Good Squishy, Bad Squishy

NB. This article was first published on LinkedIn by Dr Michelle K. Lynch CChem FRSC as an edition of the Inconvenienced™ Newsletter

DISCLAIMER: This article draws on publicly available safety notices, technical literature and incident reports. Findings concern the specific products and formulations cited; reported incidents do not independently establish causation. References to companies or chemicals are not endorsements and the author has no commercial relationship or business involving any of the products mentioned. Nothing in this article is intended as commercial, financial, technical, safety, hazard or medical advice. Errors and omissions excepted.

The Squishy Spectrum

Counterfeit toys is a topic I came across around a year ago, although the context then was unsold goods. My concern began with what happens to toys that never reach a child: the resources used to manufacture them, the stock that accumulates and the eventual disposal. More recently, the question has become what happens to the toys that do reach children.

I have started seeing reports about children being injured by supposedly “fake squishies” bought online. The injuries deserve serious attention, and so does the language used to explain them. When “fake” becomes an umbrella term for unfamiliar or unbranded products, the story risks becoming Good Squishy, Bad Squishy: a familiar brand receives the benefit of the doubt while other manufacturers, including potentially competent producers of affordable generic goods, inherit the blame. There is room in that story for an equally convenient subplot: blaming consumers for making online purchases of “bad squishies” i.e., bad consumers.

I sense a little too much convenience creeping in, which of course I cannot allow to go unmentioned. Welcome to Inconvenienced™ — the newsletter that takes a solid approach to assessing supply chains gone awry, even the squishy ones.

The first question is what we mean by a brand. The American Marketing Association defines it through distinctive features that identify goods or services. That function does not require fame, a premium price or a large market share; it also leaves product safety and environmental performance to be established through other evidence. [1]

Counterfeit is more complicated because it requires us to identify what has been copied and which rights have been infringed. The WTO’s TRIPS Agreement distinguishes counterfeit trademark goods from pirated copyright goods, with definitions that refer to the relevant intellectual property and the law of the importing country. An unfamiliar manufacturer, a similar texture or a dumpling-shaped toy does not, by itself, establish either category. [2]

So rather than Good Squishy / Bad Squishy – perhaps we should think of them as on a spectrum. (See Table 1.)

Table 1. The Squishy Spectrum – definitions used in this article

Article content — Source: Authors’ Compilation © All Rights Reserved

What’s a Squishy?

Squishy describes the feel of a toy category that can include foam, rubber, silicone and products containing gel, beads or water. These different constructions already suggest that a single good-versus-bad narrative is asking a great deal of one adjective. Consumers need information about the particular product, its supplier and its contents to make an informed choice. [26]

I must confess at this point to having succumbed to buying a toy today – purely for research purposes – that falls within the spectrum of soft / sensory / squishy toys. Furthermore, I must admit to having enjoyed its novelty. I have no idea of its composition. I assume there must be sufficient elastomer in there as it will bounce a few feet off the ground. To my joy, I discovered that there is also a small battery cell inside it that activates a flashing light display when bounced. It’s a premium squishy, brand or no. It’s quality.

No doubt for safety reasons, the manufacturers have sealed the unit, so once I’ve exhausted the battery, it will lose its luminescent properties and I will be left with a squeezy, bouncy, spikey ball that doesn’t light up anymore. That’s unless I decide to intervene and make some design improvements – purely for sustainability purposes. Either way – it is a fun little stressbuster, and I can fully appreciate why these toys are popular.

Safety Concerns & Incidents

There are documented concerns involving named businesses and branded products. Table 2 distinguishes formal recalls and safety findings from reports submitted to the US Consumer Product Safety Commission’s SaferProducts database. Those incident reports record what the submitter says happened; they do not independently establish the injury mechanism, authenticate the individual toy or amount to a recall.

Table 2. Companies, products and documented concerns

The Pinch Family doughnut is particularly instructive: an official report identifies serious chemical and choking risks while expressly recording that the product is not counterfeit. It demonstrates why authenticity and safety need their own evidence. The asbestos notices also retain an important qualification: the fillings may be contaminated, which should not be rewritten as confirmation that every affected toy contained asbestos. [17][10][11][12][13][14]

The CPSC’s August 2026 alert warns about fake and counterfeit squishies, while also advising consumers to stop using any squishy with an unknown manufacturer, missing safety information, leakage or other signs of concern. It separately warns that squishy toys can become dangerously hot in sunlight, hot vehicles or near heaters, and must never be microwaved. Those broader warnings deserve to travel with the counterfeit headlines because they concern product behaviour as well as product identity. [5]

Squishy Chemistry

Chemically, the category is more varied still. A slow-rise foam toy, a gel-filled cube and a sand-filled stretch animal can look equally squishy while presenting different exposure pathways.

Table 3 covers common material systems and chemicals documented in formulations or testing, including related slime and modelling-dough products. It is a guide to the questions a formulation raises, rather than a recipe for every toy or a claim that each listed substance is widespread.

Table 3. Chemicals and materials in squishy and related sensory toys

Benzene and asbestos belong in a different part of this discussion: the records above identify a chemical finding and suspected contamination in particular products, rather than establish either substance as a normal formulation ingredient. Similarly, an industrial raw-material safety data sheet tells us about that material’s assessed risks, hazards, handling, storage and transport conditions; the finished toy still needs assessment under realistic conditions of use. Its shell, contents, accessibility, emissions and foreseeable failure all matter. [15][14][25]

The patent trail for alternatives to boron-containing gellants is revealing. The 1994 modelling-dough patent US5364892A names sodium tetraborate as its preferred gelling agent. The later US7897659B2 discusses concerns about earlier borax-containing formulations and describes a system that omits the borax cross-linker, using maltose and maltitol to increase viscosity. These documents record deliberate changes in formulation chemistry; establishing which commercial toys use which system requires a connection to the actual product. [20][21]

Squishy Realities

The squish itself is an engineered property, and producing it can involve quite a collection of materials and additives. Take just one example: SEBS, styrene–ethylene/butylene–styrene, a polymer used in soft thermoplastic elastomer compounds. Its production starts with three different hydrocarbons, and is polymerised with catalysts. Compounders can then blend it with oils, other resins, fillers, inks, colourants and stabilisers, depending on the formulation. [28][29][30] That is before we get to any filling, decoration or packaging.

By expecting a squishy, or any other retail product for that matter, to be legally compliant, we are asking all the chemical producers, polymer manufacturers, compounders, additive suppliers and toy makers to employ integrity consistency across the supply chain.

So that means never failing on supply chain audits, appropriate ingredients, controlled processing, reliable testing and honest disclosure.

The fact is that brand or not, a toy combining many properties: i.e., soft, stretchy, bouncy, multi-coloured, and other visually pleasing, exciting and sensory features come with inherent risk multiplication.

I am perfectly willing to accept that these toys are novel, funny and enjoyable. The trade-off is that the darn thing brings a mini-chemical factory’s worth of supply-chain decisions into your hand. Maybe the realistic proposition is – you pay your money, and you take your choices.

That is where the Good Squishy, Bad Squishy story begins to lose its usefulness. A recognised brand can provide traceability, meaningful testing and a business that consumers can contact, all of which are valuable when things go wrong. Those advantages should support scrutiny of that business’s products. They should also leave room for an independent manufacturer to demonstrate good quality and safety through equally credible evidence.

Brand should not beget dominance

I want consumer protection to reward safe products and responsible stewardship, including affordable generic goods that meet the requirements. Turning brand familiarity into an informal admission ticket could favour market incumbents while making it harder for smaller producers to compete. The relevant evidence includes formulation, manufacturing controls, durability, exposure testing and clear information about what happens when the toy fails.

The supply-chain questions continue after the squeezing stops. What went into the shell and filling, how much unsold stock remains, and what happens to broken toys and their packaging? Who can explain the disposal route and substantiate environmental claims? Those questions belong with every manufacturer, because a safety assurance gives us only part of the information needed to assess lifecycle stewardship.

Parents deserve clear warnings and usable information about the products they are buying. Manufacturers, importers, retailers and regulators each have information and responsibilities that cannot be compressed into a judgement about a consumer’s shopping choices.

When a product is described as counterfeit, the report should explain the basis for describing it as counterfeit; when it is dangerous, it should explain the hazard and the action required.

Good Squishy can bring its logo to the interview, along with its test results, formulation evidence and disposal instructions. Bad Squishy should bring the same evidence. I am happy to hear both statements before deciding who gets to leave the station.

END

#Inconvenienced #ProductSafety #ChemicalSafety #SupplyChain #ProductStewardship #Sustainability #Squishies #SensoryToys #SoftToys

Sources

[1] American Marketing Association — Brand definition

[2] WTO — TRIPS Article 51, footnote 14, reproduced in the Analytical Index

[3] Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary — Unbranded

[4] Dictionary.com — Generic

[5] CPSC — Squishy toy safety alert, 5 August 2026

[6] SaferProducts — NeeDoh Nice Cube incident report

[7] SaferProducts — RMS Crazy Fun dumpling incident report

[8] SaferProducts — SmileMakers Squeeze Dino incident report

[9] OPSS — PMS Squishy Dino and Unicorn Eggs recall