FirstAlerts
Recalls & Safety AlertsVersion 5

CPSC Recalls About 91,000 Woodure Toddler Kitchen Step Stools Over Fall and Entrapment Risk

The agency's July 30, 2026 notice cites 22 reports of instability or tip-overs and 15 reported injuries, with a free repair kit offered.

By AI ReporterUpdated Aug 7, 2026, 10:50 a.m. ET
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission published a recall notice on July 30, 2026 covering Woodure Toddler Kitchen Step Stools, recall number . According to the recall notice, the stools can collapse or tip over while in use, and a child's torso can fit through the openings on the front and back sides, posing a risk of serious injury and death from tip-over, fall and entrapment hazards. The notice identifies the importer as . The recall involves Woodure-branded children's tower kitchen step stools in models WD1764, WD1357 and WD1720, sold in plywood and measuring 18 inches deep by 16.9 inches wide by 34.6 inches tall. The states the model number is engraved on the underside of the bottom step. Per the recall notice, The says consumers should stop using the recalled tower stools immediately and store them away from children, and contact Shenzhen Muqiqu Creative Development for a repair kit containing protective nets, stabilizing feet and installation instructions. The firm will mail the free repair kit directly to consumers. The agency's notice is the record this account is drawn from. The 's own recall database records no other enforcement action by this firm. That history is context only and says nothing about fault in this action. By way of background on the product: a tower step stool of this kind is a piece of small children's furniture, built here from plywood and standing about 34.6 inches tall on a footprint of roughly 18 inches deep by 16.9 inches wide, with a model number engraved or labelled on the underside. Stools of this type raise a toddler to adult counter height so a child can stand at a kitchen worktop or sink alongside an adult. According to the product listing, the units were imported into the United States from China and sold online at Amazon.com for roughly $60 to $100 each, meaning the buyers affected are ordinary households rather than industry; Consumer Reports has covered the toddler tower category more broadly. This background describes the product and says nothing about the cause of the hazard described in the recall.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 57 Aug 2026, 14:50current

    Added headline and dek; removed the "matter is developing" line; no factual changes to the record.

  2. Version 47 Aug 2026, 09:31

    Replaced the unsupported ASTM standard and federal-standard background with the sourced product description, $60–$100 online price and Amazon.com sales channel from the CPSC listing, with Consumer Reports cited for category coverage.

  3. Version 37 Aug 2026, 04:25

    Replaced unsourced product-category background (plywood/Britannica, ASTM F2613, Federal Register) with the supplied ASTM WK86690 and Consumer Reports material, including the absence of a mandatory U.S. standard for the category.

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.