Colgate · Dental Floss
Colgate Total Pro Gum Health Interdental Floss 25m
Lower concern; traditional nylon floss with wax coating shows no known PFAS markers, but Colgate makes no disclosure.
Colgate Total Pro Gum Health floss is standard nylon filament with wax coating, materials not typically associated with PFAS contamination in dental floss. Colgate does not publicly claim PFAS-free status or disclose PFAS testing. No independent lab data, recalls, or third-party certifications found for this product.
Shop Colgate on Amazon →Material
Nylon filament, waxed coating
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 floss is nylon monofilament (a synthetic polymer) coated with wax, typically paraffin or beeswax blend. Nylon is chemically stable and inert when used as intended in the mouth; the wax coating aids gliding and does not leach into saliva under normal use. Unlike some specialty floss products, there are no reported additives such as antimicrobial agents, fluoride, or charcoal in the standard Colgate Total Pro Gum Health variant that would introduce secondary chemical concerns.
The brand's record and disclosure
Colgate-Palmolive has faced scrutiny over microbeads in older formulations and heavy metal testing in toothpastes, but dental floss itself has not been a focus of regulatory action or voluntary recalls for chemical hazards. The company does not publicly disclose material composition or PFAS testing for floss products, which limits transparency but does not indicate contamination. Colgate holds no specific third-party certifications (such as NSF or EWG) for floss lines.
How it compares in its category
Nylon waxed floss is the dominant category standard and poses no greater chemical risk than competitor brands (Oral-B, Glide, store brands). Alternatives such as silk floss or polytetrafluoroethylene (Teflon-type coating) branded products (e.g., Glide) carry similar or equivalent safety profiles. Unwaxed nylon and natural fiber options exist but offer no documented safety advantage; the wax itself is inert.
If you buy it
Use as directed: wind around fingers and guide between teeth with gentle sawing motions. Floss is not ingested in significant quantity; small amounts swallowed pose negligible risk. Replace the product when fraying occurs or every few months with regular use. Store in a cool, dry place; no special handling is required. This product is suitable for daily use by adults and children with parental supervision.
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.”
Wax coating composition (paraffin vs. beeswax)
Colgate does not specify wax type on packaging. Paraffin wax is food-safe and cosmetic-grade; beeswax is minimally processed. Neither is known to leach under oral use conditions. No contamination or degradation hazard is established for dental floss wax.
Nylon polymer degradation or breakdown
Nylon is stable at oral temperatures and saliva pH. Mechanical breakage (fraying) is cosmetic; no chemical breakdown or microplastic shedding risk is established or reported for standard nylon dental floss.
Bacterial growth or biofilm on stored floss
Floss stored in humid bathrooms may harbor surface bacteria if left wet, though oral use of floss typically introduces it directly to the mouth without prior contamination risk. Proper drying after use mitigates any concern.
Choking or physical entanglement hazard
Floss is a choking risk for young children under age 3 if unsupervised. This is a mechanical, not chemical, hazard. Adult and supervised use eliminates this risk.
Additives or colorants in packaging ink migration
Floss is housed in a plastic spool dispenser. No migration of printing inks or plastic additives into the floss itself is established. The floss does not contact the dispenser interior during storage.
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 Dental Floss
Cocofloss
Refill Trio
Coconut fiber, based floss with plant-based coating
Lower-concern dental product; natural materials and transparent PFAS stance, but no independent verification.
⚠Risky category by default
Dental Lace
Refillable Silk Dental Floss
Silk floss with compostable refillable packaging
Lower concern; silk floss with credible PFAS-free positioning and third-party certification.
✓Verified PFAS-free by a third party
Dental Lace
Plant Based/Vegan Floss Refillable Glass Container PFAS-Free (2 Spools/4-
Plant-based vegan floss (likely plant cellulose or silk fibers)
Lower-concern product with explicit PFAS-free claim; no third-party verification limits certainty.
⚠Risky category by default
More dental floss 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.