The acquired cohort contains 4 official alert references published from 2007-07-13 to 2026-05-22. This page compares 3 selected, distinct product descriptions, including food processor, meat flattener, electric soldering-iron. 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 earthing. 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.
Food processor · SR/03104/25
Report published 2025-08-29 · notifying country Germany · reported origin Türkiye
Reported product description
Onion chopper/food processor 220–240 V~ / 50–60 Hz | 0.37 kW, including a container with a lid and a double blade. The lid is fitted with a magnet that forms part of a safety device. There are no instructions for use. [1]
Reported risk explanation
The machinery’s vibration causes a cable to loosen, creating a defect where the live wire comes into contact with the metal housing while the protective earth is not switched on by the contactor, causing the fuse to trip. When the fuse is reset by an unsuspecting user, the machine appears operational, but its housing remains live. As a consequence, when the user touches the machine to switch it on, they are exposed to the live housing and suffer a fatal electric shock. The product does not comply with the requirements of the Machinery Directive nor with the standard EN 60204-1. [1]
Reported measures, verbatim
Type of economic operator to whom the measure(s) were ordered: ImporterCategory of measure(s): Import rejected at borderDate of entry into force: 12/08/2025 [1]
Report published 2016-07-01 · notifying country The Netherlands · reported origin The Netherlands
Reported product description
Stainless steel machine for meat-crushing, using power supply. [2]
Reported risk explanation
null Given its position, the power cable of the machine can be cut and the product is not earthed which could lead to a risk of electric shock.The product does not comply with the requirements of the Machinery Directive. [2]
Reported measures, verbatim
Type of economic operator taking notified measure(s): OtherCategory of measure(s): Recall of the product from end usersDate of entry into force: 26/04/2016 [2]
Report published 2007-07-13 · notifying country Bulgaria · reported origin People's Republic of China
Reported product description
The following technical parameters are indicated on the electric soldering-iron: 220V, 240V, 60W. The supply cord is bifilar 2X0.5mm2. [3]
Reported risk explanation
The product poses a serious risk of electric shock because:- accessible metal parts of the device are not earthed (the earth terminal and earth cable are missing),. the lower and higher limits of working voltage of the electric soldering-iron are not marked in the range of notified parameters,- the instruction for use does not include a text that in case of damaged cord the manufacturer must replaced it. The product does not comply with the Low Voltage Directive and the relevant European standard EN 60335. [3]
Reported measures, verbatim
Type of economic operator to whom the measure(s) were ordered: OtherCategory of measure(s): Sales ban, withdrawal from the market ordered by the authoritiesDate of entry into force: Unknown [3]
4 distinct official alert references, published between 2007-07-13 and 2026-05-22. Counts describe the acquired reports, with no market denominator.
Report year
Recorded alerts
2007
1
2016
1
2025
1
2026
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, Electric shock, Injuries: 1 recorded references
Electric shock: 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.
3 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.
Protective-earth and exposed-part configuration — what evidence do we have?
Record the actual protection design, earth connections or pin configuration and accessible conductive parts, if relevant. Compare the precise reported configuration concern with your drawings and assembly controls. An inadequately insulated earth pin does not by itself establish a failed earth connection; a word match cannot determine protection class or test scope.
Useful evidence: Protection/connection and pin drawings, insulation/component ratings, assembly checks and relevant existing electrical 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.
