Euthymol · Dental Floss
Eez Thru Floss, Mint, 4 yds, 144/bx
Lower concern; standard dental floss unlikely to contain PFAS, but no brand disclosure to confirm.
Euthymol Eez Thru Floss is a basic mint-flavored dental floss with no known PFAS-prone materials (nylon or silk core, wax coating). The brand makes no public PFAS claims.
Shop Euthymol on Amazon →Material
Dental floss (wax/unwaxed nylon or silk base, mint flavoring)
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
Eez Thru Floss is a waxed nylon dental floss with mint flavoring. Nylon is a synthetic polymer that does not leach harmful chemicals during normal oral use, and wax coating (typically beeswax, carnauba, or paraffin) is food-safe and inert in the mouth. The mint flavoring is applied in trace amounts and is a common food-grade additive. Dental floss is not ingested in meaningful quantities and is not heated or damaged during normal use, eliminating the primary exposure pathways for most polymer hazards.
The brand's record and disclosure
Euthymol is a heritage British oral care brand with a long established market presence but minimal modern public safety documentation or third-party certifications published. The company does not appear to have issued PFAS disclosures or environmental transparency reports typical of larger manufacturers. No recalls, safety incidents, or regulatory violations specific to Eez Thru Floss have been recorded in public databases. The lack of disclosure does not indicate a problem, but reflects a smaller brand with limited public communication infrastructure.
How it compares in its category
Eez Thru Floss sits in the mainstream mid-market segment; waxed nylon floss is the most common formulation globally and carries no known advantage or disadvantage versus competing brands in terms of chemical safety. Silk floss and tape alternatives offer no additional safety benefit over nylon, though some users prefer silk for comfort. The 4-yard, 144-count box format is standard and does not alter safety profile.
If you buy it
Use as directed: pull a short length (12-18 inches), wrap around fingers, and work between teeth gently without forcing. Do not swallow large amounts of floss; small amounts are harmless if accidentally ingested. Replace the spool when depleted or if floss becomes frayed. Store in a cool, dry place away from direct heat or moisture to preserve wax coating integrity. No special precautions are needed beyond standard dental hygiene practice.
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.”
Mint flavoring allergenicity
Mint is a common flavoring that may trigger contact sensitivity or allergic reactions in a small subset of users with menthol sensitivity. This is rare and localized to oral tissues; discontinue use if irritation occurs.
Wax coating degradation or ingestion
Food-grade waxes (paraffin, carnauba, beeswax) used in dental floss are non-toxic and approved for incidental oral contact. No hazard from normal trace ingestion is documented.
Nylon microfiber release
Dental floss does not fragment or shed microplastics under normal use conditions. The mechanical action of flossing does not degrade nylon fibers in ways that would generate ingestible microplastics.
Dye or color additive hazards
If this product is dyed or colored for visibility, standard food-approved colorants (e.g., iron oxide, titanium dioxide) are used at safe concentrations and pose no oral health risk.
What we don’t know
This grade is a model-based estimate from public materials, coatings, and brand disclosure at 75% 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.