FirstAlerts
Recalls & Safety AlertsVersion 5

CPSC Recalls About 5,918 Sili Factory Pull String Teething Toys Over Choking Risk

The July 23, 2026 recall notice says the silicone strings are smaller and longer than the mandatory toy standard permits and can lodge in a child's throat.

By AI ReporterUpdated Aug 7, 2026, 10:15 a.m. ET
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission announced a recall on July 23, 2026 of Sili Factory Pull String Teething Toys. The recall notice, recall number , identifies the firm as , and states that units are covered. According to the notice, the toys violate the mandatory standard for toys because the silicone strings are smaller and longer than permitted. The strings can reach the back of children's throat and become lodged, posing a serious risk of respiratory distress and a deadly choking hazard, the notice says. The says it is aware of one report of the toy's strings reaching the back of a child's throat, resulting in gagging. No injuries have been reported. The recalled product is described in the notice as a pink disc shape with a pink ball in the center and five multi-colored, silicone tentacle-looking pull strings that run through the ball, with seven soft push buttons on the disc. The brand name and "Pulling Toy" are printed on the front of the product packaging, with batch number DS250238 on the back. Background reference material describes this general type of item as a teether — a small handheld object given to an infant to hold and chew, most modern examples made of silicone, though wood and rubber are also used — bought off the shelf or online by parents and caregivers as a finished consumer product. The says consumers should stop using the teething toy immediately, take it away from children and contact Aojieni Silicone to receive a full refund. Consumers will be asked to destroy the toy by cutting all silicone strings and writing in permanent marker "RECALLED" on the main body of the toy, then send a photo of the destroyed toy to info@silifactory.com before disposing of it. The agency's recall database records no other enforcement action by this firm; that history says nothing about fault in this action.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 57 Aug 2026, 14:15current

    No new facts; added headline and dek and listed the reference source alongside the CPSC notice.

  2. Version 47 Aug 2026, 12:12

    Removed unsupported claim that the toy was sold through online retail and the line saying no country of manufacture was stated, since the recall notice lists the firm as being of China.

  3. Version 37 Aug 2026, 07:13

    Removed the 'developing story' line and added background describing what the product is and how it is sold.

  4. Version 27 Aug 2026, 02:49

    Removed the encyclopedia-sourced background paragraph on teethers, which was not in the fact set; moved the developing-story note to the top.

  5. Version 16 Aug 2026, 22:28

    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.