The acquired cohort contains 5 official alert references published from 2012-06-08 to 2025-03-07. This page compares 4 selected, distinct product descriptions, including party-themed toys, toy bow and arrows, inflatable plastic armchair. 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 packaging exposure, plasticizers. 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.
Party-themed toys · SR/00861/25
Report published 2025-03-07 · notifying country United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland · reported origin People's Republic of China
Reported product description
Assortment of party-themed toys, intended for children. Stock keeping unit code: X001XS7Q17. [1]
Reported risk explanation
The plastic material of the product has an excessive concentration of bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) and dibutyl phthalate (DBP) (measured values up to 0.28% and 0.011% by weight, respectively). These phthalates may harm the health by causing possible damage to the reproductive system.The plastic bag of the packaging is too thin. If a child plays with the packaging, the plastic could cover the mouth and nose, causing a risk of suffocation. The product does not comply with the requirements of the Toy Safety Directive nor with the REACH Regulation. [1]
Reported measures, verbatim
Type of economic operator taking notified measure(s): OtherCategory of measure(s): Destruction of the productDate of entry into force: 26/11/2024 [1]
Report published 2022-01-21 · notifying country Malta · reported origin Unknown
Reported product description
Plastic Bow with 4 arrows containing suction cups. The product is sold online, in particular via Joom. [2]
Reported risk explanation
The plastic material of the product contains an excessive amount of bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), diisobutyl phthalate (DIBP) and dibutyl phthalate (DBP)(measured values up to 0.97 %, 0.27% and 5.7% by weight, respectively). These phthalates may harm the health of children, causing possible damage to their reproductive system. Furthermore, the plastic bag of the packaging is too thin. If a child plays with the packaging, the plastic could cover the mouth and nose, causing the child to suffocate. The product does not comply with the REACH Regulation, the requirements of the Toy Safety Directive and with the European standard EN 71-1. [2]
Reported measures, verbatim
Type of economic operator taking notified measure(s): DistributorCategory of measure(s): Recall of the product from end usersDate of entry into force: Unknown [2]
Report published 2015-10-16 · notifying country Slovenia · reported origin People's Republic of China
Reported product description
Inflatable armchair to be used in water, 65x65cm, supplied in plastic bag. [3]
Reported risk explanation
null The plastic material of the toy armchair contains di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) (measured value: 12% by weight). This phthalate may harm the health of children, causing possible damage to the reproductive system. In addition, it contains di-isononyl phthalate (DINP) (measured value: 11% by weight).According to the REACH Regulation the phthalates DEHP, DBP and BBP are prohibited in all toys and childcare articles while the phthalates DINP, DNOP and DIDP are prohibited in toys or childcare articles that can be placed in the mouth by children.The plastic bag of the packaging is too thin. If a child plays with the packaging, the plastic can cover the mouth and nose causing the child to suffocate. The product does not comply with the requirements of the Toy Safety Directive and the relevant European standard EN 71-1. [3]
Reported measures, verbatim
Type of economic operator taking notified measure(s): RetailerCategory of measure(s): Ban on the marketing of the product and any accompanying measuresDate of entry into force: 23/09/2015 [3]
Report published 2015-09-04 · notifying country France · reported origin People's Republic of China
Reported product description
Fireman fancy-dress costume made of red material comprising a jacket, trousers and a hat, packaged in a transparent plastic bag with black material. A card inserted in the top part of the packaging contains product information and markings. [4]
Reported risk explanation
null The material of the black collar of the jacket contains di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) (measured value: 13.2% by weight). This phthalate may harm the health of children, causing possible damage to the reproductive system. According to the REACH Regulation the phthalates DEHP, DBP and BBP are prohibited in all toys and childcare articles.Furthermore, the plastic bag of the packaging is too thin: if a child plays with it and puts the head inside the bag, this may easily cling to the mouth and nose causing suffocation. The product does not comply with the requirements of the Toy Safety Directive and the relevant European standard EN 71-1. [4]
Reported measures, verbatim
Type of economic operator taking notified measure(s): OtherCategory of measure(s): Withdrawal of the product from the marketDate of entry into force: 30/07/2015Type of economic operator taking notified measure(s): OtherCategory of measure(s): Recall of the product from end usersDate of entry into force: 30/07/2015Type of economic operator taking notified measure(s): OtherCategory of measure(s): Destruction of the productDate of entry into force: Unknown [4]
5 distinct official alert references, published between 2012-06-08 and 2025-03-07. Counts describe the acquired reports, with no market denominator.
Report year
Recorded alerts
2012
1
2015
2
2022
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, Suffocation: 5 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.
4 distinct descriptions displayed; 1 cohort records not displayed. Missing fields: {'measures': 1}.
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.
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.
Packaging bags, films and exposure — what evidence do we have?
Document the supplied bag or film, dimensions, openings and accessibility to the intended or foreseeable users. Compare the report’s packaging exposure mechanism separately from the product’s detachable parts. Ask for justified current criteria for the actual packaging and use.
Useful evidence: Packaging drawings/specifications and openings, supplied configuration, user/accessibility assessment and existing packaging 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.
