75/ 100
C
OverallD67/100
Baxter Best Gift Ever Bath and Body Gift Set Trio

Baxter of California · Deodorant

Baxter Best Gift Ever Bath and Body Gift Set Trio

C · Moderate

Lower PFAS concern; typical bath/body cosmetics rarely contain PFAS, but brand offers no transparency.

Verdict: BuyWater-based soap and glycerin cosmetic with no established safety concerns; typical bath/body formulation poses minimal risk if used as directed.

This is a standard bath and body gift set (soaps, lotions, fragrances) with no inherent reason to contain PFAS, products in this category don't require water-resistance, stain-proofing, or non-stick coatings. Baxter of California makes no PFAS claims either way.

Shop Baxter of California on Amazon →

Material

soap, fragrance, glycerin, water base

Brand disclosure

Brand is silent on PFAS

Lab data

No public lab test

Why this grade

Category baseline

cosmetics is a category where PFAS exposure is more common.

Hurts the grade

No PFAS disclosure

No public statement about PFAS in this product.

Hurts the grade

Safe base material

Made from a material with no inherent PFAS use (ceramic, mineral, or natural fiber).

Helps the grade

The full breakdown

What it's made of and why it matters

This is a water-based bath and body soap product composed primarily of soap, fragrance, and glycerin. Glycerin is a humectant that draws moisture into skin and poses no toxicological concern at cosmetic concentrations. The soap base itself is a surfactant mixture designed to cleanse; water-based formulations like this avoid the Teflon-type coating and coating degradation risks present in some cookware or the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) associated with furniture finishes. Fragrance is the main variable in such products and will be discussed separately.

The brand's record and disclosure

Baxter of California markets itself as a grooming and personal care brand but maintains limited public transparency on full ingredient disclosure or third-party certifications. No major recalls or established safety controversies have been reported for this brand in published databases. The company provides no visible stance on PFAS avoidance or transparency, which is typical for many mid-tier personal care brands. Absence of disclosure does not indicate presence of hazards, but it does mean consumers cannot verify claims beyond the listed formula.

How it compares in its category

Bath and body soaps are among the lowest-risk personal care categories because they are rinse-off products with minimal systemic absorption. This glycerin-and-soap formulation is standard and unremarkable compared to peers; it avoids aluminum-based antiperspirants (which this product is not) and aerosol delivery (which can increase inhalation risk). Most commercial soaps in this category carry similar formulations and minimal established hazards. The key differentiator in this class is fragrance safety and skin sensitivity, which varies by individual rather than by inherent product chemistry.

If you buy it

Use as a rinse-off product; do not ingest or allow prolonged contact with eyes. Store in a cool, dry place away from direct heat to preserve fragrance integrity and prevent degradation of packaging. Glycerin-based soaps can soften over time if exposed to water or high humidity; keep bar away from shower walls or use a draining soap dish. Discontinue use if skin irritation occurs; fragrance sensitivity varies widely among individuals, and essential oils or synthetic fragrances are common contact allergens in this product class.

Beyond PFAS: other things we checked

Established hazard classes for this product type, assessed from public information. These never change the PFAS grade; a Likely flag caps the Verdict at “Buy with care.”

Possible

Fragrance allergens and sensitizers

All fragranced personal care products carry risk of contact dermatitis or sensitization in susceptible individuals. The product listing does not specify fragrance type (essential oil vs. synthetic), so inability to assess specific fragrance safety profile. Patch testing is recommended for individuals with history of fragrance sensitivity.

None known

1,4-dioxane contamination

No record of 1,4-dioxane detection in Baxter of California products. This contaminant can arise from certain emulsifiers and surfactants in cosmetics; water-based soaps with minimal synthetic emulsifiers face lower risk. No specific testing data available for this product.

None known

Heavy metals in colorants or preservatives

Soap and glycerin products typically avoid metal pigments (common in color cosmetics); no established recalls or contamination reports for this brand. Preservative systems in rinse-off products are generally low-risk but not detailed on available labeling.

None known

Formaldehyde releasers in preservatives

Glycerin-based aqueous products may use formaldehyde-releasing preservatives (e.g., imidazolidinyl urea), though not confirmed in available product information. Rinse-off status limits exposure. No reports of formaldehyde-related issues from this product.

Possible

Skin irritation from soap pH or additives

All soaps can disrupt skin barrier if used excessively or in individuals with sensitive skin. This product contains standard soap and glycerin, which are generally well-tolerated, but individual sensitivity varies. Discontinuation resolves any irritation.

What we don’t know

This grade is a model-based estimate from public materials, coatings, and brand disclosure at 72% confidence. It is not a lab result.

No independent PFAS lab test is on record for this exact product. A lab test could move the score in either direction.

The brand has not made a specific, verifiable PFAS-free statement, so part of this score reflects that missing disclosure rather than a confirmed material.

Formulations and coatings change between production runs. Always check the current label before buying.

Safer alternatives in Deodorant

Tom's of Maine Deodorant

Tom's of Maine

Deodorant

mineral-based, baking soda formulation

A
B
PFASAll
A · Very low PFAS3 flags

Lower concern, mineral-based formula with public PFAS-free positioning, though no independent third-party verification.

Risky category by default

Tom's of Maine Most-Loved Deodorant Bundle

Tom's of Maine

Most-Loved Deodorant Bundle

mineral-based and plant-derived actives; stick formulation

A
A
PFASAll
A · Very low PFAS2 flags

Lower-concern deodorant; mineral-based formula with PFAS-free claim aligns with brand ethos, but no third-party verification found.

Risky category by default

Tom's of Maine Antiperspirant Deodorant

Tom's of Maine

Antiperspirant Deodorant

mineral-based active ingredients, plant-derived botanicals, no synthetic water-repellent coatings

A
A
PFASAll
A · Very low PFAS2 flags

Lower PFAS concern, mineral-based formula with MADE SAFE cert; antiperspirant category has minimal waterproof-coating risk.

MADE SAFE CertifiedLeaping Bunny (cruelty-free)

Verified PFAS-free by a third party

More deodorant grades

How we score: every product runs through the same public 0–100 rubric based on materials, coatings, brand disclosure, lab findings, and recalls. See the full methodology → Spotted a mistake? Report an error.