Our Blog

Recall of Freezer Gel Packs Due to Ingestion Hazard

June 8, 2012

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission announced a voluntary recall of Ice/Hot and Ice Gel Packs manufactured by California Innovations Inc., of Toronto, Canada. About 880,000 (about 248,000 units associated with lunch boxes and 55,000 associated with food carriers were previously recalled in January 2012).

The CPSC reported that “The recalled products are Cryofreeze ice/hot packs and Arctic Zone ice packs. The packs are gel-filled plastic pouches with either transparent or opaque sealed wrappers. They are used to keep food hot or cold. The gel packs were sold separately and with a variety of lunch boxes, coolers and thermal carriers.” Please refer to the CPSC web site for the styles that are being recalled.

This is another example of a product reaching the market before proper research and testing was done. Consumers should regularly check the CPSC website for recalled products to protect the safety of their families.

It is recommended that consumers contact their local waste disposal authority for instructions. Consumers can contact California Innovations to receive a $6 cash refund for large (8.5-inch x 8-inch) Cryofreeze gel packs or a $5 cash refund for all other gel packs.

Request Your Free Consultation

Get the answers and support you need. Our friendly and experienced Buffalo personal injury lawyers will take the time to understand your case, explain your options, and guide you every step of the way.

Our Practice Areas

Read More Articles

Ohio Court Finds Employment Agreement Unenforceable That Requires Attorney to Return 95% of Fees

Amusement Park Must Keep Patrons Safe

As an attorney who has handled many amusement park injury cases against parks like Six Flags and others, I am concerned when employees continue to fail to keep their patrons safe. An employee of the park knows the ride better than the customers and it is that persons

Read Blog
Ohio Court Finds Employment Agreement Unenforceable That Requires Attorney to Return 95% of Fees

Fall Was The Result Of Elevated Related Risk

In, NICOMETI v. THE VINEYARDS OF FREDONIA, LLC (June 2013) the Fourth Department held that contrary to the contention of defendants, the Supreme Court properly concluded that plaintiff’s fall was the result of an elevation-related risk for which Labor Law § 240 (1) provides protection.

Read Blog
Ohio Court Finds Employment Agreement Unenforceable That Requires Attorney to Return 95% of Fees

Sovereign Immunity Grounds Do Not Always Apply

In Sue/Perior Concrete & Paving v. Lewiston Golf Course Corporation, (4th Dept. 2013) the court held that “The central question on this appeal is whether defendant Lewiston Golf Course Corporation (LGCC), a corporation formed under the laws of the Seneca Nation of Indians (Nation or SNI), is protected

Read Blog