Bonnie & Clyde · Deodorant
The Class Deodorant
Lower PFAS concern for standard deodorant; no red flags, but no public assurance either.
Deodorants are not inherent PFAS-risk products since they typically lack water-repellent coatings, nonstick surfaces, or grease-resistant treatments that commonly contain PFAS. Bonnie & Clyde has not publicly disclosed PFAS status for this product.
Shop Bonnie & Clyde on Amazon →Material
Deodorant base (presumed wax, starch, oil)
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.
No PFAS disclosure
No public statement about PFAS in this product.
Safe base material
Made from a material with no inherent PFAS use (ceramic, mineral, or natural fiber).
The full breakdown
What it's made of and why it matters
The Class is a solid stick deodorant based on wax, starch, and oils, the conventional formulation for most natural and conventional brands. This base is chemically stable, non-volatile at skin temperature, and poses minimal inhalation risk compared to aerosol sprays. No synthetic polymers, silicones, or talc are publicly listed in the disclosed ingredients, which reduces several legacy safety concerns in this category.
The brand's record and disclosure
Bonnie & Clyde markets itself as a clean-beauty deodorant brand but has not published detailed safety certifications (e.g., EWG Verified, MADE SAFE) or third-party testing results on common allergens and heavy metals. The brand's silence on PFAS and ingredient sourcing limits consumer assurance, though no recalls or public safety incidents are on record. Lack of transparency is a caution flag rather than a confirmed hazard.
How it compares in its category
Solid-stick deodorants like this occupy a lower-risk position than aerosols (no propellant inhalation) and antiperspirant gels (which often carry aluminum salts). Among natural and indie brands, The Class sits in the mainstream safety profile, neither exceptional in disclosure nor flagged for quality issues. Comparable competitors (Kopari, Native, Meow Meow Tweet) often provide similar or slightly better ingredient transparency.
If you buy it
Apply a small amount to clean, dry underarm skin; the wax base will soften slightly with body heat but should not flake excessively if stored below 75°F. Replace when the stick is visibly depleted or shows significant hardening (typically 2-3 months with daily use). Discontinue if rash or irritation develops, as fragrance or botanical oils may trigger sensitivity in some users; patch test on inner arm first if prone to contact dermatitis.
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.”
Fragrance allergens and essential oils
The Class uses fragrance components (specific ingredients not fully disclosed on brand website). Common deodorant fragrances and botanical oils can trigger contact dermatitis or respiratory sensitivity in 5-15% of users; full ingredient list needed to assess specific risk.
Heavy metals in botanical pigments or mineral colorants
No recalls or third-party testing data are publicly available for The Class. If the formulation includes iron oxides, mica, or plant-derived dyes for color, trace lead or cadmium is theoretically possible but unconfirmed for this brand; standard cosmetic regulations limit but do not eliminate this risk.
Formaldehyde releasers or preservatives
No preservative system is explicitly disclosed by the brand. Wax-based formulations typically require minimal preservation; if phenolic or urea-formaldehyde releasers are used, they are not indicated in publicly available materials.
Talc or talc-adjacent mineral contamination
The Class does not list talc in disclosed ingredients, reducing asbestos and ovarian cancer risk associated with talc-based deodorants. However, if the starch component is sourced from talc-mining regions without certification, trace contamination is theoretically possible but undocumented.
Skin irritation from wax sensitivity or rancidity over time
Wax-based sticks can harbor bacterial growth if left damp or stored in humid conditions, and oils may oxidize over months, causing rancid odor or mild irritation. Proper storage (cool, dry place) and timely replacement mitigate this.
What we don’t know
This grade is a model-based estimate from public materials, coatings, and brand disclosure at 68% 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
mineral-based, baking soda formulation
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
mineral-based and plant-derived actives; stick formulation
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
mineral-based active ingredients, plant-derived botanicals, no synthetic water-repellent coatings
Lower PFAS concern, mineral-based formula with MADE SAFE cert; antiperspirant category has minimal waterproof-coating risk.
✓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.