Hearth Record

Back to Eye protection devices

Nectar eye protection devices

1 report to CPSC, the latest made Feb 29, 2016. A report isn’t a recall.

Watch it to hear when CPSC publishes new reports about it. CPSC’s own search, on saferproducts.gov

Watch and the shortlist are kept with a free account, on every device. Your watch list. CPSC’s own search is on saferproducts.gov.

At a glance

From SaferProducts.gov, released Oct 25, 2026.

  • 1report to CPSC
  • Feb 29, 2016the latest report was made
  • Feb 29, 2016the earliest
  • 0with the company’s comments
Brand
Nectar
Maker
Phillips Safety ProductsMakers, importers or sellers, as the reports name them
Product
Eye protection devicesCPSC’s product type: Eye Protection Devices (code 1607), in Personal Care: Personal Protection

By month

1 report from March 2015 to February 2016; the most in February 2016, 1.
The numbers, as a table
Reports to CPSC by the month each was made, newest first
MonthReports
February 20161

How badly anyone was hurt

  • First aid 1 CPSC: Injury, First Aid Received by Non-Medical Professional

As each report says it, in short words; CPSC’s own words are under each.

The reports, as CPSC published them

Reports people made to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. CPSC publishes each one after sending it to the company named, and doesn’t guarantee they’re accurate. A report isn’t a recall.

Each report is the words of the person who made it, as CPSC published them. The company’s comments, where CPSC published any, are set apart as the company’s own.

Source:

CPSC, SaferProducts.gov public database export. Released Oct 25, 2026. Updated daily.

  1. First aid

    Made Feb 29, 2016, sent to the company Mar 8, 2016, published by CPSC Mar 22, 2016

    The product, in the report: Nectar didymium glasses. Sold at - http://www.nectarsunglasses.com/collections/didymium-glasses Because Phillips Safety Products manufacturers the lens, glasses sold directly by them during the same time frame (at least June 2014-Dec 2015) also have the same issue.

    I purchased a pair of protective glasses for glassblowing from Nectar in June of 2014. Nectar sends frames to Phillips Safety Products who puts in the proper lens and ships them to the customer. I immediately noticed they did not filter as much sodium flare as my other glasses and assumed it was just a difference related to the brand and not a defect. I later experienced photokeratitis in these glasses after normal use, this is essentially a sunburn on the eye and is very painful. Late last year I had the chance to try a newer pair of Nectar glasses with ostensibly the same “Shade 3 ACE” lens and noticed it filtered flare properly and was darker. After spreading the word online, many people commented they had these lenses that don’t filter flare properly and had also experienced photokeratitis while using them. Ultimately, Nectar confirmed via email that Phillips had run out of materials needed to make proper lenses and used an “experimental” lens in the meantime which didn’t work properly. Can provide copies of these emails. Nectar has been active and open about this situation online but Phillips is only telling people about the problem when they call after experiencing eye problems or finding out elsewhere. They will not respond to emails about the issue and seem to be doing everything they can to not put in writing what is going on. Please investigate this issue, I will help in any way I can and can provide my defective lenses for testing if needed.

    Model
    ACE Lenses
    Bought from
    Nectar
    Bought
    Jun 1, 2014
    Where
    Norfolk, Virginia: Home/Apartment/Condominium
    Who was involved
    Age 33, Male
    The reporter’s relation to them
    Self
    As this report names them
    Brand Nectar, made or sold by Phillips Safety Products
    How badly, in CPSC’s words
    Injury, First Aid Received by Non-Medical Professional

CPSC’s disclaimer

Disclaimer: CPSC does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the contents of the Publicly Available Consumer Product Safety Information Database on SaferProducts.gov, particularly with respect to information submitted by people outside of CPSC.

Source:

Word for word, from the disclaimer in CPSC’s export.

Sources

Sources

  • U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, SaferProducts.gov public database export.

    Released Oct 25, 2026 and checked Oct 25, 2026. Updated daily. Public domain (U.S. Government work). CPSC asks to be credited, and that no endorsement be implied.

Source:

Reports of harm are from the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), on SaferProducts.gov. CPSC does not endorse Hearth Record.

Back to Eye protection devices

How to read a record

Four things every record does, shown on an example record made up for this guide.

An example record, made up for this guide

An example nursing home

Made up for this guide: no real place is shown

Not fully inspected in over two years (CMS flag)

11 health citations at the latest inspection cycle

The state average is 14.3.

Source:

CMS, State and US Averages and Health Deficiencies. Released Oct 8, 2026. Updated monthly.

From the homeNone yet. Replies and paid listings aren’t open, and when they open they will sit here, below the record.

1 of 4

Every fact names its source.

Who published it, when, and how often it changes sit beside each fact, with a link to the agency’s own file.

Sign in

A free account keeps your watch list, shortlists, comparisons and saved searches on every device, and can email you when something you watch changes. Browsing never needs one.