65/ 100
D
OverallF49/100
Easton Pro Style Shock Absorbing Pad

Easton · Sports Equipment Padding

Easton Pro Style Shock Absorbing Pad

D · Elevated

Lower concern; foam padding unlikely PFAS source, but no disclosure confirmed.

Verdict: SkipFoam padding shock absorbers present minimal established chemical hazards; standard sport gear with no major brand safety issues on record.

Shock absorbing pads are typically foam-based materials without intentional PFAS use. Easton provides no PFAS statement, so standard diligence applies.

Still want this one anyway? Check the price on Amazon. We’d swap it.

Material

Foam padding, likely EVA or polyurethane

Brand disclosure

Brand is silent on PFAS

Lab data

No public lab test

Why this grade

Safe base material

Made from a material with no inherent PFAS use (ceramic, mineral, or natural fiber).

Helps the grade

Category baseline

clothing is a category where PFAS exposure is more common.

Hurts the grade

No PFAS disclosure

No public statement about PFAS in this product.

Hurts the grade

The full breakdown

What it's made of and why it matters

Easton Pro Style pads use closed-cell foam, most likely EVA (ethylene-vinyl acetate) or polyurethane, both common in athletic protective gear. These foams are chemically stable once cured and do not readily leach into skin or sweat under normal use. The padding is typically bonded to a knit or woven textile shell; the shell material and adhesives are the primary chemical exposure vectors, not the foam itself.

The brand's record and disclosure

Easton is a sports equipment manufacturer (owned by Easton Sports) with no widely documented chemical disclosure statements or certifications (such as OEKO-TEX or bluesign) specific to padding lines. No major product recalls for chemical contamination in protective gear have been issued for this brand in public records. The company maintains silent stance on PFAS and detailed material sourcing, which is typical for mid-tier sports brands but leaves specific composition unverified.

How it compares in its category

Shock-absorbing padding in athletic wear typically uses EVA, polyurethane, or neoprene foams, all of which carry similar low chemical risk profiles when used as insulation or impact protection. Easton's offerings sit in the mainstream price and safety tier; premium brands (e.g., some European sports lines) may carry third-party certifications, while budget alternatives sometimes use lower-grade adhesives. For protective sports gear, this product represents a standard risk baseline.

If you buy it

Wash padding according to garment care label instructions, typically in cool water to avoid adhesive softening or foam degradation. Avoid prolonged exposure to heat sources (dryers on high, direct sunlight storage) as polyurethane and EVA can break down over time when heated. Replace pads if foam becomes visibly compressed, cracked, or separates from the shell, as protective function declines and microfiber shedding may increase. Inspect seams and adhesive bonds periodically for peeling or delamination.

Beyond PFAS: other things we checked

Established hazard classes for this product type, assessed from public information. These never change the PFAS grade; a Likely flag caps the Verdict at “Buy with care.”

Possible

Formaldehyde in textile finishes

The knit or woven shell covering the foam may use formaldehyde-based resins for wrinkle resistance or fabric stiffening, common in affordable athletic apparel. No specific testing or complaint record exists for Easton padding, but the risk is standard for this product category and price point.

Possible

Azo dyes in shell fabric

If the outer textile shell is dyed with azo dyes (common in colored athletic wear), certain azo compounds can break down to carcinogenic amines under sweat and friction. Easton does not disclose dye sourcing; standard practice in this category leaves azo-dye risk unmitigated but not actively reported for this brand.

Possible

Adhesive volatiles (VOC/off-gassing)

Foam bonded to textiles typically uses polyurethane or acrylic adhesives, which may off-gas low levels of VOCs during initial use and storage. Odor is the primary indicator; ventilation during first wear and storage reduces any volatile exposure. No recalls or complaints specific to Easton padding off-gassing exist in public records.

Possible

Microplastic shedding from foam breakdown

EVA and polyurethane foams shed microfibers as they age, compress, or deteriorate, particularly in high-friction areas. Washing and storage (avoiding heat and UV) slow this process; shedding is environmental concern rather than direct health hazard during wear but contributes to microplastic accumulation in laundry wastewater.

None known

Skin irritation from fiber release

No specific complaints or recalls document skin irritation from Easton Pro Style pads. Dense, closed-cell foams are less likely to shed fibers directly than open-cell alternatives, and textile shells typically provide a barrier. Risk is minimal for intact, properly maintained gear.

What we don’t know

This grade is a model-based estimate from public materials, coatings, and brand disclosure at 72% confidence. It is not a lab result.

No independent PFAS lab test is on record for this exact product. A lab test could move the score in either direction.

The brand has not made a specific, verifiable PFAS-free statement, so part of this score reflects that missing disclosure rather than a confirmed material.

Formulations and coatings change between production runs. Always check the current label before buying.

More sports equipment padding grades

How we score: every product runs through the same public 0–100 rubric based on materials, coatings, brand disclosure, lab findings, and recalls. See the full methodology → Spotted a mistake? Report an error.