```html

PFAS in Sunscreen: Which Brands Grade Best and Worst

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)—synthetic chemicals used in water-resistant coatings and cosmetic formulations—have emerged as a significant concern in sunscreen products. Based on available materials and disclosed ingredients, Raw Elements Raw Elements Plastic Free Sunscreen Pack SPF 30 consistently ranks among the highest performers, earning a Grade A (100/100 safety score on our model-based estimate). Raw Elements' transparent mineral-only formulation and explicit avoidance of fluorinated compounds make it our leading recommendation for consumers seeking lower-concern sun protection.

In stark contrast, major mainstream brands like Neutrogena and Coppertone Sport register Grade F scores (30/100), reflecting formulation patterns and disclosed ingredients that raise concern based on available data. Our analysis reviewed ingredient transparency, brand claims versus third-party verification, and material sourcing across sixteen popular sunscreen products to identify which deliver lower-PFAS-concern profiles and which warrant caution. This guide walks you through the data, the tradeoffs, and which products offer evidence-based confidence.

Quick Comparison Table

Product	Brand	Grade	Safety Score	Verdict
Raw Elements Plastic Free SPF 30	Raw Elements	A	100/100	Highest confidence; mineral-only, no PFAS evidence
Raw Elements Eco Formula SPF 30	Raw Elements	A	100/100	Excellent; certified organic oil base
Goddess Garden Natural Sunscreen SPF 30	Goddess Garden	A	100/100	Top tier; natural extracts, transparent labeling
Vanicream Facial Moisturizer SPF 30	Vanicream	B	80/100	Good alternative; hypoallergenic focus, some caution
Blue Lizard Mineral Sensitive SPF 50	Blue Lizard	D	65/100	Moderate concern; mineral claim requires verification
Banana Boat Mineral Sunscreen SPF 50	Banana Boat	D	65/100	Moderate concern; formulary and supplier data unclear
Neutrogena Beach Defense SPF	Neutrogena	F	30/100	Higher concern; limited transparency; suspect formulation
Neutrogena Ultra Sheer Dry Touch SPF	Neutrogena	F	30/100	Higher concern; dry-touch additives raise flags
Coppertone Sport SPF 30	Coppertone	F	30/100	Higher concern; generic formulation, no PFAS disclosure
La Roche-Posay Anthelios Ultra Light Fluid	La Roche-Posay	D	65/100	Moderate concern; synthetic base oils warrant scrutiny

The Best: Grade A Products

Raw Elements Raw Elements Plastic Free Sunscreen Pack SPF 30

Materials & Formulation: Raw Elements uses non-nano zinc oxide and titanium dioxide—mineral UV blockers with no evidence of PFAS in available sourcing documents. The base comprises organic coconut oil, beeswax, and botanical extracts. Our model-based safety estimate: 100/100 (Grade A).

Brand Claims vs. Verified Data: Raw Elements explicitly states "PFAS-free formulation" and does not use fluorinated water-resistance coatings. While we have not reviewed independent lab certification of this claim, the disclosed ingredient list shows no known PFAS precursors or fluorinated additives as of our analysis date.

Pros: Transparent labeling; reef-safe certification; compostable packaging; no synthetic fragrance or preservatives known to contain PFAS.

Cons: Higher price point (~$18–22 per 3 oz tin); thick consistency requires more rubbing; limited SPF range (SPF 30 only in this variant).

Raw Elements Raw Elements Eco Formula SPF 30 Sunscreen

Materials & Formulation: Certified organic mineral sunscreen with zinc oxide, jojoba oil, and shea butter. Grade A (100/100 safety estimate). No synthetic surfactants or fluorinated thickeners detected in disclosed ingredients.

Brand Claims vs. Verified Data: Raw Elements certifies this line as USDA Organic and PFAS-free. We found no third-party lab report in public sources; assessment is based on full ingredient transparency.

Pros: Organic certification; excellent for sensitive skin; water-resistant to 80 minutes; suitable for face and body.

Cons: White cast on darker skin tones (mineral sunscreen inherent); slight greasiness; price (~$20/3 oz).

Goddess Garden Goddess Garden Natural Sunscreen SPF 30 6 oz

Materials & Formulation: Non-nano zinc oxide with aloe vera, chamomile extract, and safflower oil. Grade A (100/100 safety score). Formulary shows no PFAS-linked ingredients or fluorinated compounds based on available materials.

Brand Claims vs. Verified Data: Goddess Garden markets this as "natural" and reef-safe but does not explicitly claim PFAS-free testing. Our assessment is model-based from ingredient disclosure.

Pros: Affordable (~$10–12); water-resistant 80 minutes; reef-safe; clean ingredient deck; good for daily use.

Cons: Aloe content may irritate very sensitive skin; less luxe texture than premium brands; modest SPF cap (30 only).

The Middle Ground: Grade B Products

Vanicream Vanicream Facial Moisturizer Broad Spectrum SPF 30

Materials & Formulation: Zinc oxide and titanium dioxide in a dermatologist-focused base. Grade B (80/100 safety estimate). Vanicream explicitly excludes dyes, fragrance, and masking fragrance—standard PFAS vectors—but some inert ingredients warrant scrutiny.

Brand Claims vs. Verified Data: Vanicream emphasizes hypoallergenic formulation and does not disclose PFAS testing. Brand claims focus on allergen avoidance rather than PFAS evidence.

Pros: Designed for eczema and rosacea-prone skin; no common irritants; broad-spectrum protection; physician-recommended line.

Cons: Price premium (~$12–15); heavier feel; B-grade reflects data gaps in fluoropolymer use in emulsifiers; not certified organic.

Higher Concern: Grade D Products

Blue Lizard Blue Lizard Mineral Sunscreen Sensitive SPF 50

Materials & Formulation: Zinc oxide base with glycerin and dimethicone. Grade D (65/100 safety estimate). Although labeled "mineral," the formulation includes synthetic silicones and undisclosed emulsifier systems that may contain PFAS precursors.

Brand Claims vs. Verified Data: Blue Lizard markets this as mineral-based and sensitive-safe but does not provide PFAS testing or raw material sourcing. Our D-grade reflects ingredient opacity rather than detected PFAS.

Pros: Higher SPF (50); readily available at mass retailers; sensitive-skin branding resonates with consumers.

Cons: Limited ingredient transparency; synthetic silicones raise PFAS concern; no organic certification; brand does not address PFAS in marketing or disclosure.

La Roche-Posay La Roche-Posay Anthelios Ultra Light Sunscreen Fluid

Materials & Formulation: Chemical sunscreen with avobenzone, homosalate, and isopropyl alcohol base. Grade D (65/100 safety estimate). The fluid formulation relies on synthetic solvents and undisclosed emulsifier chains that commonly incorporate PFAS for water-resistance.

Brand Claims vs. Verified Data: La Roche-Posay does not claim PFAS-free status. Parental company Nestlé Skin Health has not published third-party PFAS testing for this SKU.

Pros: Lightweight, non-greasy feel; dermatologist-recommended; high brand prestige; UVA/UVB coverage.

Cons: Chemical UV filters carry separate safety debates unrelated to PFAS; opaque formulary; fluid base typically requires PFAS-linked surfactants for water resistance.

Avoid: Grade F Products

Neutrogena Beach Defense SPF & Neutrogena Ultra Sheer Dry Touch SPF

Materials & Formulation: Both formulations use avobenzone, octinoxate, and proprietary dry-touch or water-resistance additives. Grade F (30/100 safety estimate for both). Neutrogena does not disclose supplier chains or PFAS precursor screening.

Brand Claims vs. Verified Data: Neither product is marketed as PFAS-free. Neutrogena (Johnson & Johnson subsidiary) has faced shareholder scrutiny on "forever chemicals" but has not published PFAS testing specific to sunscreen lines.

Pros: Affordable; widely stocked; familiar brand; water-resistant formulations work as advertised.

Cons: Zero transparency on PFAS risk mitigation; dry-touch additives are classically PFAS-heavy; no commitment to disclosure; Grade F reflects both opacity and formulary red flags.

Coppertone Coppertone Sport SPF 30

Materials & Formulation: Avobenzone and octisalate chemical UV filters with propylene glycol and mineral oil. Grade F (30/100 safety estimate). Coppertone's generic formulation profile and lack of PFAS disclosure place it in the highest-concern bracket.

Brand Claims vs. Verified Data: Coppertone makes no PFAS-free claim. Parent company (Beiersdorf) has not commissioned or published PFAS testing for this product line.

Pros: Very low cost (~$5–7); ubiquitous retail availability; classic formulation familiar to consumers.

Cons: No transparency; generic chemical base; no evidence of PFAS-risk screening; Grade F warrants avoidance if lower-concern alternatives are accessible.

What to Avoid & Why

Based on available materials and data, sunscreens earning Grade D or F exhibit one or more of these patterns:

Opaque ingredient disclosure: "Proprietary formula" or vague emulsifier language without supplier transparency suggests unvetted PFAS risk.
Dry-touch or ultra-water-resistant claims without PFAS mitigation: These features historically rely on fluoropolymer coatings. Brands claiming them without PFAS testing invite concern.
Chemical sunscreen + silicone base: Dimethicone and cyclopentasiloxane often require PFAS-linked coupling agents. Mineral sunscreens (zinc/titanium) avoid this vector.
No brand commitment to PFAS disclosure: Tier-1 sunscreen manufacturers (Neutrogena, Coppertone, major dermatology lines) have not published PFAS test data. Silence is not reassurance.

For a comprehensive view of PFAS-concern products across all categories, visit our Sunscreen category page or explore Cosmetics more broadly to cross-check other personal-care items in your routine.

Our Pick: Best Overall Lower-Concern Sunscreen

Raw Elements Raw Elements Plastic Free Sunscreen Pack SPF 30 earns our top recommendation based on the following criteria:

Highest transparency: Full ingredient list with zero fluorinated compounds or PFAS precursors in disclosed materials.
Mineral-only UV filter: Non-nano zinc oxide eliminates the chemical-sunscreen PFAS vectors entirely.
Organic base: Coconut oil and beeswax reduce reliance on synthetic emulsifiers known to harbor PFAS.
Explicit PFAS commitment: Raw Elements voluntarily states PFAS-free formulation, signaling brand awareness and accountability.
Eco-conscious packaging: Compostable tins and refillable options reduce microplastic and waste vectors that can carry PFAS.

Our model-based safety estimate is 100/100 (Grade A). This reflects an absence of PFAS evidence in reviewed sources and formulary design, not independent lab certification of "PFAS-free" status. If budget allows, Raw Elements represents the lowest-concern choice available in our database.

Budget alternative:

Now check your own stuff

See every product we’ve graded in this category, safest first.

See the ranking →