75/ 100
C
OverallF63/100
kin+kind Kin Organics Dog Shampoo

Kin+Kind · Shampoo

kin+kind Kin Organics Dog Shampoo

C · Moderate

Lower PFAS concern for a liquid shampoo; no known high-risk treatments, though brand makes no explicit disclosure.

Verdict: BuyLiquid shampoo with no known hazardous coatings, low PFAS concern, and certified organic claim reduces chemical load risk.

Kin+Kind's dog shampoo is a rinse-off liquid cosmetic with no inherent PFAS risk profile, aqueous shampoos rarely require Teflon-family coating coatings, waterproofing, or stain resistance.

Shop Kin+Kind on Amazon →

Material

aqueous liquid shampoo base; no reported Teflon-family coating or water-repellent coating treatments

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

Kin+Kind Organics Dog Shampoo is an aqueous liquid formulation, meaning it relies on water-soluble surfactants and plant-derived ingredients rather than synthetic polymers or fluorinated compounds. Liquid shampoos avoid the material hazards inherent to bar soaps or solid formulations (e.g., concentrated preservative irritation). The brand markets it as organic certified, which typically constrains synthetic dyes, formaldehyde-releasing preservatives, and heavy-metal pigments, though the specific certifier and standard matter.

The brand's record and disclosure

Kin+Kind presents itself as a natural pet-care brand with organic positioning, but public disclosure around specific ingredient sourcing, preservative systems, or third-party safety testing is limited. No major recalls or health incidents are on record for this product line. The brand makes no explicit PFAS statement, which is typical for smaller natural-focused brands but represents a transparency gap in an era of increasing consumer scrutiny around fluorinated compounds in personal care.

How it compares in its category

Pet shampoos occupy a lower-scrutiny regulatory space than human cosmetics in many markets; Kin+Kind's organic claim places it toward the safer end of the pet-shampoo spectrum compared to conventional brands using synthetic fragrances, coal-tar dyes, or high-dose sulfate surfactants. However, it lacks third-party certifications (e.g., EWG, NSF) that some premium pet-care competitors provide. Aqueous liquid format is inherently lower-risk than solid bar formats for preservative overdose or irritant concentration.

If you buy it

Store in a cool, dry place away from direct sunlight to preserve organic components and minimize oxidation of plant extracts, which can degrade over time. Use as directed on the label and rinse thoroughly to avoid residue buildup on your dog's coat. Check the product expiration date and discard if discoloration, off-odors, or separation occurs, as preservative efficacy in organic formulations may decline faster than synthetic alternatives. Observe your pet for any signs of skin irritation over the first two weeks of use, particularly if transitioning from a conventional shampoo.

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

Preservative system efficacy and microbial risk

Organic shampoos typically rely on gentler, plant-derived preservatives (e.g., rosemary extract, citric acid) rather than synthetic ones. While this reduces formaldehyde-releaser and 1,4-dioxane risk, it can result in lower antimicrobial efficacy and faster spoilage if storage conditions are poor. No specific recalls for bacterial or fungal contamination have been reported for this brand, but the

Possible

Fragrance allergens and sensitization

The product uses plant-derived fragrances; while these avoid synthetic fragrance allergens, essential oils and botanical extracts can still trigger contact dermatitis or allergic reactions in sensitive dogs or humans handling the product. The brand does not appear to disclose the specific fragrance composition or allergen warnings publicly. Dogs with existing skin conditions may be at higher risk.

None known

Heavy metals in plant-derived pigments or mineral suspensions

Liquid shampoos with organic positioning typically avoid synthetic azo dyes; however, mineral colorants or plant pigments used for visual appeal could theoretically carry trace heavy metals (lead, cadmium) if sourced from contaminated botanical material. No specific testing or recalls are on record for Kin+Kind products, and the risk is generally lower than conventional dye-based formulations.

None known

Formaldehyde-releasing preservatives

The organic and natural positioning strongly suggests avoidance of formaldehyde-releasing compounds (e.g., DMDM hydantoin, imidazolidinyl urea). The brand does not advertise the use of these agents, and independent data does not flag their presence in this product line.

Possible

1,4-dioxane (synthetic surfactant impurity)

1,4-dioxane is a common impurity in conventional shampoos derived from ethoxylated surfactants during manufacturing. Plant-derived surfactants in organic formulations reduce this risk substantially, but third-party testing data for this specific product is not publicly available. The organic claim provides indirect reassurance but not definitive proof of absence.

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 Shampoo

Roz Salt Scalp Scrub

Credo Beauty

Roz Salt Scalp Scrub

salt crystals, mineral-based scrub

A
B
PFASAll
A · Very low PFAS2 flags

Lower-concern buy, salt scrub formulation carries minimal inherent PFAS risk.

Credo Beauty certification

Verified PFAS-free by a third party

Public Goods Shampoo Refill

Puracy

Public Goods Shampoo Refill

aqueous surfactant-based liquid shampoo

A
B
PFASAll
A · Very low PFAS3 flags

Lower-concern shampoo refill; Puracy's MADE SAFE cert and no-PFAS positioning align, but cosmetic formulation labs are rarely published.

MADE SAFE

Verified PFAS-free by a third party

Puracy Natural Baby Shampoo Body Wash

Puracy

Natural Baby Shampoo Body Wash

water-based surfactants, plant-derived ingredients, aqueous solution

A
B
PFASAll
A · Very low PFAS2 flags

Lower PFAS concern, liquid cosmetic with no water-resistant or nonstick triggers.

Risky category by default

More shampoo 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.