Pro Style Shock Absorbing Pad vs Umpire's Inside Chest Protector: which is safer?
Easton Pro Style Shock Absorbing Pad is our pick, better on PFAS and on the overall hazard picture.
Our pick
Easton
Pro Style Shock Absorbing Pad
PFAS grade
Overall grade
Verdict
Hazard flags
Material
Confidence
PossibleFormaldehyde in textile finishes
PossibleAzo dyes in shell fabric
PossibleAdhesive volatiles (VOC/off-gassing)
MacGregor
Umpire's Inside Chest Protector
PFAS grade
Overall grade
Verdict
Hazard flags
Material
Confidence
PossibleFormaldehyde resins in fabric finishing
ReportedFoam degradation and particle shedding
PossibleAzo dyes in outer shell coloring
Where these two actually differ
- We flag Formaldehyde in textile finishes, Azo dyes in shell fabric, Adhesive volatiles (VOC/off-gassing) and Microplastic shedding from foam breakdown on the Easton and not on the MacGregor.
- We flag Formaldehyde resins in fabric finishing, Foam degradation and particle shedding, Azo dyes in outer shell coloring and Antimony in polyester component on the MacGregor and not on the Easton.
- The Easton is Foam padding, likely EVA or polyurethane where the MacGregor is foam padding, cotton/poly blend outer shell, which is most of the difference in these two grades.
- These two are level, close enough that price and fit should decide it rather than our grade.
Both products run through the same public rubric, which covers materials, coatings, brand disclosure, lab findings, and recalls, plus a beyond-PFAS hazard analysis. Grades are model-based estimates, not lab tests. How grades work →
More sports equipment padding, see the full ranking