
AI-generated summary
Laundry beads are widely used in homes because they are easy to use. However, they contain high-concentration detergent and are prone to sticking when wet. They may burst and spray when torn by hand, causing eye injuries. The current standards focus on preventing accidental ingestion by young children, and lack warnings about tearing adhering beads to the hands.
Many people are using laundry beads at home. It is convenient and trouble-free to throw one into the washing machine. But you may not think that once this small bead gets wet and sticks to it, it may burst instantly if you tear it off with your hands. High-concentration washing liquid will be sprayed directly into your eyes, causing eye injuries. Recently, one such incident has become a hot topic and attracted widespread attention.
The reporter purchased 10 types of laundry beads of different brands and specifications at an offline supermarket at his own expense. After checking the warning information on the outer packaging one by one, he found that only one of the 10 products was marked with the warning "Do not tear the beads after adhesion." Most product packaging does not have effective warnings for this high-risk operating scenario.
So, what should you do if the laundry beads burst and the washing liquid splashes into your eyes? Is the warning information about laundry beads sufficient? If a consumer is injured as a result, can he claim compensation from the manufacturer?
Hand-torn laundry beads burst and hurt eyes, hot search topic
Some netizens posted a video saying that his wife wanted to use laundry beads when washing clothes, but because one of the laundry beads had been stored for a long time, it stuck to the inner wall of the packaging box. During the process of taking it, the laundry beads suddenly burst, and the high-concentration washing liquid splashed into her eyes.
After the incident happened, they went to several hospitals for treatment. The reporter also contacted the blogger, who told the story of the incident.
Mr. Sun said that his wife saw a laundry beads stuck to the inner wall of the packaging box, so she pulled it with her hand and the laundry beads exploded. When they exploded, they sprayed out. She started to wash her eyes with water on her face. It hurt when she rinsed her eyes. She had to rinse them for a while before going to the hospital.
After emergency treatment at the first hospital, Mr. Sun's wife said on the way back that the pain seemed to have worsened, so they rushed to the second hospital.
Why Laundry Bead Liquid Can Damage Your Eyes
Mr. Sun said that after arriving at the hospital, his wife could hardly see. The doctor said that cases of laundry beads are quite common. Finally, the doctor confirmed that Mr. Sun’s wife’s cornea was burned by the liquid in the laundry beads. Why does the liquid in the laundry beads cause damage to the eyes when it bursts out?
Liang Ya, chief physician and associate professor of the Department of Ophthalmology at the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, said that laundry beads usually contain surfactants and alkaline additives. In particular, alkaline substances are more harmful to the eyes and can cause "alkaline burns" to the eyes.
Eye burns are divided into acidic and alkaline burns. Alkaline burns are more terrifying than acid burns because acid burns are only limited to the surface and usually only cause surface damage and do not go deep. However, alkaline substances can cause liquefaction necrosis. Alkaline substances will react with proteins in tissues and continue to go deeper. Alkaline substances mainly cause damage to black eyeballs, because black eyeballs are very fragile and will be very sensitive to some external stimuli.
What to do if laundry detergent accidentally splashes into your eyes
What should you do if you accidentally splash laundry beads or other liquids such as laundry detergent into your eyes? Liang Ya said that you should use tap water or other clean water to rinse your eyes continuously to fully dilute the laundry beads liquid that enters your eyes. It is recommended to rinse for 30 minutes. After rinsing, take the outer packaging of the laundry gel beads and seek medical attention immediately.
Experts remind that during the flushing process, you should not rub your eyes with your hands, nor use paper towels, towels and other foreign objects to wipe the eyeballs to avoid the spread of liquid that enters the eyes, leading to expanded damage.
Lu Yun, a lawyer from the Lawyers Group of the China Consumers Association and director of the Consumer Rights and Product Quality and Safety Legal Committee of the Beijing Lawyers Association, pointed out that the laundry beads burst under the action of external force after adhesion. It cannot be ruled out that it may be caused by design defects, production defects or warning defects. For example, the packaging material does not meet the requirements and is prone to adhesion, which requires further investigation.
Is the current laundry beads warning information sufficient and complete?
So, is the warning information about laundry beads sufficient? The reporter's search found that the current industry standards and group standards for laundry beads and other related industries have put forward a series of requirements including "preventing children from accidentally eating", but there are no targeted warning requirements for operating scenarios such as "prohibiting hand-tearing of sticky beads".
On the other hand, it is not accidental that the laundry beads explode and splash into the eyes, causing eye injuries. It is not uncommon for the outer membrane of laundry beads to adhere to each other after encountering high temperatures and moisture. Mr. Sun told reporters that the purpose of sharing his family's experience on the Internet was to warn more people from such dangers.
The reporter purchased 10 types of laundry beads of different brands and specifications in offline supermarkets. The outer packaging of these products is basically marked with eye-catching "precautions" in prominent positions, which mainly include: keep away from children, do not eat, prevent it from getting into eyes, and there are clear instructions to pay attention to moisture and high temperature, and store in a cool and dry place.
However, among the 10 products purchased by this reporter, only one product was marked with the warning "Do not tear by hand after the beads have adhered." In other words, in response to the situation encountered by Mr. Sun's wife, most product packaging does not provide effective and eye-catching reminders.
In this regard, Yue Qishan, an expert on legal issues, believes that the reminder that tearing off beads by hand can easily cause splashing and get into the eyes should be improved. Clearer signs or clear warnings need to be made on warning signs to tell everyone that hand tearing is not allowed if they are sticky.
Can I claim compensation from the product manufacturer if the packaging of laundry beads contains insufficient warnings?
So, if consumers, including Mr. Sun's wife, encounter the above situation, can they claim compensation from the product manufacturer on the grounds of "insufficient warnings on the packaging of laundry beads"? Yue Qishan believes that there is a legal basis for consumers to claim their rights, but whether it can be successful requires professional judgment based on industrial design, predictability of use and other factors.
Lu Yun pointed out that laundry beads are now relatively widely used. From a safety perspective, it is recommended to further improve relevant standards to ensure consumer safety.
AI outlook — possibilities, not facts
Regulatory authorities will revise relevant standards and force laundry beads packaging to add clear warnings such as ‘no tearing by hand after the beads have adhered’.
Likely · Within months
Injured consumers will seek compensation from manufacturers through legal channels, and some cases may be supported by the court.
Possible · Within months

The civil compensation debate in the neck-cutting case of a junior high school student in New Taipei City has ended, and the Civil Division of the High Court is scheduled to pronounce the verdict on November 25. The defense lawyer questioned whether the victim's family's donation of 5 million yuan in scholarships and bursaries was a deliberate transfer of assets. The victim's father, Yang Chengxun, responded angrily, emphasizing that the donation was used to help underprivileged students and was never used for personal use. He also questioned whether the argument that the victim's family would be exempted from liability for compensation if they receive social donations is reasonable.
The China-EU Copyright Protection Symposium in the Digital Environment was held in Yinchuan on the 13th. It focused on issues such as copyright governance in the digital environment, China-EU copyright legislation and law enforcement practices, and copyright protection in the era of generative artificial intelligence. It discussed new challenges and new paths for copyright protection under the changes in digital technology, and promoted China-EU understanding, mutual trust, and collaborative cooperation.

The Supreme People's Court issued a typical case on the protection of new plant varieties, involving a blueberry seedling infringement dispute. A certain planting base claimed to have stolen branches through connections and produced and sold the Spanish Praburu 1542 blueberry variety without permission. The court determined that it constituted "a business based on infringement" and applied punitive damages. It upheld the original judgment of compensating economic losses of 144,000 yuan and rights protection expenses of 10,000 yuan.

AI deep forgery technology reduces the cost and threshold for forging evidence, leading to biases in evidence review by judicial personnel, rising litigation costs, and declining judicial efficiency. Judicial organs are building a full-chain evidence review model through technical means, institutional norms and expert assistance to meet the challenges.

A divorced man in Taitung was accused by his underage daughter of multiple sexual assaults between 108 and 110 years. However, the daughter’s testimony was inconsistent and was influenced by her uncle’s inductive questioning. The court certification was tainted and could not be used as evidence. He was found not guilty in the first and second trials. It was emphasized that the acquittal was based on insufficient evidence and did not deny the trauma suffered by the victim.

On the 13th, the New Taipei Prosecutor's Office charged the New Taipei Prosecutor's Office for violating the Personal Information Law, publicly insulting and defaming the man named Xin, who posted his past criminal conviction record, life photos and residence information on a social platform, and insinuated that he was a "pedophile grass". Sijimao responded humorously to this and said that he was prosecuted earlier than Ko Wenzhe.