dailymail.co.uk
Fieldsheer Recalls 45,000 Pairs of Heated Socks Due to Burn Risk
Fieldsheer Apparel Technologies recalled 45,000 pairs of heated merino wool socks (models MWMS05, MWMS07, and MWWS07) due to 11 reports of injuries including burns and blisters resulting from heat, friction, moisture and pressure during high-intensity activities; sold at Home Depot, Meijer, and Amazon from August 2021 to June 2025.
- What factors contributed to the injuries reported from using the recalled heated socks?
- The recall highlights the potential dangers of heated apparel, especially during high-intensity activities generating heat, friction, moisture, and pressure. The injuries reported, ranging from blisters to burns, underscore the need for consumer caution with such products. The incident also emphasizes the importance of safe disposal of lithium-ion batteries included with the socks.
- What is the immediate impact of the recall of Fieldsheer's heated socks on consumers and the company?
- Fieldsheer Apparel Technologies recalled 45,000 pairs of its heated merino wool socks due to burn risks. Eleven consumers reported pain and discomfort, including four cases of blisters and burns, leading to the recall. The recalled socks, models MWMS05, MWMS07, and MWWS07, were sold at various retailers between August 2021 and June 2025.
- What are the potential long-term consequences of this recall for the heated apparel industry and consumer safety?
- This recall could spur increased scrutiny of heated apparel and similar products, potentially leading to stricter safety regulations or improved product designs. The incident also serves as a warning for consumers to be mindful of potential risks associated with heated clothing and to follow product instructions carefully. The high incidence of burn injuries in the US annually (400,000-500,000) provides a concerning context for this incident.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the story around the urgency of the recall and the potential for severe burns, emphasizing the negative aspects of the product. The headline and opening sentences immediately highlight the risk of burns and blisters. While this is important information, it might disproportionately focus on the negative without providing a balanced perspective of the product's intended use and benefits.
Language Bias
The language used is generally neutral and factual. Terms like "urgent recall" and "severe burns" are impactful but not inherently biased. The description of injuries as "pain and discomfort resulting in burns and blisters" is accurate, although the sequencing emphasizes the negative consequences.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses primarily on the recall and safety concerns, but omits information on the overall safety record of Fieldsheer Apparel Technologies and similar heated apparel products. It also doesn't explore alternative heated apparel technologies that may offer reduced burn risks. The number of injuries relative to the number of socks sold is not provided, which could provide additional context. While the article mentions other heated products like blankets, it doesn't provide a comparative analysis of the risks associated with various heated products.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a clear dichotomy between safe and unsafe use of the socks, but doesn't sufficiently address the nuances of use and risk factors like the intensity of activity and duration of wear. It implicitly presents a simplistic 'either use them safely or don't use them at all' approach.
Sustainable Development Goals
The recall of heated socks due to burn injuries directly impacts SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) by highlighting a product safety issue that causes harm. The reported burns and blisters are direct negative impacts on people's health. The article also mentions the broader issue of burn injuries and the risks associated with heated products, further emphasizing the relevance to this SDG.