CPSC Reports Choking Incident in Recall of Little Rawr Teething Toys
Shenzhen Okabesini Technology Co., Ltd. received one report of a child experiencing respiratory distress or choking from a teething toy string.
2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 19, 2026, 9:41 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Aug 19, 2026, 9:41 p.m. ETFirst report
CPSC Announces Recall of Little Rawr Teething Toys Over Choking Hazard
On August 6, 2026, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced a developing recall of about 2,180 Little Rawr Silicone Pull String Teething Toys sold online through Amazon by Okabesini-us. According to CPSC recall notice 26671, the toys violate mandatory federal standards because the silicone strings are smaller and longer than permitted. The strings can reach the back of a child's throat and become lodged, posing a risk of respiratory distress and choking.
The CPSC notice indicates that Shenzhen Okabesini Technology Co., Ltd., doing business as Okabesini-us, is aware of one report of a toy's strings reaching the back of a child's throat, resulting in respiratory distress or choking. The recalled product consists of a blue disc with a blue center ball, five multi-colored silicone tentacle-style pull strings running through the ball, and eight soft push buttons. It measures 5.7 inches wide by 5.7 inches tall by 7.8 inches long and was sold in a white box displaying the "little rawr" logo on the front, model number C-MBE-024 on the back, and identification number X004Q55E07 below the barcode label. There is no identifying information on the toy itself.
The recall notice instructs consumers to immediately stop using the teething toy, take it away from children, and contact Okabesini-us for a full refund. To complete the recall process, consumers must destroy the toy by cutting all silicone strings, writing "RECALLED" in permanent marker on the main body of the toy, and emailing a photograph of the destroyed item along with an order number if available to lilrawrrecall@163.com, then dispose of the item. CPSC database records list no previous enforcement actions for this firm, which says nothing about fault in this current action.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 120 Aug 2026, 01:41current
First published.
- Version 120 Aug 2026, 01:52current
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.