Pro Style Shock Absorbing Pad vs Varsity 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
Varsity Chest Protector
PFAS grade
Overall grade
Verdict
Hazard flags
Material
Confidence
PossibleWater-resistant finish composition (unknown water-repellent coating chemistry)
PossibleBacterial and mold growth in padding
PossiblePolyurethane or foam degradation over time
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 Water-resistant finish composition (unknown DWR chemistry), Bacterial and mold growth in padding and Polyurethane or foam degradation over time on the MacGregor and not on the Easton.
- The Easton is Foam padding, likely EVA or polyurethane where the MacGregor is Padded synthetic fabric with water-resistant finish, which is most of the difference in these two grades.
- The gap is 45 points, wide enough that this is not a close call, and the Easton is the one to buy.
- We are less certain about the MacGregor grade, at 35% confidence against 72%, because it discloses less.
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