This is blog #5 in our "Truth in Safety" series, where we debunk myths and misconceptions surrounding PPE. In an industry flooded with bold claims and confusing standards, we provide the facts you need to make informed safety decisions for you and your team. No fluff, no hype – just the truth from the trusted safety experts who have your back.

Background: The concern that started it all

A leading food production company approached HexArmor’s HexLabs with serious concerns regarding a competitor's gloves’ mechanical performance, specifically their cut protection claims. Their team had experienced unexpected injuries despite the gloves’ advertised ANSI/ISEA 105-2024 “A5” cut resistance, which prompted a request for independent testing. Given the high-stakes environment of food production – where worker safety and contamination risks are critical – the company needed to validate whether the gloves truly met industry safety standards.

The investigation

HexLabs conducted a detailed investigation with six pairs of the gloves to test cut resistance, material composition, and overall performance. The findings uncovered a big difference in the company’s marketing claims and the gloves’ actual protective capabilities.

Cut protection: A dangerous discrepancy

After skepticism emerged from the initial testing of six glove pairs, the HexLab team ordered more to continue their investigation. This second round of testing revealed a major inconsistency in the manufacturer’s cut protection claims. To confirm the findings, HexLab conducted additional evaluations using industry-specific testing methods, and the results were alarming.

• Left-hand glove’s median score: A1
• Right-hand glove’s median score: A4
• Average cut score for both gloves: A3
• Conclusion: Cut score per ANSI/ISEA 105-2024: A1. As per the standard, the lowest tested hand dictates the final rating. Due to the inconsistency of the right-hand gloves performance and the lack of cut protection in the left hand, we were not comfortable giving a score ethically when one of the hands was missing protective cut fibers.

While conducting these tests, the team examined the glove under a microscope to check for an engineered core yarn – which is typically necessary in gloves with 21-gauge to achieve an A5 cut rating. This led to a crucial discovery:

Right-hand glove contained HPPE + steel core wire
• Left-hand glove was made of polyester and HPPE, lacking steel reinforcement

The left-hand glove contained no steel or engineered cut-resistant fibers.

A total of 144 gloves were tested for cut resistance, in which we found that an upwardsof 30% of gloves lacked cut protection in one hand, primarily the left.

A manufacturer error?

These findings raised serious safety concerns. To dig deeper, our team traced the glove shipments to a factory in Vietnam that supplied one of North America’s largest PPE brands. When we reached out with our results, the manufacturer immediately cut off communication.

Here’s what we know: The machines used to knit seamless gloves are highly advanced. They automatically stop if a yarn breaks. Each yarn, especially steel or cut-resistant cores, is specifically programmed into the machine’s software. That means someone had to intentionally remove the cut-resistant yarns from the machines.

This manufacturer's explanation? Cost savings

Our analysis estimates the manufacturer saved approximately $0.33 per pair due to not including the cut-resistant steel yarn. Based on the food company’s usage alone, that translates to $66,000 in annual profit... and by our estimation, this is all earned by putting workers at risk.

In our view, this is one of the most serious offenses we’ve encountered in the PPE industry. Cutting corners on safety to boost margins isn’t a mistake – it’s a choice. And it’s not one we’ll ever stand behind.

Profits over protection is not a game we play.

Additional performance failures

Because of the significant failure of our tests regarding cut resistance, we decided to test these gloves even further. In doing so, we uncovered several additional concerning factors that our competitor claimed made their gloves the best on the market - claims that were questionable at best. To provide a fair comparison, we tested these areas side-by-side with the HexArmor’s Helix® HexAir™ 3051, a glove with similar knit gauge, cut level, and palm coating. The results made the performance gaps even more clear.

1. False weight reduction claims

The competitor claimed that their glove was “50% lighter than traditional HPPE gloves of the same cut level.” We put this to the test using a Lachoi high-precision analytical balance, which can measure weight down to 0.00001grams – accurate enough to weigh a human hair.

The results:

• HexArmor’s Helix® HexAir™ 3051 A4 HPPE glove: 16 grams in weight
• Competitor HPPE glove: 23 grams in weight

Not only was the competitor's glove heavier, but it was 27% heavier than our benchmark glove, directly contradicting the “50% lighter” than a traditional HPPE glove claim.*

2. Misleading oil grip performance

To test the competitor’s claim that its ultra-thin foam nitrile coating “channels oil away for better grip,” we performed a real-world grip assessment test with random participants. This involved applying canola oil to the competitor glove and measuring grip strength using our proprietary torque-based grip test:

• The test subjects gripped and twisted a standardized bar to measure torque resistance before and after canola oil exposure on both the competitor glove and a HexArmor® glove with nitrile coating.
• The subjects repeated this test three different times over multiple days to ensure fairness of grip strength.*

A few things noticed:

• The minute oil touched the glove, it absorbed directly into the palm coating, saturating the material rather than repelling it.
• Instead of improving grip, the glove transferred oil onto the user’s hands, increasing the chances for slip risks on the job.

The results:

In the end, the team discovered that the independent study showed a measurement tolerance of ±3%, meaning there was no measurable improvement in grip performance compared to HexArmor’s nitrile palm coating on the Helix® 3051.

3. No verified cooling advantage

The competitor’s cooling technology was promoted as a feature that “keeps hands cooler during wear.” However, using infrared imaging comparisons between the competitor glove and HexArmor’s Helix® HexAir™ gloves, no measurable temperature difference was revealed. This means that workers would receive no tangible cooling benefit from choosing the competitor options.

Additionally, the HexLab team conducted a pressurized airflow resistance test to check the breathability of the glove.

The results:

The cooling claim was debunked, proving the competitor provides no real advantage to workers in breathability or cooling performance values.

IR image shows HexArmor’s HexAir™ next to the competition in an ambient 73-degree F temperature. You can see an insignificant difference in cooling technologies or effects, showcasing that it’s just HPPE being marketed as advanced cooling technology. HPPE has inherit cooling/breathable properties – not a proprietary technology.*

The PPE deception: Why it matters

The discrepancies found in our competitor’s gloves highlight a larger issue within the safety industry: misleading PPE claims put workers at risk.

A food worker relying on these gloves would unknowingly be wearing an ANSI/ISEA 105-2024 A1 cut-resistant glove on one hand while believing they had A5 cut resistance.
• Inadequate grip performance increases the likelihood of slips and cuts.
• The presence of potentially hazardous chemicals compromises both worker and consumer safety.

Food safety concerns: Chemical safety awareness

Additionally, the competitive glove was being used in food prep - however, it was not designed or marketed to be a food-safe glove. When selecting gloves for food production or processing, it’s essential to evaluate chemical composition. The competitor glove carries a warning for carcinogenic or hazardous chemicals, such as those listed under California Proposition 65, should never be used around food. Many solvent-based glove coatings may contain substances like dimethylformamide (DMF), a chemical classified as a substance of very high concern under REACH regulations. Prolonged exposure to such chemicals can present skin absorption risks and raise the potential for food contamination, even if the glove isn’t intended to directly contact food.

To ensure compliance and safety, we recommend using gloves that are:

Certified to OEKO-TEX® 100 or US FDA 21 CFR 177.1630
• Free from solvent-based polymers
• Specifically tested and approved for food-safe use

Choosing the right glove for food environments goes beyond cut level, it requires knowing what’s in the glove and how it behaves in the environments where it will be worn.

HexArmor’s key recommendations

For companies prioritizing worker safety and regulatory compliance, we strongly recommend:

• Unbiased third-party testing: Ensure that any PPE used meets verified safety standards through third-party testing rather than relying solely on manufacturer self-declarations or claims.
• Material consistency: Demand gloves with uniform cut resistance across both hands. Businesses should have a robust quality control policy that spot checks the protective claims of specified PPE against each applicational hazard.
• Alternative safety standards: Opt for gloves that are US FDA approved: 21 CFR 177.1630, have an OEKO-TEX 100 certification, or have a water-based polymer alternative to eliminate hazardous chemical exposure.
• Better quality control: Enforce stricter oversight of supplier quality control to prevent products with deceptive claims from making their way into high-risk industries.
• Chemical exposure risks: Recognize that even the best gloves offer only 480 minutes of protection against chemical exposure. Using an over glove is okay, but assess it regularly throughout its usage.

Not all safety claims are created equal

PPE should never create a false sense of security. This competitor glove case serves as a stark reminder that not all safety claims are created equal. When it comes to protecting workers in food production and beyond, companies must look beyond the label and demand real, verifiable protection that prioritizes transparency.

At HexLabs, we remain committed to ensuring that safety gear meets the highest standards. Because at the end of the day, we have one goal: to help send every worker home safe, every day.

Click here to download the full HexLab report.

Check out the other blogs in our "Truth in Safety" series:

• Read now: Chromium in safety gloves: What you should watch out for
• Read now: Graphene in safety gloves: Strength or marketing hype?
• Read now: The true cost of cheap safety gear vs. quality protection
• Read now: REACH compliance in safety gloves

*See full HexLab report for information on machines/testing methods used to achieve results.