```html

PFAS in Menstrual Cups: Which Brands Grade Best and Worst

Aisle DIVA Cup Model 2 stands out in our analysis as the leading option, earning a grade A (100/100 safety score) based on available materials and data from public sources. This model-based estimate reflects no evidence of PFAS-related concerns in Aisle's disclosed product composition and manufacturing practices. In contrast, most mainstream menstrual cup brands—including market leaders like Diva Cup DIVA Cup Model 2, Lena Lena Menstrual Cup, and Flex Flex Menstrual Cup—receive an F grade (60/100 safety score), reflecting limited publicly available PFAS testing data and insufficient brand transparency on fluorinated compound usage in their manufacturing supply chains.

The disparity is stark: while menstrual cups are marketed as sustainable, body-safe alternatives to disposable period products, most leading brands have not published third-party lab results confirming the absence of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)—chemicals used in water resistance coatings and nonstick treatments. Aisle's commitment to materials disclosure and transparent sourcing represents a meaningful departure from industry silence on this issue. Based on current available data, consumers seeking lower concern options face limited choices, but transparency remains the strongest differentiator among competitors.

Product	PFAS Grade	Safety Score	Verdict
Aisle DIVA Cup Model 2	A	100/100	Lower concern; robust materials disclosure
Diva Cup DIVA Cup Model 2	F	60/100	Limited PFAS testing; brand claims lack third-party verification
Lena Lena Menstrual Cup	F	60/100	Insufficient public data on fluorinated compounds
Flex Flex Menstrual Cup	F	60/100	No verified PFAS lab results published
Saalt Menstrual Cup Saalt	F	60/100	Lacks transparency on PFAS-related testing

Why PFAS in Menstrual Cups Matters

PFAS are synthetic chemicals used in manufacturing to impart water and grease resistance. They persist indefinitely in the environment and accumulate in the human body over time. While menstrual cups are celebrated for eliminating single-use waste, they remain in direct contact with delicate vaginal tissue for up to 12 hours per cycle, potentially over decades. Although direct causation between PFAS exposure and health effects is not established, scientific literature documents associations between elevated PFAS levels and reduced immune response, hormonal disruption, and other physiological changes. Given this exposure pathway, consumers deserve transparency about whether PFAS-containing coatings or materials are present in their menstrual cups.

Menstrual cup manufacturers typically do not publish PFAS testing data, leaving consumers to infer safety from vague marketing language. The absence of disclosed PFAS testing is not the same as the absence of PFAS—a crucial distinction reflected in our grading system. This buyer's guide examines the leading brands across the market to identify which offer stronger materials transparency and lower concern profiles.

The Winner: Aisle DIVA Cup Model 2

Aisle DIVA Cup Model 2 earns our best-available grade based on published materials disclosures and supply chain transparency. Our model-based estimate of 100/100 reflects no evidence of PFAS-related concerns in reviewed public sources and brand materials. Aisle has communicated detailed information about product composition and manufacturing practices, including supplier vetting and material sourcing protocols that prioritize lower-concern inputs.

Materials & Design: Aisle uses medical-grade silicone, a thermoplastic elastomer chosen specifically for its low leach profile and absence of fluorinated coatings. The company discloses its silicone sourcing and notes that the curing process does not involve PFAS-containing mold releases or additives.

Brand Claims (Stated): Aisle markets the cup as "made from medical-grade silicone without fluorinated compounds" and publishes supplier audits on its website. These are brand-stated claims and have not been independently lab-verified for PFAS absence; however, the transparency itself is notable.

Pros: Clear materials disclosure; published information on manufacturing practices; responsive customer service regarding chemical content; no evidence of PFAS use in available data sources.

Cons: Higher price point than mainstream competitors; smaller market presence may limit retail availability; no independent third-party lab certification explicitly confirming PFAS non-detection.

The Mainstream Market: F-Grade Brands

The following brands dominate the menstrual cup market but receive F grades (60/100 safety scores) due to insufficient publicly available PFAS testing data and limited transparency on fluorinated compound usage in manufacturing:

Diva Cup DIVA Cup Model 2

Materials & Design: Medical-grade silicone; thermoplastic elastomer stem.

Brand Claims (Stated): Diva Cup advertises the product as "hypoallergenic" and "made from medical-grade silicone," but does not publicly disclose PFAS testing or publish supplier information related to fluorinated compound usage.

Pros: Widely available; established brand with extensive online reviews; affordable relative to premium alternatives; various sizes available.

Cons: No published PFAS lab results; vague "medical-grade silicone" claims without detailed sourcing transparency; brand does not address fluorinated coatings or mold release agents in public materials; F grade reflects this data gap, not confirmed PFAS presence.

Lena Lena Menstrual Cup

Materials & Design: Medical-grade silicone; available in classic and sensitive formulations; various sizes.

Brand Claims (Stated): Marketed as "hypoallergenic" and "toxin-free," but lacks public PFAS testing data or detailed supply chain disclosure.

Pros: Good product reviews for comfort and leak prevention; multiple size options; moderate pricing.

Cons: "Toxin-free" marketing claims are broad and unverified; no third-party PFAS lab results available; limited transparency on manufacturing practices; F grade reflects insufficient data, not confirmed contamination.

Flex Flex Menstrual Cup

Materials & Design: Proprietary flexible polymer; designed to sit lower in the vaginal canal than traditional cups; plastic applicator.

Brand Claims (Stated): Advertised as "body-safe" and made from "healthcare-grade materials," without specific PFAS testing disclosure.

Pros: Unique design appeals to users who find traditional cups uncomfortable; strong customer loyalty; innovative marketing.

Cons: Proprietary polymer composition not fully disclosed; no published PFAS testing; higher price point than Diva Cup; F grade reflects limited transparency on fluorinated additives or coatings used in polymer production.

Saalt Menstrual Cup Saalt and Saalt Package Free Shop Soft Menstrual Cup Duo Pack

Materials & Design: Medical-grade silicone; available in soft and classic variants.

Brand Claims (Stated): Marketed as "sustainable" and "hypoallergenic," emphasizing plastic-free packaging; does not publish PFAS lab results or detailed material sourcing.

Pros: Strong sustainability messaging; plastic-free packaging; multiple firmness options; reasonable pricing.

Cons: Sustainability focus does not extend to published PFAS transparency; no third-party lab verification of fluorinated compound absence; F grade reflects data gaps, not confirmed PFAS use; brand does not address manufacturing practices in public materials.

What to Avoid: Red Flags in Menstrual Cup Marketing

Unverified "Toxin-Free" or "Body-Safe" Claims: These terms are marketing language without regulatory definition. Absence of published PFAS testing data does not equal absence of PFAS. Seek brands that specify materials and testing, rather than relying on vague reassurances.

No Supplier or Materials Disclosure: Brands unwilling to share information about silicone sourcing, mold release agents, or curing processes may be obscuring PFAS-related practices. Transparency is a signal of confidence in product composition.

Proprietary Polymer Blends Without Ingredient Lists: Flex and some newer brands use proprietary materials. Without published ingredient disclosure or third-party testing, it is impossible to verify absence of fluorinated additives or coatings.

Low Price Points with No Materials Transparency: While affordability is important, extremely low-cost menstrual cups without published quality assurance or testing data may indicate use of lower-cost manufacturing processes associated with PFAS-containing additives or coatings.

For a full directory of period care products reviewed across our database, consult our comprehensive category index.

Our Pick: Lower-Concern Shopping Strategy

Based on available materials and data, Aisle DIVA Cup Model 2 represents the lower-concern choice for consumers prioritizing PFAS-related transparency. The grade A score (100/100, model-based estimate) reflects published materials disclosure and supply chain practices that distinguish it from F-grade competitors. This is not a guarantee of PFAS absence, as independent lab testing is limited across the industry; rather, it reflects the strongest available transparency currently published by any mainstream menstrual cup brand.

For consumers unable to access Aisle products or seeking alternatives, the following approach mitigates concern: contact prospective brands directly and request published PFAS testing results, materials specifications, and supplier information before purchase. Brands offering detailed responses signal willingness to address these concerns; silence or vague reassurances should inform decision-making.

The menstrual cup industry remains largely opaque on PFAS. Meaningful change requires consumer demand for transparency. By choosing brands that publish materials data—or by communicating directly with manufacturers—users reinforce the market signal that PFAS disclosure matters in intimate-use products.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Are menstrual cups safer than tampons or pads regarding PFAS exposure?

Menstrual cups, tampons, and pads all have potential PFAS-related concerns. Tampons and pads may contain PFAS from water-resistant coatings or bleaching byproducts; menstrual cups may contain PFAS from silicone additives or manufacturing processes. No category has published systematic third-party testing data comparing PFAS levels across products. Extended contact duration with a menstrual cup (up to 12 hours per cycle) presents a theoretically higher cumulative exposure pathway than disposable products used for shorter intervals, though direct causation between exposure and health outcomes is not established in scientific literature. Product choice should reflect personal preference, comfort, and environmental values rather than assumed PFAS superiority of any category.

2. What does an F grade mean—does it confirm PFAS is present in the product?

No. An F grade (60/100 safety score) indicates insufficient publicly available PFAS testing data and limited brand transparency on fluorinated compound usage—not confirmed PFAS contamination. Our model-based estimates reflect data gaps, not laboratory detection. To know whether a specific product contains PFAS, independent third-party lab testing using standardized protocols would be required. Most menstrual cup brands have not undergone such testing or published results. The F grade serves as a transparency signal: brands refusing or failing to disclose materials and testing practices warrant caution, as consumers cannot independently verify product composition.

3. Should I avoid all F-grade menstrual cups and only buy the A-grade option?

Personal decision-making should weigh multiple factors beyond PFAS concerns. An F grade reflects insufficient data transparency, not confirmed harm. Some F-grade products may pose lower PFAS risk than available data suggests; conversely, no menstrual cup brand has published independent lab results confirming PFAS non-detection. Budget, comfort, personal health history, and brand ethics are all legitimate considerations. If PFAS transparency is a priority, the Aisle product offers better available data; if other factors dominate your choice, you may reasonably select an F-grade product while acknowledging the data limitation. Ideally, all menstrual cup brands would publish PFAS lab results. Until that occurs, consumers must decide whether available transparency is sufficient for their individual risk tolerance.

```