This comparison covers 2 official alert references, including rucksack - gorun, role costume, published from 2008-01-25 to 2010-01-22. The recorded risks raise separate evidence questions about plasticizers, entrapment/cords. 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.
Rucksack - Gorun · 0077/10
Report published 2010-01-22 · notifying country Germany · reported origin People's Republic of China
Reported product description
A red, yellow and black textile shoulder bag / rucksack in the form of a ladybird, with feelers made of imitation leather on the head and two adjustable carrying straps of black textile material. Approximate size: 18 x 15 x 6 cm. The total length of the carrying strap is approximately 125 cm (corresponding to a little more than 60 cm passed double through the strap adjuster). If the strap is pulled through the adjuster, the effective length can be increased to as much as around 90 cm, and loops with a diameter of more than 380 mm can be formed. [1]
Reported risk explanation
The product poses a:- risk of strangulation because the carrying strap has a total length of 125 cm which, when pulled with a force of 25 +/- 2 N, does not break up into small, non-hazardous pieces;- chemical risk, because the imitation leather on head contains 9.9% by weight of bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP).The product does not comply with the Toys Directive and with the relevant European standard EN 71.According to REACH Regulation, phthalates DEHP, DBP and BBP are prohibited in all toys, while phthalates DINP, DIDP and DNOP are prohibited when the toy can be placed in the mouth by children. [1]
Reported measures, verbatim
Type of economic operator taking notified measure(s): OtherCategory of measure(s): Voluntary stop of sales, recall from consumers and corrective actions taken.Date of entry into force: Unknown [1]
Report published 2008-01-25 · notifying country Finland · reported origin Unknown
Reported product description
Black tunic with brown decoration and black cord on neck area. [2]
Reported risk explanation
The product poses:- a chemical risk because the material of the cord contains 18 % by weight of di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP), - and a risk of suffocation by strangulation because of cords and drawstrings on children's clothing are too long, shall not be more than 75 mm in length at either end. According to the Chemicals Restrictions Directive 76/769/EEC certain phthalates shall not be used in toys in concentration higher than of 0,1 % by weight.The product does not comply with the Toys Directive and with the relevant European standard EN 71. [2]
Reported measures, verbatim
Type of economic operator taking notified measure(s): OtherCategory of measure(s): Voluntary withdrawal from the market by the importer.Date of entry into force: Unknown [2]
2 distinct official alert references, published between 2008-01-25 and 2010-01-22. Counts describe the acquired reports, with no market denominator.
Report year
Recorded alerts
2008
1
2010
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, Strangulation: 1 recorded references
Chemical, Suffocation: 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.
2 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.
Cord, opening and entrapment configuration — what evidence do we have?
Record the relevant cord/strap, loop, opening or restraint geometry and the intended user/use context. Ask which specific configuration could create the reported trapping/strangulation mechanism; do not infer a universal dimension or release-force limit.
Plasticizer identity, material and use — what evidence do we have?
Identify the actual plasticizer/substance and polymer/component, with composition and use/exposure facts. Similar abbreviations or a general “phthalates” label do not resolve exact identity or applicable conditions. Keep concentrations and legal scope questions separate.
Useful evidence: Supplier substance/CAS/EC identities, composition and material records, sampled-component results and exact use/actor context.
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.
