Find & compare products

baby wipes

EWG Verified and a published PFAS panel provide different pieces of evidence.

Good

• EWG Verified is listed for this product in the review.
• The cited 30-compound PFAS panel reported non-detect.

Caution

• Certification does not establish results for every contaminant or batch.

Match the reviewed formula to your package; a test does not cover every batch.

baby wipes

A reformulated wipe with ingredient disclosures and published testing to examine.

Good

• The reviewed formula uses sodium benzoate and has no phenoxyethanol.
• The cited 30-compound PFAS panel reported non-detect.

Caution

• Match the post-2024 formula; the diaper lawsuit is not evidence of PFAS in this wipe.

Match the reviewed formula to your package; a test does not cover every batch.

baby wipes

Certification evidence is available; the cited PFAS panel did not include this wipe.

Good

• EWG Verified and Allergy UK listings are cited in the review.

Caution

• Not included in the cited Consumer Reports PFAS panel.

An untested product cannot be described as PFAS-free from this evidence.

baby wipes

Ingredient and certification evidence, with a gap in the cited PFAS testing.

Good

• EWG Verified and the NEA Seal are cited in the review.

Caution

• Not included in the cited Consumer Reports PFAS panel.

An untested product cannot be described as PFAS-free from this evidence.

diaper-rash creams

Lead, cadmium, mercury and arsenic were reported non-detect in the tested balm.

Good

• The tested sample was reported non-detect for all four metals.
• The manufacturer lists olive oil and beeswax, without zinc oxide.

Caution

• Non-detect does not mean zero or establish how well the balm treats a rash.

The report covers the tested sample, not every batch or every product from this brand.

diapers

Extensive disclosure and certification records are strengths, with material changes still to resolve.

Good

• Unusually detailed historical layer-by-layer material disclosure.
• Independent organic-fluorine screening reported non-detect results above the study's reporting capability.
• Current EWG Verified and Nordic Swan database records were located.
• Current MyMicrobiome certification record was located.

Caution

• Material disclosures differ across dates and product designs.
• Public numerical heavy-metal, VOC and pesticide lab reports were not located.

Check the package version: the research does not yet confirm an exact match to every current product.

diapers

Detailed composition and reported testing provide useful starting points for this review.

Good

• Current manufacturer publishes unusually detailed composition information.
• EWG record located for current-size product.
• Both organic-fluorine screening and a separate targeted PFAS test have been reported.

Caution

• The research record does not yet capture every disclosed component.
• Full numerical results and test limits remain incomplete.

Check the package version: the research does not yet confirm an exact match to every current product.

diapers

Disclosed TCF/FSC pulp makes this worth a closer look, with important differences between package versions.

Good

• TCF/FSC pulp disclosed.
• Allergy UK listing located.
• OEKO-TEX package evidence located.
• Organic-fluorine non-detect reported for tested Size 6 cotton-enhanced generation.

Caution

• The organic-fluorine non-detect covers a tested Size 6 cotton-enhanced version only.

Check the package version: the research does not yet confirm an exact match to every current product.

diapers

TCF core, fragrance- and dye-free, heavy-metal-free printing ink, and non-detect organic fluorine (a PFAS marker) — but likely discontinued, so any stock you find may be residual inventory from an older package.

Good

• Historical generation had a relatively clear material disclosure.
• Historical/current tested Sensitive Protection sample was reported non-detect for organic fluorine above 10 ppm.

Caution

• Sensitive Protection is absent from the current manufacturer diaper catalog.
• Marketplace stock may belong to an older package or formulation.

Check the package version: the research does not yet confirm an exact match to every current product.

baby wipes

A short ingredient list; certification matching remains unresolved.

Caution

• EWG Verified status is not confirmed for this exact Sensitive formula.

Good

• No phenoxyethanol in the reviewed ingredient list.
• The cited 30-compound PFAS panel reported non-detect.

Match the reviewed formula to your package; a test does not cover every batch.

baby wipes

The exact formula matters when comparing Sensitive+ with the original WaterWipes.

Caution

• Sensitive+ lists benzalkonium chloride; the original formula also disclosed trace amounts.

Good

• The NEA Seal is listed in the review.
• The cited 30-compound PFAS panel reported non-detect.

Match the reviewed formula to your package; a test does not cover every batch.

baby wipes

Published testing is useful, while the preservative and surfactant keep this in Caution.

Caution

• The reviewed formula contains phenoxyethanol and PEG-40 Hydrogenated Castor Oil.

Good

• A published independent PFAS panel is linked below.
• The cited 30-compound PFAS panel reported non-detect.

Match the reviewed formula to your package; a test does not cover every batch.

baby wipes

Review this Sensitive formula on its own; findings about Simply Clean are not interchangeable.

Caution

• The PFAS lawsuit discussed in the review concerned Simply Clean, a different wipe.

Good

• The reviewed Sensitive formula has no phenoxyethanol.
• The cited 30-compound PFAS panel reported non-detect.

Match the reviewed formula to your package; a test does not cover every batch.

baby wipes

A lower price tier with testing to review and a disclosed preservative to consider.

Caution

• The reviewed formula contains phenoxyethanol.

Good

• A published independent PFAS panel is linked below.
• The cited 30-compound PFAS panel reported non-detect.

Match the reviewed formula to your package; a test does not cover every batch.

baby wipes

Several certification listings, with a preservative question to consider separately.

Caution

• Hydroxyacetophenone is disclosed; infant-specific evidence remains limited in this review.

Good

• Five certification listings cover several different criteria.
• The cited 30-compound PFAS panel reported non-detect.

Match the reviewed formula to your package; a test does not cover every batch.

baby wipes

A disclosed formula with a synthetic substrate and a conditioning ingredient to consider.

Caution

• The reviewed formula contains a conditioning surfactant with limited infant-specific evidence.

Good

• No phenoxyethanol in the reviewed ingredient list.
• The cited 30-compound PFAS panel reported non-detect.

Match the reviewed formula to your package; a test does not cover every batch.

diapers

A cotton topsheet and disclosed TCF/FSC pulp are positives; conflicting test results need resolution.

Caution

• Fluorine-screen results differ across samples and sizes.
• Manufacturer and independent results need comparison of methods, limits and samples.

Good

• Detailed current ingredient/material disclosure.
• Cotton skin-contacting topsheet; TCF/FSC pulp disclosed.

Check the package version: the research does not yet confirm an exact match to every current product.

diapers

Published composition and two non-detect screens are useful, but the disclosed pulp is ECF.

Caution

• The cited manufacturer disclosure specifies ECF pulp, not TCF.
• Exact current product and tested-sample matching remains incomplete.

Good

• Manufacturer publishes percentage composition.
• Two reported fluorine-screening samples were non-detect.

Check the package version: the research does not yet confirm an exact match to every current product.

diapers

Two non-detect fluorine screens offer useful evidence, but current product information is incomplete.

Caution

• The topsheet carries an aloe liner — a lotion-like additive — with no published purity or sourcing standard.
• Availability has also become inconsistent at some retailers.

Good

• Two independent fluorine-screening samples were reported non-detect.

Check the package version: the research does not yet confirm an exact match to every current product.

diapers

BioEmbrace has useful construction disclosures, but older Naty tests cannot establish its results.

Caution

• Recently switched its pulp from TCF to ECF — the specific reason this sits in caution rather than verified.
• The predecessor Eco by Naty line tested non-detect for organic fluorine; that result hasn’t been independently confirmed for the current BioEmbrace formulation.

Good

• Current BioEmbrace construction materials are disclosed at a useful component level.

Check the package version: the research does not yet confirm an exact match to every current product.

diapers

Retailer disclosures provide more material detail than the simplified product descriptions.

Caution

• Discloses an undisclosed-composition citrus/chlorophyll "fragrance" rather than being fragrance-free.
• Uses an elemental chlorine-free (ECF), not TCF, pulp process.

Good

• Current retailer disclosures expose more construction detail than simplified marketing copy.
• Organic-fluorine screening was reported non-detect for tested ECF generation.

Check the package version: the research does not yet confirm an exact match to every current product.

diapers

An expanded retailer disclosure adds useful detail beyond the manufacturer’s shorter list.

Caution

• Carries undisclosed fragrance rather than being fragrance-free.
• Carries undisclosed dyes alongside the fragrance.

Good

• A current retailer listing provides substantially more formulation transparency than the simplified manufacturer page.
• Tested Size 5 sample was reported non-detect for organic fluorine.

Check the package version: the research does not yet confirm an exact match to every current product.

baby wipes

The testing gap keeps this in Insufficient data, rather than establishing a safety problem.

Caution

• No independent lab report for this exact product is linked in this review.

Good

• No phenoxyethanol in the reviewed ingredient list.

An untested product cannot be described as PFAS-free from this evidence.

diaper-rash creams

Lead was reported above 4,000 ppb in the tested 40% zinc-oxide cream.

Avoid

• Lead was reported above 4,000 ppb in the tested 40% zinc-oxide cream.

Caution

• This is the 40% zinc-oxide formula, not the separate 12.8% product.

The report covers the tested sample, not every batch or every product from this brand.

diaper-rash creams

Lead was reported at 3,303.8 ppb in the tested Maximum Strength ointment.

Avoid

• Lead was reported at 3,303.8 ppb in the tested Maximum Strength ointment.

Caution

• This report is for Maximum Strength, not Daily Defense.

The report covers the tested sample, not every batch or every product from this brand.

diaper-rash creams

Lead above 1,200 ppb and cadmium were reported in the tested 13% zinc-oxide cream.

Avoid

• Lead above 1,200 ppb and cadmium were reported in the tested 13% zinc-oxide cream.

Caution

• This report is for Daily Defense, not Maximum Strength.

The report covers the tested sample, not every batch or every product from this brand.

diaper-rash creams

Lead was reported above 1,000 ppb in the tested 40% zinc-oxide paste.

Avoid

• Lead was reported above 1,000 ppb in the tested 40% zinc-oxide paste.

Caution

• This is the 40% zinc-oxide paste, not Aquaphor Healing Ointment.

The report covers the tested sample, not every batch or every product from this brand.

diaper-rash creams

Lead, cadmium and arsenic were reported in the tested calendula diaper cream.

Avoid

• Lead, cadmium and arsenic were reported in the tested calendula diaper cream.

Caution

• These findings do not identify the source of the metals within the formula.

The report covers the tested sample, not every batch or every product from this brand.

diaper-rash creams

Lead and cadmium were reported in the tested HealthyBaby diaper cream.

Avoid

• Lead and cadmium were reported in the tested HealthyBaby diaper cream.

Caution

• These findings do not identify the source of the metals within the formula.

The report covers the tested sample, not every batch or every product from this brand.

diaper-rash creams

Lead and cadmium were reported in the tested Sensitive Baby diaper cream.

Avoid

• Lead and cadmium were reported in the tested Sensitive Baby diaper cream.

Caution

• Exact concentrations have not been transcribed here; consult the original laboratory report.

The report covers the tested sample, not every batch or every product from this brand.

diaper-rash creams

Lead above 1,600 ppb and cadmium were reported in the tested Sensitive Everyday cream.

Avoid

• Lead above 1,600 ppb and cadmium were reported in the tested Sensitive Everyday cream.

Caution

• These findings do not identify the source of the metals within the formula.

The report covers the tested sample, not every batch or every product from this brand.

diaper-rash creams

Lead above 550 ppb and cadmium were reported in the tested Sweet Cheeks paste.

Avoid

• Lead above 550 ppb and cadmium were reported in the tested Sweet Cheeks paste.

Caution

• These findings do not identify the source of the metals within the formula.

The report covers the tested sample, not every batch or every product from this brand.

diaper-rash creams

Lead above 2,500 ppb and cadmium were reported in the tested Baby Diaper Ointment.

Avoid

• Lead above 2,500 ppb and cadmium were reported in the tested Baby Diaper Ointment.

Caution

• These findings do not identify the source of the metals within the formula.

The report covers the tested sample, not every batch or every product from this brand.

diapers

Non-detect for organic fluorine (a PFAS marker) and fragrance-free on chemistry alone — but an ongoing pattern of severe reaction reports and CPSC complaints puts it in avoid.

Avoid

• Over 368 CPSC complaints filed as of mid-2026, alleging an ongoing pattern of severe rash and "chemical burn" reactions since late 2025; reports do not establish causation and no recall has been issued.

Caution

• Current evidence describes ECF pulp; older TCF claims may concern a different version.

Good

• Current package materials and OEKO-TEX certificate number identified.
• Size 3 organic-fluorine screen reported non-detect.

Check the package version: the research does not yet confirm an exact match to every current product.

diapers

A 2023 independent test found 60 ppm organic fluorine (a PFAS marker) on the inner, skin-contact layer — the highest result among eco-marketed diapers in that round of testing.

Avoid

• A 2023 independent test found 60 ppm organic fluorine (a PFAS marker) on the inner, skin-contact layer — the highest result among eco-marketed diapers in that round of testing.
• A confirmed detection, not disputed — disqualifying under our standard regardless of the brand’s other environmental claims.

Good

• Manufacturer currently publishes unusually detailed percentage-based material construction.
• Current EWG product record located.

Check the package version: the research does not yet confirm an exact match to every current product.

diapers

Strong environmental credentials across multiple certifications, but a confirmed 18–22 ppm organic-fluorine (PFAS marker) detection the brand hasn’t contested.

Avoid

• A 2023 independent test found 18 to 22 ppm organic fluorine (a PFAS marker) inside and outside the tested Dream sample.
• Bambo Nature has not published independent testing to contest or contextualize this result — it stays in avoid until an independent retest clears it.

Good

• Manufacturer distinguishes the U.S./Asia Dream line from European products and discloses TCF fluff.

Check the package version: the research does not yet confirm an exact match to every current product.