The acquired cohort contains 3 official alert references published from 2005-05-13 to 2016-02-05. This page compares 2 selected, distinct product descriptions, including plastic doll with voice box, children's tricycle. 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 battery access/ingestion, detachable parts, 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.
Plastic doll with voice box · A12/0125/16
Report published 2016-02-05 · notifying country United Kingdom · reported origin People's Republic of China
Reported product description
Soft-bodied, blonde-haired doll with a plastic head and limbs, with electronic voice box stored in an open pouch on the front of the doll's body. No packaging. [1]
Reported risk explanation
null The electronic voice box is directly accessible and the battery cover is easily removable giving access to button batteries which could be swallowed by children and cause damage to the gastrointestinal tract or choking. In addition, the hair on the head of the doll is attached with a staple which has sharp points, posing a risk of injury to a child.The product does not comply with the requirements of the Toy Safety Directive and the relevant European standard EN 71-1. [1]
Reported measures, verbatim
Type of economic operator to whom the measure(s) were ordered: OtherCategory of measure(s): Import rejected at borderDate of entry into force: 01/12/2015 [1]
Report published 2009-01-09 · notifying country Latvia · reported origin People's Republic of China
Reported product description
Tricycle for children aged 3-5 years, maximum weight 25 kg, with a push-bar and a sunshade. The frame is made of metal; other parts are plastic in blue, yellow and red colours. A dog shaped head is placed on the handlebars, which emits a sound when pushed and is operated by two AA batteries. The tricycle also has a small basket and a long handle to allow an adult to steer. [2]
Reported risk explanation
The product poses a risk of: - injuries, because the long handle of the tricycle has sharp edges and the battery holder contains a metal wire, - choking, because the lid of the battery holder can be opened without using any instruments. As a result a child could reach the batteries, place them in his mouth and swallowed them. The product does not comply with the Toys Directive and the relevant European standards EN 71 and EN 62115. [2]
Reported measures, verbatim
Type of economic operator to whom the measure(s) were ordered: OtherCategory of measure(s): Sales ban and withdrawal from the market ordered by the authorities.Date of entry into force: Unknown [2]
3 distinct official alert references, published between 2005-05-13 and 2016-02-05. Counts describe the acquired reports, with no market denominator.
Report year
Recorded alerts
2005
1
2008
1
2016
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, Choking: 1 recorded references
Choking, Injuries: 2 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.
2 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 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.
Battery access, mouthing and ingestion context — what evidence do we have?
Compare the actual battery-compartment access, enclosure/retention, intended users and foreseeable handling described in the source. Trace the reported mouthing, swallowing or electrochemical-injury mechanism separately from operating or charging heat. Agree justified investigations and current criteria for your own configuration; this alert does not prescribe a universal test panel.
Useful evidence: Battery and compartment/retention drawings, opening/accessibility behavior, user/age and foreseeable handling facts, batch/revision records and relevant existing accessibility evidence.
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.
