75/ 100
C
OverallF61/100
EUTHYMOL Classic Floss 50ml

Euthymol · Dental Floss

EUTHYMOL Classic Floss 50ml

C · Moderate

Lower concern; traditional floss material unlikely to contain PFAS, but brand discloses nothing.

Verdict: BuyWaxed silk floss with no established safety issues; traditional material class carries minimal hazard risk when used as directed.

Euthymol Classic Floss is a traditional waxed silk dental floss with no known PFAS-risk materials (nonstick coatings, waterproofing treatments, or Teflon-family coating). The brand makes no PFAS claims and provides no third-party verification. Dental floss in general carries minimal PFAS risk unless heavily treated.

Shop Euthymol on Amazon →

Material

Waxed silk floss with 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.

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

Euthymol Classic Floss is waxed silk, a natural fiber coated with wax (typically paraffin or beeswax) and mint flavoring. Silk is inert in the oral cavity and does not leach chemicals during normal use. The wax coating reduces friction and enables easier entry between teeth; mint flavoring is a food-grade additive at trace levels. This material class has been in continuous use for over a century with no documented systemic safety concerns from normal flossing.

The brand's record and disclosure

Euthymol is a heritage British oral care brand (established 1866) with a minimal public safety disclosure footprint. The company does not publish ingredient safety statements, certifications (ISO, dermatologist-tested), or responses to PFAS inquiries. No recalls or safety complaints are on record for this product. The brand's silence on chemical composition and sourcing reflects older manufacturing transparency norms rather than established harm.

How it compares in its category

Silk floss sits at the lower end of chemical concern in its category. Synthetic alternatives (nylon, Teflon-type coating-coated) carry theoretical microplastic and Teflon-type coating off-gassing risks with high-temperature handling, though neither applies to floss. Natural silk floss products avoid polymer degradation entirely. Euthymol's formulation is materially similar to other traditional silk flosses (e.g., Orvis Silk Floss) with no differentiation in hazard profile.

If you buy it

Store in a cool, dry place to prevent wax bloom or mold. Use gentle sawing motions at the gum line to avoid cuts. Replace the spool if wax becomes sticky, crumbly, or develops odor. Floss daily or as advised by your dentist; frequency does not increase chemical exposure risk. Do not heat or ingest; keep away from children under age 3 due to choking hazard, not chemical toxicity.

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

Mint flavoring allergens

Mint extract can trigger contact sensitivity in individuals with menthol/peppermint allergy, though reactions from trace flavoring in floss are uncommon. Discontinue use if gum irritation develops.

None known

Wax coating degradation

Paraffin and beeswax are chemically stable at oral temperatures and do not degrade into harmful compounds during normal use. No safety hazard is documented.

None known

Silk fiber contamination

Silk is a natural protein fiber; pesticide residues from silk farming are theoretically possible but not quantified for dental floss products. No recalls or safety reports exist for Euthymol or comparable silk flosses.

Reported

Choking or aspiration risk

Floss can pose aspiration risk in young children and individuals with swallowing difficulties. This is a mechanical hazard, not a chemical one, but standard for the product category.

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

Cocofloss

Refill Trio

Coconut fiber, based floss with plant-based coating

A
B
PFASAll
A · Very low PFAS3 flags

Lower-concern dental product; natural materials and transparent PFAS stance, but no independent verification.

Risky category by default

Refillable Silk Dental Floss

Dental Lace

Refillable Silk Dental Floss

Silk floss with compostable refillable packaging

A
A
PFASAll
A · Very low PFAS2 flags

Lower concern; silk floss with credible PFAS-free positioning and third-party certification.

MADE SAFE certified

Verified PFAS-free by a third party

Plant Based/Vegan Floss Refillable Glass Container PFAS-Free (2 Spools/4-

Dental Lace

Plant Based/Vegan Floss Refillable Glass Container PFAS-Free (2 Spools/4-

Plant-based vegan floss (likely plant cellulose or silk fibers)

A
B
PFASAll
A · Very low PFAS3 flags

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.