Reported risk evidence comparison

Toys: detachable parts — reported risk evidence

The acquired cohort contains 3573 official alert references published from 2005-02-11 to 2026-10-02. This page compares 8 selected, distinct product descriptions, including squeeze toy set, toy gun, sensory toy. The other 3565 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 detachable parts. 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.

Squeeze toy set · SR/02666/26

Report published 2026-10-02 · notifying country Spain · reported origin People's Republic of China

Reported product description: Set of squishy, smooth and scented foam rubber figures in the shape of various food items. [1]
Reported risk explanation: The toy items (shaped like food) consist of small parts or contain small parts. A small child may put them in the mouth and choke. The product does not comply with the requirements of the Toy Safety Directive. [1]
Reported measures, verbatim: Type of economic operator to whom the measure(s) were ordered: ImporterCategory of measure(s): Withdrawal of the product from the marketDate of entry into force: 25/05/2026 [1]

Read the official alert ↗

Toy gun · SR/02670/26

Report published 2026-10-02 · notifying country Cyprus · reported origin Unknown

Reported product description: Red and yellow toy gun with two red foam darts [2]
Reported risk explanation: The toy contains small parts (suction cups) that can easily become detached. A small child could put them in the mouth and choke on them. The product does not comply with the requirements of the Toy Safety Directive nor with the European standard EN 71-1. [2]
Reported measures, verbatim: Type of economic operator to whom the measure(s) were ordered: ImporterCategory of measure(s): Withdrawal of the product from the marketDate of entry into force: 02/04/2026 [2]

Read the official alert ↗

Sensory toy · SR/02661/26

Report published 2026-10-02 · notifying country Estonia · reported origin People's Republic of China

Reported product description: Sensory toy in the shape of an octopus with colourful soft limbs, a rotating starfish attachment, and several movable elements for interactive play (10 in 1). [3]
Reported risk explanation: The product has small parts (plastic tentacles) that may easily detach. Small children may put them in the mouth and choke. The product does not comply with the requirements of the Toy Safety Directive nor with the European standard EN 71-1. [3]
Reported measures, verbatim: Type of economic operator taking notified measure(s): RetailerCategory of measure(s): Recall of the product from end usersDate of entry into force: 12/09/2026Type of economic operator taking notified measure(s): RetailerCategory of measure(s): Stop of salesDate of entry into force: 08/07/2026 [3]

Read the official alert ↗

Soft toy · SR/02704/26

Report published 2026-10-02 · notifying country Estonia · reported origin People's Republic of China

Reported product description: Soft toy in the shape of a husky dog, approximately 12 cm in height, made of grey and beige plush material. The toy has a blue decorative bow around its neck. [4]
Reported risk explanation: The toy has a small part (plastic nose) that can easily detach. Small children may put it in the mouth and choke. Additionally, the fibrous stuffing material of the toy is easily accessible due to the weakness of the seams. A small child may put the filling material in the mouth and choke. The product does not comply with the requirements of the Toy Safety Directive nor with the European standard EN 71-1. [4]
Reported measures, verbatim: Type of economic operator taking notified measure(s): ManufacturerCategory of measure(s): Recall of the product from end usersDate of entry into force: 24/09/2026Type of economic operator taking notified measure(s): ManufacturerCategory of measure(s): Stop of salesDate of entry into force: 15/07/2026 [4]

Read the official alert ↗

Toy gun set · SR/02680/26

Report published 2026-10-02 · notifying country Spain · reported origin People's Republic of China

Reported product description: Blue toy gun set with foam darts with suction cups and six red and green balls. [5]
Reported risk explanation: The toy has small parts (suction cups) that can easily detach. Small children could put them in the mouth and choke. The product does not comply with the requirements of the Toy Safety Directive nor with the European Standard EN 71-1. [5]
Reported measures, verbatim: Type of economic operator to whom the measure(s) were ordered: ImporterCategory of measure(s): Ban on the marketing of the product and any accompanying measuresDate of entry into force: 23/01/2026Type of economic operator to whom the measure(s) were ordered: ImporterCategory of measure(s): Ban on the marketing of the product and any accompanying measuresDate of entry into force: 23/01/2026 [5]

Read the official alert ↗

Soft toy · SR/02745/26

Report published 2026-10-02 · notifying country Malta · reported origin Unknown

Reported product description: Soft toy in the form of a pink and white rabbit. [6]
Reported risk explanation: the toy has small pieces (the eyes) that can easily detach. A small child may put them in the mouth and choke. The product does not comply with the requirements of the Toy Safety Directive nor with the European standard EN 71-1. [6]
Reported measures, verbatim: Type 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: 24/07/2026 [6]

Read the official alert ↗

Musical toy · SR/02728/26

Report published 2026-10-02 · notifying country Malta · reported origin Unknown

Reported product description: Musical toy resembling a cow with small keyboard. [7]
Reported risk explanation: The toy has small parts (black keys) that can easily detach and break. A small child could put them in the mouth and choke. The product does not comply with the Toy Safety Directive nor with the European standard EN 71-1. [7]
Reported measures, verbatim: Type 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: 16/09/2026 [7]

Read the official alert ↗

Soft toy · SR/02734/26

Report published 2026-10-02 · notifying country Lithuania · reported origin People's Republic of China

Reported product description: Soft white plush teddy bear made of textile material and filled with soft stuffing. It has a brown nose, decorative paw markings, and a yellow knitted scarf tied around its neck. [8]
Reported risk explanation: The toy has a small part (the nose) that can easily detach. Small children may put it in the mouth and choke. The product does not comply with the requirements of the Toy Safety Directive nor with the European standard EN 71-1. [8]
Reported measures, verbatim: Type of economic operator to whom the measure(s) were ordered: RetailerCategory of measure(s): Withdrawal of the product from the marketDate of entry into force: Unknown [8]

Read the official alert ↗

What this acquired cohort contains

3573 distinct official alert references, published between 2005-02-11 and 2026-10-02. Counts describe the acquired reports, with no market denominator.

Report year	Recorded alerts
2005	32
2006	83
2007	145
2008	152
2009	137
2010	182
2011	129
2012	89
2013	151
2014	177
2015	144
2016	143
2017	201
2018	211
2019	184
2020	234
2021	123
2022	167
2023	148
2024	210
2025	280
2026	251

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.

Asphyxiation: 2 recorded references
Asphyxiation, Choking: 3 recorded references
Burns, Chemical, Choking, Damage to sight: 1 recorded references
Burns, Choking: 1 recorded references
Burns, Choking, Fire: 3 recorded references
Burns, Choking, Suffocation: 1 recorded references
Chemical: 4 recorded references
Chemical, Choking: 29 recorded references
Chemical, Choking, Damage to hearing: 1 recorded references
Chemical, Choking, Damage to sight: 1 recorded references
Chemical, Choking, Injuries: 1 recorded references
Chemical, Suffocation: 1 recorded references
Choking: 3183 recorded references
Choking, Cuts: 7 recorded references
Choking, Cuts, Injuries: 1 recorded references
Choking, Cuts, Suffocation: 1 recorded references
Choking, Damage to hearing: 39 recorded references
Choking, Damage to hearing, Injuries: 2 recorded references
Choking, Damage to hearing, Injuries, Suffocation: 1 recorded references
Choking, Damage to sight: 7 recorded references
Choking, Damage to sight, Injuries: 4 recorded references
Choking, Entrapment: 3 recorded references
Choking, Health risk / other: 3 recorded references
Choking, Injuries: 142 recorded references
Choking, Injuries, Strangulation: 1 recorded references
Choking, Injuries, Suffocation: 3 recorded references
Choking, Microbiological: 1 recorded references
Choking, Strangulation: 4 recorded references
Choking, Strangulation, Suffocation: 1 recorded references
Choking, Suffocation: 40 recorded references
Cuts, Injuries: 1 recorded references
Damage to sight: 2 recorded references
Injuries: 25 recorded references
Injuries, Suffocation: 7 recorded references
Strangulation: 1 recorded references
Strangulation, Suffocation: 1 recorded references
Suffocation: 45 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.

8 distinct descriptions displayed; 3565 cohort records not displayed. Missing fields: {'measures': 249, 'description': 59}.

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.
Reported context: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]
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.
Useful evidence: Supply-chain responsibility map, applicable-law review, investigation scope and documented decision/communication workflow.

Work packages and dependencies

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.