The proposal from the U.S. Trade Representative’s office, issued late on Tuesday, comes from a Section 301 unfair trade practices investigation designed to help rebuild U.S. President Donald Trump’s emergency tariffs, struck down by a U.S. Supreme Court decision in February.

Despite laws banning them, the products of forced labor are deeply embedded in supply chains around the world. But European lawmakers in particular bristle at the ​accusation that the region is less effective than the U.S. at curbing the trade in such goods, with one describing the U.S. findings as “utterly absurd.”

The USTR proposed 10% additional ​duties on imports from Canada, Ecuador, the European Union, Indonesia, Mexico, Pakistan, Argentina, Bangladesh, Cambodia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Malaysia, Taiwan and Britain. The USTR said ⁠all had plans or partial schemes in place.

The trade agency said it would impose additional duties of 12.5% on the remaining 45 countries that it investigated. These include China, India, Nigeria, Japan, ​South Korea, Vietnam, Australia and New Zealand.

“The failure of our most important trading partners to address the importation of goods made with forced labor is unacceptable,” U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said in a ​statement. “This creates a dynamic where American workers are forced to compete globally on an unlevel playing field.”

The USTR said it would accept public comments on the proposed tariffs and other remedies through July 6, with a public hearing scheduled for July 7.

The announcement comes ahead of the July 24 expiration of a 10% temporary tariff imposed by the Trump administration on Feb. 20, the day the Supreme Court struck down Trump’s ​tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

The European Commission said the tariffs were unjustified and reiterated its commitment to the trade deal sealed with Washington last year.

Bernd Lange, the chair of the European ​Parliament’s trade committee, which voted on Tuesday to accept that trade deal, said the new tariffs were expected, but said the results of the U.S. investigation were still “utterly absurd” given a 2024 E.U. law to ban imports ‌of forced labor ⁠products.

“The impression is increasingly emerging that a tariff measure is sought first, and only then is a suitable legal justification found,” he said. However, he added that the key question would be whether the additional tariffs would exceed those agreed between both sides last July.

The U.S.’s largest trading partner, the European Union, agreed last July to accept tariffs of 15% on a broad range of its exports. In its report, the USTR said the E.U. measures came into force only in December 2027 and lacked key elements.

“We know there are ups and downs in what people say,” French Finance Minister Roland Lescure ​told reporters after a Cabinet meeting. “But the goal ​is to ratify the (trade) accord and stick ⁠to that.”

Britain said it was in regular talks with the United States and was taking action to tackle forced labor. It added that the preferential access to U.S. markets that it had negotiated for U.K. businesses remained in place.

Taiwan said it was “hopeful and confident” that the final results would reflect agreements ​already reached, securing relatively preferential treatment.

Beijing, facing 12.5% tariffs, said that it opposed all forms of unilateral tariffs and that there was no forced labor ​in China. India, confronted with ⁠the same rate, said it was engaged with Washington on the Section 301 proceedings, noting the proposed tariffs were not final.

On Monday, the USTR proposed a 25% duty on many Brazilian goods as a result of a Section 301 investigation into the country’s digital trade practices and preferential tariffs.

The trade agency is also expected to soon unveil the findings of another major Section 301 probe into the buildup of excess industrial capacity ⁠in 16 trading ​partners, including China and the European Union.

In the forced labor findings, the USTR said it would exempt from tariffs ​products including energy, rare earths and some other metals, beef, coffee, certain fruits and vegetables, pharmaceuticals, organic chemicals and aircraft parts.

It also said it was proposing a textile mechanism that would allow for a certain volume of apparel and textile imports ​to enter the U.S. at a reduced tariff rate, without giving details.

The proposal from the U.S. Trade Representative’s office, issued late on Tuesday, comes from a Section 301 unfair trade practices investigation designed to help rebuild U.S. President Donald Trump’s emergency tariffs, struck down by a U.S. Supreme Court decision in February.

Despite laws banning them, the products of forced labor are deeply embedded in supply chains around the world. But European lawmakers in particular bristle at the ​accusation that the region is less effective than the U.S. at curbing the trade in such goods, with one describing the U.S. findings as “utterly absurd.”

The USTR proposed 10% additional ​duties on imports from Canada, Ecuador, the European Union, Indonesia, Mexico, Pakistan, Argentina, Bangladesh, Cambodia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Malaysia, Taiwan and Britain. The USTR said ⁠all had plans or partial schemes in place.

The trade agency said it would impose additional duties of 12.5% on the remaining 45 countries that it investigated. These include China, India, Nigeria, Japan, ​South Korea, Vietnam, Australia and New Zealand.

“The failure of our most important trading partners to address the importation of goods made with forced labor is unacceptable,” U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said in a ​statement. “This creates a dynamic where American workers are forced to compete globally on an unlevel playing field.”

The USTR said it would accept public comments on the proposed tariffs and other remedies through July 6, with a public hearing scheduled for July 7.

The announcement comes ahead of the July 24 expiration of a 10% temporary tariff imposed by the Trump administration on Feb. 20, the day the Supreme Court struck down Trump’s ​tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

The European Commission said the tariffs were unjustified and reiterated its commitment to the trade deal sealed with Washington last year.

Bernd Lange, the chair of the European ​Parliament’s trade committee, which voted on Tuesday to accept that trade deal, said the new tariffs were expected, but said the results of the U.S. investigation were still “utterly absurd” given a 2024 E.U. law to ban imports ‌of forced labor ⁠products.

“The impression is increasingly emerging that a tariff measure is sought first, and only then is a suitable legal justification found,” he said. However, he added that the key question would be whether the additional tariffs would exceed those agreed between both sides last July.

The U.S.’s largest trading partner, the European Union, agreed last July to accept tariffs of 15% on a broad range of its exports. In its report, the USTR said the E.U. measures came into force only in December 2027 and lacked key elements.

“We know there are ups and downs in what people say,” French Finance Minister Roland Lescure ​told reporters after a Cabinet meeting. “But the goal ​is to ratify the (trade) accord and stick ⁠to that.”

Britain said it was in regular talks with the United States and was taking action to tackle forced labor. It added that the preferential access to U.S. markets that it had negotiated for U.K. businesses remained in place.

Taiwan said it was “hopeful and confident” that the final results would reflect agreements ​already reached, securing relatively preferential treatment.

Beijing, facing 12.5% tariffs, said that it opposed all forms of unilateral tariffs and that there was no forced labor ​in China. India, confronted with ⁠the same rate, said it was engaged with Washington on the Section 301 proceedings, noting the proposed tariffs were not final.

On Monday, the USTR proposed a 25% duty on many Brazilian goods as a result of a Section 301 investigation into the country’s digital trade practices and preferential tariffs.

The trade agency is also expected to soon unveil the findings of another major Section 301 probe into the buildup of excess industrial capacity ⁠in 16 trading ​partners, including China and the European Union.

In the forced labor findings, the USTR said it would exempt from tariffs ​products including energy, rare earths and some other metals, beef, coffee, certain fruits and vegetables, pharmaceuticals, organic chemicals and aircraft parts.

It also said it was proposing a textile mechanism that would allow for a certain volume of apparel and textile imports ​to enter the U.S. at a reduced tariff rate, without giving details.

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to the commissioner Monday requesting his appearance at a hearing June 10 examining the league’s TV deals and their compliance with the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961.

The 65-year-old law grants professional sports leagues limited antitrust immunity, allowing them to pool their media rights and negotiate as a single entity while protecting them from antitrust lawsuits.

The law applies only to broadcast networks. Courts have ruled in the past that it does not apply to other media, including cable, satellite and streaming. There has been bipartisan sentiment in favor of updating the law, and President Donald Trump has been among the critics of the NFL’s embrace of streaming.

According to Jordan’s letter, the hearing next week will “examine the extent to which the antitrust exemption created by the SBA has been used by the professional sports leagues to harm consumers and whether potential legislative remedies may be needed to address that harm.”

An NFL spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the letter.

The move by Congress comes as the Justice Department is investigating the NFL for potential anticompetitive practices. Speaking in April when the probe was disclosed, a government official, who was not authorized to discuss an ongoing investigation by name, said it was “about affordability for consumers and creating an even playing field for providers.”

In March, Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, wrote a letter to the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission urging them to review whether the NFL’s distribution methods comply with the 1961 law. The FTC has sought comments from the public on the shift of live sports from broadcast channels to streaming services.

The NFL has said 87% of its games are available on free television, and games aired exclusively on cable or streaming services remain available over the air in the home markets of the competing teams.

The league has broadcast or streaming deals with CBS/Paramount+, NBC/Peacock, ABC/ESPN/ESPN+, Fox, NFL Network, Amazon Prime Video, Netflix and YouTube TV. Thursday night games moved to Prime Video in 2022, and the league has since moved a wild-card playoff game, Christmas Day games and a Black Friday game to streamers.

This season, Netflix will stream an opening-week game between the San Francisco 49ers and Los Angeles Rams in Melbourne, Australia, and a Green Bay Packers-Rams game the day before Thanksgiving.

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to the commissioner Monday requesting his appearance at a hearing June 10 examining the league’s TV deals and their compliance with the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961.

The 65-year-old law grants professional sports leagues limited antitrust immunity, allowing them to pool their media rights and negotiate as a single entity while protecting them from antitrust lawsuits.

The law applies only to broadcast networks. Courts have ruled in the past that it does not apply to other media, including cable, satellite and streaming. There has been bipartisan sentiment in favor of updating the law, and President Donald Trump has been among the critics of the NFL’s embrace of streaming.

According to Jordan’s letter, the hearing next week will “examine the extent to which the antitrust exemption created by the SBA has been used by the professional sports leagues to harm consumers and whether potential legislative remedies may be needed to address that harm.”

An NFL spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the letter.

The move by Congress comes as the Justice Department is investigating the NFL for potential anticompetitive practices. Speaking in April when the probe was disclosed, a government official, who was not authorized to discuss an ongoing investigation by name, said it was “about affordability for consumers and creating an even playing field for providers.”

In March, Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, wrote a letter to the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission urging them to review whether the NFL’s distribution methods comply with the 1961 law. The FTC has sought comments from the public on the shift of live sports from broadcast channels to streaming services.

The NFL has said 87% of its games are available on free television, and games aired exclusively on cable or streaming services remain available over the air in the home markets of the competing teams.

The league has broadcast or streaming deals with CBS/Paramount+, NBC/Peacock, ABC/ESPN/ESPN+, Fox, NFL Network, Amazon Prime Video, Netflix and YouTube TV. Thursday night games moved to Prime Video in 2022, and the league has since moved a wild-card playoff game, Christmas Day games and a Black Friday game to streamers.

This season, Netflix will stream an opening-week game between the San Francisco 49ers and Los Angeles Rams in Melbourne, Australia, and a Green Bay Packers-Rams game the day before Thanksgiving.

“Democratic institutions take much time, effort, and patience to build but can be torn down all too quickly,” Powell said in remarks ​prepared for delivery as he accepted the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award, given by ​the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation.

“It is essential that we preserve what is good about ⁠these institutions, even as we strive to improve them,” said Powell, who included the Fed along with the ​courts and universities as among the core institutions key to the country’s success and standing in the world.

“Like ​many other institutions, the Fed has been undergoing a stress test,” Powell said, which in the central bank’s case has included efforts by President Donald Trump to fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook, calls for Powell’s resignation and a criminal probe of Powell.

Powell’s ​term as chair formally ended on May 15. His successor, Kevin Warsh, was sworn in as Fed chair on ​May 22. Powell has decided to continue as a Fed governor in part because of what he regards as ongoing threats ‌to ⁠the Fed’s independence, a decision that effectively prevents Trump from appointing another member to the Fed board for now.

The Fed’s structure is meant to allow it to make monetary policy decisions free of political considerations, and “these protections have served the public well, and administrations from both parties have respected them,” Powell said. “If any administration finds a ​way to remove Fed officials ​over policy differences, then ⁠future administrations will do so as well. The public would lose faith that the central bank will make decisions based only on what’s best for all Americans.”

In ​announcing the award to Powell earlier this year, the foundation said he had “safeguarded one ​of the country’s ⁠most essential apolitical institutions and demonstrated extraordinary courage in the face of sustained personal and professional risk.”

The award this year was also given to the citizens of Minneapolis and St. Paul for the public response to the surge ⁠in immigration ​enforcement in the Twin Cities area, including protests and efforts to monitor ​government enforcement efforts.

“Democratic institutions take much time, effort, and patience to build but can be torn down all too quickly,” Powell said in remarks ​prepared for delivery as he accepted the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award, given by ​the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation.

“It is essential that we preserve what is good about ⁠these institutions, even as we strive to improve them,” said Powell, who included the Fed along with the ​courts and universities as among the core institutions key to the country’s success and standing in the world.

“Like ​many other institutions, the Fed has been undergoing a stress test,” Powell said, which in the central bank’s case has included efforts by President Donald Trump to fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook, calls for Powell’s resignation and a criminal probe of Powell.

Powell’s ​term as chair formally ended on May 15. His successor, Kevin Warsh, was sworn in as Fed chair on ​May 22. Powell has decided to continue as a Fed governor in part because of what he regards as ongoing threats ‌to ⁠the Fed’s independence, a decision that effectively prevents Trump from appointing another member to the Fed board for now.

The Fed’s structure is meant to allow it to make monetary policy decisions free of political considerations, and “these protections have served the public well, and administrations from both parties have respected them,” Powell said. “If any administration finds a ​way to remove Fed officials ​over policy differences, then ⁠future administrations will do so as well. The public would lose faith that the central bank will make decisions based only on what’s best for all Americans.”

In ​announcing the award to Powell earlier this year, the foundation said he had “safeguarded one ​of the country’s ⁠most essential apolitical institutions and demonstrated extraordinary courage in the face of sustained personal and professional risk.”

The award this year was also given to the citizens of Minneapolis and St. Paul for the public response to the surge ⁠in immigration ​enforcement in the Twin Cities area, including protests and efforts to monitor ​government enforcement efforts.

Baseball owners hadn’t proposed a firm cap since 1994. Their effort prompted a 7 1/2-month strike that forced the cancellation of the World Series for the first time in 90 years.

MLB’s proposal would cap spending in 2027 at $245.3 million, using figures for luxury tax payrolls that include benefits and the pre-arbitration bonus pool, and establish a payroll floor of $171.2 million. The Los Angeles Dodgers, baseball’s biggest spenders, had a $415.2 million payroll on opening day this year — around $170 million over the proposed cap.

Owners said they would discuss a phase-in schedule that would give teams like the Dodgers time to comply with the cap and an escrow system with the union as part of a proposed seven-year deal, that all current contracts would remain guaranteed and there would be no prohibition of guaranteed contracts under the cap system.

MLB said it would centralize local media revenue from the 30 teams equally and give players a 50-50 split as part of a proposal that would eliminate the current revenue-sharing plan among the clubs.

“Our salary cap and floor proposal levels the playing field while sharing baseball revenue with the players 50/50 as we grow the game together,” MLB spokesman Glen Caplin said in a statement. “Further, by sharing media revenue equally as part of our proposal, we can address another top fan concern of local TV blackouts.”

Baseball’s current five-year deal, agreed to in March 2022 after a 99-day lockout, expires Dec. 2. While a lockout next winter is expected, talks are not likely to intensify until late February or early March 2027, when the possibilities of losing regular-season games and revenue near. If regular-season games are lost, negotiations may become a standoff of which side can tolerate the most economic loss.

Based on 2026 opening day figures, eight teams would have to cut payroll to get under the cap. The teams over are the two-time reigning World Series champion Dodgers, New York Mets ($379.2 million), New York Yankees ($339.6 million), Toronto ($319.5 million), Philadelphia ($315.2 million), Boston ($263.7 million), San Diego ($260.1 million) and Atlanta ($247.9 million).

Twelve teams would be required to increase payroll by a total of $617 million based on 2026 numbers: Miami ($81.8 million), Cleveland ($95.7 million), Tampa Bay ($108.2 million), the Chicago White Sox ($108.6 million), St. Louis ($114.4 million), Washington ($119.1 million), Pittsburgh ($122.6 million), Minnesota ($125.6 million), Milwaukee ($130.9 million), the Athletics ($139.2 million), Colorado ($142.2 million) and Cincinnati ($148.8 million).

Owners and the union agreed to a luxury tax in 2003 designed to slow spending, but teams feel it has had little or no impact on the Dodgers and Mets in recent years. The last small-market MLB club to win a World Series was Kansas City in 2015, although Cleveland, Tampa Bay and Milwaukee all lead their divisions as of Thursday, while the Mets and Red Sox are in last place.

MLB said its revenue has grown by 247% since 2003 and player payroll has increased by 149% in that span.

Management gave the union its latest plan during a bargaining session at the commissioner’s office, one day after the union made its economic proposal. Owners say a cap is needed to improve competitive balance and restrain wealthy teams from assembling starrier rosters than their smaller-market brethren.

Players want expanded free agency and salary arbitration rights along with almost doubling the major league minimum, increasing the money high-revenue teams share with the less-wealthy clubs and establishing penalties for teams that drop below payroll floors.

Other U.S. major sports leagues operate under a cap. The NBA had a cap in its initial season in 1946-47, then dropped that and began its modern version in 1984-85. NFL players and owners adopted a cap for the 1994 season, and the NHL did so in 2005-06 after a lockout wiped out the entire 2004-05 season.

The Dodgers shattered MLB’s spending record with a combined $515 million in payroll and luxury tax last year en route to their second straight World Series title. Los Angeles’ total was seven times the $68.7 million payroll of the Marlins, the lowest-spending team, and more than the payrolls of the bottom six clubs combined.

Players say a cap would hurt them and enrich owners, and they say they will never agree to one. Without a cap, MLB stars have landed lucrative, guaranteed contracts that outpace what the biggest stars in other U.S. sports leagues make. Juan Soto’s $765 million, 15-year contract with the Mets is believed to be the biggest ever in team sports and is far greater than the largest deals in the NFL (Patrick Mahomes at $450 million over 10 years) and NBA (Jayson Tatum at $314 million over five years).

MLB’s last salary cap proposal in 1994 offered players a 50-50 split of revenue in a system that would have forced teams to maintain payrolls of 84%-110% of the average. Salary arbitration would have been eliminated and the threshold for free agency would have been lowered from six years’ major league service to four — with the provision that a player’s former club could match any offer until he had six years.

MLB’s offer came on June 14 that year, and players struck on Aug. 12. MLB withdrew the cap proposal the following Feb. 6 after pressure by the National Labor Relations Board. The strike ended on March 31 after U.S. District Judge Sonia Sotomayor — now a Supreme Court justice — issued an injunction restoring the work rules of the expired labor contract. Two days later, owners accepted the union’s offer to return to work without an agreement. A deal wasn’t reached until 1997.

Baseball owners hadn’t proposed a firm cap since 1994. Their effort prompted a 7 1/2-month strike that forced the cancellation of the World Series for the first time in 90 years.

MLB’s proposal would cap spending in 2027 at $245.3 million, using figures for luxury tax payrolls that include benefits and the pre-arbitration bonus pool, and establish a payroll floor of $171.2 million. The Los Angeles Dodgers, baseball’s biggest spenders, had a $415.2 million payroll on opening day this year — around $170 million over the proposed cap.

Owners said they would discuss a phase-in schedule that would give teams like the Dodgers time to comply with the cap and an escrow system with the union as part of a proposed seven-year deal, that all current contracts would remain guaranteed and there would be no prohibition of guaranteed contracts under the cap system.

MLB said it would centralize local media revenue from the 30 teams equally and give players a 50-50 split as part of a proposal that would eliminate the current revenue-sharing plan among the clubs.

“Our salary cap and floor proposal levels the playing field while sharing baseball revenue with the players 50/50 as we grow the game together,” MLB spokesman Glen Caplin said in a statement. “Further, by sharing media revenue equally as part of our proposal, we can address another top fan concern of local TV blackouts.”

Baseball’s current five-year deal, agreed to in March 2022 after a 99-day lockout, expires Dec. 2. While a lockout next winter is expected, talks are not likely to intensify until late February or early March 2027, when the possibilities of losing regular-season games and revenue near. If regular-season games are lost, negotiations may become a standoff of which side can tolerate the most economic loss.

Based on 2026 opening day figures, eight teams would have to cut payroll to get under the cap. The teams over are the two-time reigning World Series champion Dodgers, New York Mets ($379.2 million), New York Yankees ($339.6 million), Toronto ($319.5 million), Philadelphia ($315.2 million), Boston ($263.7 million), San Diego ($260.1 million) and Atlanta ($247.9 million).

Twelve teams would be required to increase payroll by a total of $617 million based on 2026 numbers: Miami ($81.8 million), Cleveland ($95.7 million), Tampa Bay ($108.2 million), the Chicago White Sox ($108.6 million), St. Louis ($114.4 million), Washington ($119.1 million), Pittsburgh ($122.6 million), Minnesota ($125.6 million), Milwaukee ($130.9 million), the Athletics ($139.2 million), Colorado ($142.2 million) and Cincinnati ($148.8 million).

Owners and the union agreed to a luxury tax in 2003 designed to slow spending, but teams feel it has had little or no impact on the Dodgers and Mets in recent years. The last small-market MLB club to win a World Series was Kansas City in 2015, although Cleveland, Tampa Bay and Milwaukee all lead their divisions as of Thursday, while the Mets and Red Sox are in last place.

MLB said its revenue has grown by 247% since 2003 and player payroll has increased by 149% in that span.

Management gave the union its latest plan during a bargaining session at the commissioner’s office, one day after the union made its economic proposal. Owners say a cap is needed to improve competitive balance and restrain wealthy teams from assembling starrier rosters than their smaller-market brethren.

Players want expanded free agency and salary arbitration rights along with almost doubling the major league minimum, increasing the money high-revenue teams share with the less-wealthy clubs and establishing penalties for teams that drop below payroll floors.

Other U.S. major sports leagues operate under a cap. The NBA had a cap in its initial season in 1946-47, then dropped that and began its modern version in 1984-85. NFL players and owners adopted a cap for the 1994 season, and the NHL did so in 2005-06 after a lockout wiped out the entire 2004-05 season.

The Dodgers shattered MLB’s spending record with a combined $515 million in payroll and luxury tax last year en route to their second straight World Series title. Los Angeles’ total was seven times the $68.7 million payroll of the Marlins, the lowest-spending team, and more than the payrolls of the bottom six clubs combined.

Players say a cap would hurt them and enrich owners, and they say they will never agree to one. Without a cap, MLB stars have landed lucrative, guaranteed contracts that outpace what the biggest stars in other U.S. sports leagues make. Juan Soto’s $765 million, 15-year contract with the Mets is believed to be the biggest ever in team sports and is far greater than the largest deals in the NFL (Patrick Mahomes at $450 million over 10 years) and NBA (Jayson Tatum at $314 million over five years).

MLB’s last salary cap proposal in 1994 offered players a 50-50 split of revenue in a system that would have forced teams to maintain payrolls of 84%-110% of the average. Salary arbitration would have been eliminated and the threshold for free agency would have been lowered from six years’ major league service to four — with the provision that a player’s former club could match any offer until he had six years.

MLB’s offer came on June 14 that year, and players struck on Aug. 12. MLB withdrew the cap proposal the following Feb. 6 after pressure by the National Labor Relations Board. The strike ended on March 31 after U.S. District Judge Sonia Sotomayor — now a Supreme Court justice — issued an injunction restoring the work rules of the expired labor contract. Two days later, owners accepted the union’s offer to return to work without an agreement. A deal wasn’t reached until 1997.

Subscribe to read this story ad-free

Get unlimited access to ad-free articles and exclusive content.

The recall covers approximately 5.8 million Stainless King Food Jars and 2.3 million Sportsman Food & Beverage Bottles. According to a recall notice posted by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission on April 30, consumers should stop using the affected products immediately.

The affected models include Thermos Sportsman Food & Beverage Bottles: all units, model SK3010; Food Jars and Food & Beverage Bottles: all units, models SK3000 (16-ounce), SK3020 (24-ounce), and SK3010 (40-ounce); and Thermos Stainless King Food Jars manufactured before July 2023: models SK3000 and SK3020.

The model number can be found at the bottom of the item.

The hazard stems from a design flaw in the stopper — the component that retains heat and prevents leakage. If perishable food or beverages are stored for an extended period, pressure can build up and cause the stopper to forcefully eject when the container is opened. Unlike safer designs, the stopper on the recalled models lacks a pressure-relief valve.

Thermos said it has received 27 reports of consumers being struck by an ejected stopper, including injuries requiring medical attention. Three consumers reported suffering permanent vision loss after being struck in the eye.

The recalled products were sold between March 2008 and July 2024 at Walmart, Target, and Amazon, as well as on Thermos.com. They were available in a variety of colors and bear the Thermos trademark on the side.

Owners of SK3000 and SK3020 Food Jars should dispose of the stopper and submit a photo of the disposal to Thermos. Owners of SK3010 bottles should return the product using a prepaid shipping label provided by the company. For details on returns and replacements, visit the Thermos recall page at Thermos.com.

Subscribe to read this story ad-free

Get unlimited access to ad-free articles and exclusive content.

On Thursday, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission announced that the stuffed animals pose a serious risk of injury or death, as the detached zipper can present a choking hazard.

The recall number is 034464. The recall number can be found on the product label located on the back of one of the bear’s legs.

The bear includes a stuffed heart that fits inside a pocket. The heart-shaped insert is filled with 2.5 pounds of ceramic beads and can be used as a heating pad or chilled for cooling comfort.

“The product is graded 3 years+ and carries a cautionary statement advising adult supervision due to the heated/cooled element,” the release stated.

The bear was sold between January 2026 and March 2026 for about $48.

Customers are advised to immediately stop using the Heartwarming Hugs Bear. Consumers who purchased the bear should return it to the nearest Build-A-Bear store or request a shipping label at www.buildabear.com/recalls. Once returned, Build-A-Bear will issue a refund to the original form of payment or provide a gift card.

There have been no reported injuries, although one consumer in the United Kingdom reported the zipper detaching.

For information on the recall visit Build-A-Bear online at www.buildabear.com/recalls according to the release.