Cetaphil · Moisturizer
Major Market Fallbrook Moisturizing Cream
Lower PFAS concern; standard moisturizer with no known fluorinated ingredients or water-repellent treatment.
Cetaphil's moisturizing cream is a simple emulsion of common cosmetic oils and humectants with no surfactant coatings, water-repellent treatments, or non-stick additives typical of PFAS use. The brand does not disclose PFAS policy, but the product category and formula pose lower inherent risk.
Shop Cetaphil on Amazon →Material
water-based cream emulsion (glycerin, water, mineral oil, cetyl alcohol)
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
This is a simple water-in-oil emulsion stabilized by cetyl alcohol (a fatty alcohol, not ethanol) with glycerin as a humectant and mineral oil as the occlusive base. These are among the most inert, non-irritating ingredients in skincare chemistry and carry minimal toxicity risk. The formula contains no known endocrine disruptors, no fragrance allergens, and no preservative classes associated with formaldehyde release or 1,4-dioxane contamination in standard formulations.
The brand's record and disclosure
Cetaphil, owned by Galderma, is a dermatologist-recommended brand with decades of clinical use in sensitive-skin populations. The company does not prominently advertise PFAS testing or fluorochemical-free status, but no recalls or safety violations related to this moisturizer are on public record. Ingredient transparency is adequate for a mass-market product, though detailed third-party certifications (e.g., EWG Verified, Leaping Bunny) are absent from most Cetaphil lines.
How it compares in its category
Standard water-based moisturizers in this price and distribution tier (drugstore chains) typically share the same core ingredient profile. Cetaphil's formulation is genuinely simpler than many competitors and avoids synthetic fragrance, dyes, and parabens in many variants. Compared to prestige or natural brands, it offers equivalent safety with less marketing of 'clean' credentials but also lower cost and wider accessibility.
If you buy it
Store in a cool, dry place away from direct heat or sunlight to maintain emulsion stability; do not store in steaming bathrooms long-term, as excess moisture can promote bacterial growth in the jar. Use clean, dry hands or a spatula to dispense to avoid introducing water or bacteria. Replace if you notice separation (oil pooling on top), discoloration, or any off odor, which would indicate emulsion breakdown or microbial contamination.
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.”
Bacterial contamination from moisture exposure
Water-based creams in jars are susceptible to microbial growth if stored in high-humidity environments or if water is introduced during use. No preservative system is foolproof; poor storage hygiene increases risk over time.
Fragrance allergens (if fragrance variant)
The unscented Cetaphil Moisturizing Cream formulation contains no added fragrance; fragrance-free status minimizes allergenic risk. Some Cetaphil lines do include fragrance; verify ingredient label if allergen-prone.
Heavy metals in mineral oil or mineral-derived ingredients
Mineral oil is a highly refined petroleum byproduct; modern pharmaceutical-grade mineral oil used in OTC cosmetics undergoes strict purity testing. No documented heavy metal contamination in Cetaphil moisturizers on public record.
Skin irritation from ethoxylated compounds or contaminants
The core formula (glycerin, water, mineral oil, cetyl alcohol) is non-ethoxylated and does not require harsh surfactants. Formulation is designed for barrier-compromised skin and carries minimal irritation risk for the intended population.
Emulsion breakdown or phase separation over time
Creams may separate if stored at extreme temperatures or if the emulsion stabilizer degrades with age. This does not pose a safety hazard per se but indicates the product should be replaced and is no longer effective.
What we don’t know
This grade is a model-based estimate from public materials, coatings, and brand disclosure at 78% 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 Moisturizer
Tatcha
Starter The Ritual Set Ultra Hydrating For Dry Skin
Water-based cosmetic creams and serums; glass/plastic packaging
Lower PFAS concern for a cosmetic moisturizer set, but Tatcha makes no public PFAS commitment.
⚠Risky category by default
Herbivore Botanicals
Orchid Facial Oil
plant oils, botanical extracts, glass bottle
Lower concern; facial oil with no known PFAS triggers, but brand offers no transparency.
⚠Risky category by default
Herbivore Botanicals
Herbivore Lapis Balancing Facial Oil
plant oils, mineral pigments, glass bottle
Lower concern for PFAS; facial oil in glass, typical formulation poses minimal risk.
⚠Risky category by default
More moisturizer 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.