70/ 100
C
OverallF58/100
Lyra High Waist Organic Cotton Menstrual Underwear

JAMA Organic · Period Underwear

Lyra High Waist Organic Cotton Menstrual Underwear

C · Moderate

Lower-concern choice; organic cotton menstrual underwear unlikely to contain PFAS, but brand offers no explicit commitment.

Verdict: BuyOrganic cotton base with no water-resistant coating minimizes chemical exposure; brand transparency limited but material class itself poses low hazard.

Lyra High Waist Organic Cotton Menstrual Underwear is constructed from organic cotton, a material with no known PFAS risk. Menstrual underwear typically does not require water-resistant water-repellent coating coatings that commonly harbor PFAS.

Shop JAMA Organic on Amazon →

Material

organic cotton, likely no water-resistant coating

Brand disclosure

Brand is silent on PFAS

Lab data

No public lab test

Why this grade

Category baseline

period care 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

Lyra uses certified organic cotton, which eliminates synthetic pesticide residues and most conventional dye contamination found in conventional cotton underwear. Period underwear without waterproof backing (common in organic variants) avoids the polyurethane or PVC lamination layers that can off-gas volatile organic compounds or contain legacy water-resistant chemical treatments. The absorbent core is likely cotton-based rather than synthetic polymers, reducing microplastic shedding during wear and washing.

The brand's record and disclosure

JAMA Organic does not publish detailed chemical testing or third-party certification data on their website regarding heavy metals, formaldehyde, or azo dyes in their finished products. The brand holds no visible certifications beyond 'organic cotton' claims (GOTS or similar); independent verification of dye safety, elastic composition, or thread treatments is unavailable. No recalls, regulatory actions, or public safety controversies have been established for this product line. Silence on PFAS and other finish chemistries is typical for small organic intimates brands but limits confidence in supply-chain oversight.

How it compares in its category

Period underwear made from organic cotton without synthetic waterproof coatings ranks lower-risk than those using polyester-nylon blends treated with water-repellent coating finishes (which commonly contain PFAS or fluorocarbon replacements). Most mainstream competitors (Knix, Thinx) use polyester or spandex layered with polyurethane backing, introducing off-gassing and higher chemical load. Organic cotton models trade some leak containment for reduced chemical exposure, placing this product in the safer half of the market, though still below clinical-grade or lab-tested transparency.

If you buy it

Wash in cold or warm water (under 40°C) to preserve elastic integrity and avoid accelerating any residual dye release. Air-dry completely before storage in breathable, dry conditions to prevent bacterial or fungal growth in the absorbent core. Replace underwear every 12-18 months or if elastic loses shape or absorbency drops noticeably. Inspect seams and hems for degradation; if the fabric thins or loses structural integrity, discard to avoid cotton fiber shedding into the bloodstream.

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

Formaldehyde in fabric finishes and elastic dyes

Organic cotton itself avoids formaldehyde-intensive conventional processing, but elastic thread, seams, and any non-organic trim may still contain formaldehyde-releasing resins (urea-formaldehyde or melamine-formaldehyde). JAMA Organic provides no test data confirming absence; contact dermatitis or respiratory sensitivity is rare but possible with sensitive users.

Possible

Azo dyes and heavy metal pigments

Organic cotton certification does not guarantee dye safety; azo dyes (some carcinogenic, others linked to contact allergy) and cadmium or lead in synthetic dyes are technically possible without independent testing. JAMA has not published restricted substance lists or dye supplier audits publicly. Black or dark-colored intimate apparel carries the highest risk if low-cost synthetic dyes are used.

None known

Antimony in polyester elastic or thread

If the product uses minimal polyester or synthetic fiber only in elastic/thread trim (common in organic cotton designs), antimony exposure is lower than polyester-dominant garments. No specific product testing is available to confirm antimony levels, but the material composition suggests risk is below industry average.

None known

Microplastic shedding during laundering

100% cotton construction without synthetic microfiber backing or nylon facings eliminates the primary source of microplastic release. Elastic degradation over time can shed synthetic fiber fragments, but rate is significantly lower than polyester-based competitors.

Possible

Bacterial or fungal colonization in absorbent core

All absorbent period underwear creates warm, moist conditions favorable for bacterial growth if not dried thoroughly between washes or stored in sealed plastic containers. Cotton's natural antimicrobial properties are modest; risk increases if underwear is reused without immediate washing (e.g., all-day wear without change).

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 Period Underwear

LOLA Organic Cotton Period Underwear

JAMA Organic

LOLA Organic Cotton Period Underwear

Organic cotton with moisture-wicking gusset

A
B
PFASAll
A · Very low PFAS4 flags

Lower PFAS concern, organic cotton base with no waterproof claims, but brand doesn't explicitly address PFAS.

OEKO-TEXOrganic Certified (USDA/equivalent)

Verified PFAS-free by a third party

Organyc Certified Organic Cotton Disposable Period Underwear for Sensitive Skin

JAMA Organic

Organyc Certified Organic Cotton Disposable Period Underwear for Sensitive Skin

certified organic cotton with absorbent core

A
A
PFASAll
A · Very low PFAS2 flags

Lower concern, organic cotton base suggests minimal PFAS risk, but no explicit PFAS statement limits confidence.

Certified Organic (USDA or equiv.)

Verified PFAS-free by a third party

Women's Hipster Period Underwear

Ruby Love

Women's Hipster Period Underwear

organic cotton with waterproof coating

A
B
PFASAll
A · Very low PFAS3 flags

Lower concern, PFAS-free verified; buy with confidence.

MADE SAFE CertifiedOEKO-TEX Standard 100

Lab test found no PFAS

More period underwear 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.