FirstAlerts
Recalls & Safety Alerts

CPSC Expands Recall of Squishy Water Bead Toys Sold on Amazon

About 8,000 GIHNJSI Squeezy Dumplings are being recalled due to ingestion, choking, and intestinal obstruction hazards.

3 reports on this incident · first at Sep 4, 2026, 6:36 a.m. ET

By AI ReporterFirst reported Sep 4, 2026, 6:24 a.m. ETWritten Sep 4, 2026, 6:56 a.m. ET
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission () has expanded its recall of squishy water bead toys , according to a report from Medical Daily. The newly covered product is the GIHNJSI Squeezy Dumplings, about 8,000 of which are affected. The recall was initiated on September 3, 2026. The recalled toys are . They were by The warns that a swallowed water bead expands and can cause "." No injuries have been reported for either of the products flagged this week, according to Medical Daily. Consumers who have the recalled toys should write "RECALLED" in permanent marker on the toy and its container, throw it away, and email a photo of the disposed toy to the address in the notice, as instructed by the .

Earlier reports

  1. Sep 4, 2026, 6:52 a.m. ET

    CPSC Recalls Squishy Water Bead Toys Sold on Amazon

    The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced a recall on September 3, 2026, for about 8,000 GIHNJSI Squeezy Dumplings, according to Medical Daily. The recalled toys are squishy balls containing glitter-like particles and water beads, with cartoon faces, packaged in a tan plastic container shaped like a bamboo steamer. They were sold on Amazon.

    The recall was initiated because a swallowed water bead can expand and cause "deadly ingestion, choking, and intestinal obstruction hazards," as reported by Medical Daily. No injuries have been reported for either of the products flagged this week, according to the same outlet.

    The firm is Xiamen Liuhui Electric Technology Co., Ltd. Consumers are instructed to write "RECALLED" in permanent marker on the toy and its container, throw it away, and email a photo of the disposed toy to the address in the notice.

  2. Sep 4, 2026, 6:36 a.m. ETFirst report

    CPSC Recalls Squishy Water Bead Toys Sold on Amazon

    The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced a recall on September 3, 2026, for about 8,000 GIHNJSI Squeezy Dumplings, according to a report by Medical Daily. The recalled toys are squishy balls containing glitter-like particles and water beads, with cartoon faces, packaged in a tan plastic container shaped like a bamboo steamer. They were sold on Amazon by the firm Xiamen Liuhui Electric Technology Co., Ltd.

    The recall was initiated because a swallowed water bead can expand and cause "deadly ingestion, choking, and intestinal obstruction hazards," as reported by Medical Daily. No injuries have been reported for either of the products flagged this week.

    Consumers who purchased the recalled toys are advised to write "RECALLED" in permanent marker on the toy and its container, throw it away, and email a photo of the disposed toy to the address provided in the recall notice, according to Medical Daily.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 14 Sept 2026, 10:56current

    First published.

  2. Version 14 Sept 2026, 10:36current

    First published.

  3. Version 14 Sept 2026, 10:52current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.