This comparison covers 3 official alert references, including waffle maker, thermos flask, published from 2005-09-22 to 2025-12-19. The recorded risks raise separate evidence questions about labels/instructions. 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.
Waffle maker · SR/04377/25
Report published 2025-12-19 · notifying country Croatia · reported origin People's Republic of China
The marking label detaches with time and the required safety statements are missing. This could lead to inappropriate use of the appliance and the user receiving an electric shock. Moreover, the device is not resistant to high temperatures, its casing may deform leaving live parts accessible. The user could touch these live parts, which may lead to an electric shock. The product does not comply with the requirements of the Low Voltage Directive nor with the European standards EN 60335-1 and EN 60335-2-9. [1]
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: UnknownType of economic operator to whom the measure(s) were ordered: DistributorCategory of measure(s): Recall of the product from end usersDate of entry into force: UnknownType of economic operator to whom the measure(s) were ordered: DistributorCategory of measure(s): Withdrawal of the product from the marketDate of entry into force: Unknown [1]
Report published 2008-12-26 · notifying country Spain · reported origin People's Republic of China
Reported product description
Thermos flask bearing a label which reads: "CHOCO Y NATA BY D´CASA. HOGAR, DULCE HOGAR. D´CASA 902885779. www.cial-lama.com. REF.233214. 840002332147. CE. Es necesario mantener los datos del importador". [2]
Reported risk explanation
The product poses a chemical risk because it contains asbestos fibres in the separators of the flask's double glass wall. In addition, there are no instructions for use which are necessary to ensure correct use of the product.The product does not comply with the Chemical Restrictions Directive 76/769/EC. [2]
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 [2]
Report published 2005-09-22 · notifying country Spain · reported origin People's Republic of China
Reported product description
Kitchen multipurpose glass jug “BATERMAX” (type/model: CB8/432655/060757). Contains plastic cover and handle. The packaging indicates as maximum temperatures 120° for the glass and 90° for the handle. [3]
Reported risk explanation
Risk of scalding. If in spite of the information provided on the packaging the jug is used with boiling or near boiling water the handle will give way; missing warning safety warning (not to use with boiling water). [3]
Reported measures, verbatim
Type of economic operator to whom the measure(s) were ordered: OtherCategory of measure(s): Withdrawal from distribution ordered by the authorities.Date of entry into force: Unknown [3]
3 distinct official alert references, published between 2005-09-22 and 2025-12-19. Counts describe the acquired reports, with no market denominator.
Report year
Recorded alerts
2005
1
2008
1
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.
Chemical: 1 recorded references
Electric shock: 1 recorded references
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.
3 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.
Labels, instructions and actual use — what evidence do we have?
Capture the exact label/instruction revision and destination/use context. Compare the information gap described in the report with your own product and current sector requirements, keeping a reported defect separate from a universal wording obligation.
Useful evidence: Current labels/instructions, revision and market/translation records, use/risk information and reviewed applicable requirements.
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.
