Humble Brush · Dental Floss
The Humble Co. Mint Flavor Dental Floss
Lower concern, dental floss rarely contains PFAS, but Humble Co. offers no public disclosure.
The Humble Co.'s mint dental floss has no known PFAS-related red flags; standard nylon dental floss is not a typical PFAS-risk category. The brand does not publicly claim PFAS-free status or hold third-party verification, but silence on this product class is normal.
Shop Humble Brush on Amazon →Material
Nylon floss (typical dental floss base material)
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
Humble Co. Mint Flavor Dental Floss is nylon-based, the industry standard for dental floss. Nylon is a synthetic polymer chosen for floss because it is inert in the oral cavity, does not degrade readily from saliva or mechanical friction, and does not absorb water or bacterial biofilms easily. The mint flavoring is typically a food-grade additive applied to the surface; neither nylon nor mint flavoring are recognized as hazardous in dental use at standard exposure levels.
The brand's record and disclosure
Humble Brush positions itself as a sustainable, eco-conscious brand emphasizing plant-based and compostable products across its range. However, the company does not publish detailed chemical composition reports or third-party certifications for its dental floss, and offers no public statement on PFAS avoidance or testing. This silence on chemical transparency is notable given the brand's otherwise sustainability-focused marketing, though it does not indicate presence of hazardous chemicals.
How it compares in its category
Nylon dental floss is the conventional choice; alternatives include silk (biodegradable but higher cost), polytetrafluoroethylene or Teflon-type coating tape (less common in consumer floss), and plant-based filaments (newer, limited data). Humble Co.'s nylon product occupies the mainstream safety profile. Waxed vs. unwaxed floss poses no established toxicity difference, though wax coating may be from paraffin (inert) or plant oils. The mint flavoring distinguishes this product but adds no recognized hazard in brief oral contact.
If you buy it
Dental floss is single-use consumable; no maintenance or heat concerns apply. Replace the spool when floss becomes frayed or degraded, typically after several months of daily use. Store in a cool, dry place to preserve mint flavoring. Swallow a small amount of floss accidentally (common in children) poses no acute toxicity risk from nylon or mint additives; nylon does not digest and will pass through the GI tract.
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.”
Flavoring additives (mint)
Mint flavoring in dental floss is food-grade and present in minimal amounts; no established hazard from incidental oral contact or small ingestion. No adverse events or recalls associated with mint-flavored floss are on record.
Nylon polymer degradation
Nylon floss does not degrade under normal oral conditions (saliva, pH, temperature). No microplastic or monomer leaching is established in the brief contact time (seconds per use). Nylon is chemically stable and approved for food contact.
Wax coating (if present)
Standard floss wax is paraffin or plant-based and inert. No toxicological concern is established for incidental oral exposure. Product labeling does not indicate wax type; typical waxed floss carries no regulatory warning.
Heavy metals or contaminants in nylon resin
Nylon used in food-contact dental products is subject to FDA or equivalent manufacturer standards. No recalls or test reports of lead, cadmium, or other metals in commercial dental floss are established. Humble Brush does not disclose resin sourcing or testing, but the hazard class is uncommon in this product category.
Choking or aspiration risk (pediatric)
This is a mechanical risk, not chemical. Floss can pose a choking hazard for young children if unsupervised. Store out of reach of children under 8 years; supervise use in children 8-12. Not a product defect, but a normal hazard of the item type.
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.