria · reported origin Unknown
Reported product description
Multi-part cutlery sets, a 16-piece set and a 24-piece set, in various colours. [1]
Reported risk explanation
There is a risk that cutlery parts may have unexpected sharp edges (e.g. on the spoon bowl). This can lead to cuts in the mouth area during use. The product does not comply with the General Product Safety Regulation. [1]
Reported measures, verbatim
Type of economic operator taking notified measure(s): ImporterCategory of measure(s): Stop of salesDate of entry into force: 18/12/2024Type of economic operator taking notified measure(s): RetailerCategory of measure(s): Recall of the product from end usersDate of entry into force: 23/12/2024Type of economic operator taking notified measure(s): RetailerCategory of measure(s): Stop of salesDate of entry into force: 18/12/2024 [1]
Report published 2024-07-19 · notifying country France · reported origin People's Republic of China
Reported product description
Solid combustion barbecue with spherical metallic fire bowl. Uses charcoal. [2]
Reported risk explanation
If the lid is open, the surface becomes too hot during use, posing a risk of burns for the user.In addition, the ventilation grid has sharp edges which may cause cuts. The product does not comply with the requirements of the General Product Safety Directive nor with the European standard EN 1860-1. [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: 14/06/2024Type of economic operator taking notified measure(s): ImporterCategory of measure(s): Recall of the product from end usersDate of entry into force: 11/06/2024 [2]
Report published 2020-05-15 · notifying country Latvia · reported origin Belarus
Reported product description
Stainless steel foldable grill with or without skewers, depending on the model. [3]
Reported risk explanation
The metal sheets of the barbecue are too thin and have sharp edges.A user could touch or run the hand along the edges and suffer cuts. The product does not comply with the relevant European standard EN 1860-1. [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: 09/10/2019 [3]
Report published 2008-10-17 · notifying country Sweden · reported origin People's Republic of China
Reported product description
Drinking glasses in three sizes, height 6, 9 and 12 cm. Colours: turquoise, dark blue, smoke and purple. The bottom of the glass is marked with &k. [4]
Reported risk explanation
The product poses a risk of cuts in the mouth area because the upper edge of the glass can break after being washed in a dishwasher. The glass is very thin and it could be difficult to observe the sharp edge before using the glass. [4]
Reported measures, verbatim
Type of economic operator taking notified measure(s): OtherCategory of measure(s): Voluntary withdrawal from the market and recall from consumers by the importer.Date of entry into force: Unknown [4]
Report published 2008-07-11 · notifying country France · reported origin People's Republic of China
Reported product description
1. SK 601, 602: Table-top barbecue, 2. SK 633: Round barbecue on legs. [5]
Reported risk explanation
The product poses a risk of injuries, cuts and burns because:1. SK 601, 602- sharp edges are exposed and there are irregularities within the bowl and the grid supports. - the wind break, which is thinner than 0.7 mm, is not covered, folded or curled at the edges and could cause cuts;- the temperature of the base upon which the barbecue sits exceeded the maximum limit of 70° during the test (test stopped at 105° to prevent damage to the test material): risk of burns and fire.2. SK 633 - the wind break and the bowl, which are thinner than 0.7 mm, are not covered, folded or curled at the edges and could cause cuts;- the diameter of the end of the spit is less than the minimum permitted limit of 1.5 mm (1.15 mm),- the value of the angle at the top is far below the minimum permitted limit of 60° (46°).The product does not comply with the relevant European standard EN 1860. [5]
Reported measures, verbatim
Type of economic operator taking notified measure(s): OtherCategory of measure(s): Withdrawal from the market ordered by the authorities.Voluntary withdrawal from the market and recall from consumers by the importer.Date of entry into force: Unknown [5]
6 distinct official alert references, published between 2008-07-11 and 2025-01-31. Counts describe the acquired reports, with no market denominator.
Report year
Recorded alerts
2008
2
2020
1
2024
2
2025
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.
Burns, Cuts: 2 recorded references
Burns, Cuts, Injuries: 1 recorded references
Cuts: 3 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; 1 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 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.
