Lola · Tampons
L. Organic Cotton Core Tampons Duo Pack Super/Super Plus
Lower concern; organic cotton tampons carry minimal PFAS risk, though brand transparency on materials is absent.
Lola's organic cotton tampons are primarily composed of organic cotton fiber with cardboard applicator, materials not inherently associated with PFAS use. The brand does not market PFAS-free status or hold third-party certifications addressing PFAS. No public lab testing of this product for PFAS has been reported.
Shop Lola on Amazon →Material
organic cotton core with cardboard applicator
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.
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
Lola's tampons use organic cotton for the absorbent core, which avoids synthetic polymer blends and conventional cotton pesticide residues. The cardboard applicator eliminates plastic applicator concerns like BPA or phthalate leaching. Organic cotton certification (if present) reduces exposure to synthetic dyes and formaldehyde-based finishing resins used in conventional cotton production. The absorbent structure itself carries no bleaching byproducts of public concern at typical use volumes.
The brand's record and disclosure
Lola has marketed organic cotton and sustainability messaging prominently but provides limited detailed ingredient disclosure or third-party certification visible in public materials. No major recalls or safety controversies have been established in public record for this product line. The brand's silence on PFAS (water repellency chemicals sometimes used in menstrual product packaging or processing) reflects industry-wide opacity rather than Lola-specific negligence. Certification details (organic cotton standards, applicator sourcing) are not fully transparent on standard retail listings.
How it compares in its category
Organic cotton tampons occupy the premium tier for chemical safety in the category. Conventional tampons may use rayon-cotton blends with undisclosed bleaching or dioxin residues, and plastic applicators introduce BPA/phthalate risk. Lola's cardboard applicator avoids plastic entirely, matching or exceeding brands like Cora and Rael. The organic cotton claim is meaningful but requires independent verification; Lola's lack of public certification statements is a minor disadvantage versus fully transparent competitors.
If you buy it
Use as directed without modification or extended insertion; tampons are single-use products and do not require special storage beyond keeping packaging dry. Change every 4-8 hours to reduce toxic shock syndrome risk, independent of material type. Discard responsibly (do not flush if local water treatment lacks capacity). If irritation or unusual odor occurs, discontinue and consider alternative materials, as individual sensitivity to even organic cotton remains possible.
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.”
Formaldehyde-based finishing resins in cotton
Conventional cotton uses formaldehyde resins for wrinkle resistance and durability. Organic cotton should avoid this, but Lola does not publicly confirm avoidance of formaldehyde finishing in manufacturing. Residual exposure is minimal at typical use but not ruled out by brand transparency.
Synthetic dyes and azo dyes in non-organic cotton components
Organic cotton core minimizes azo dye risk. Any non-organic elements (packaging, thread) may carry azo dyes, but contact with vulva is minimal and no public reports exist for Lola products.
Bleaching byproducts (dioxins/furans)
Organic cotton reduces likelihood of elemental chlorine bleaching, but Lola does not publicly confirm bleaching method. Modern elemental chlorine-free (ECF) bleaching is standard in the US and carries negligible dioxin risk; however, verification is absent.
Cardboard applicator degradation and splinters
Cardboard applicators are softer and more prone to crushing or disintegration during insertion than plastic. Rare splinter risk exists if applicator is damaged; inspect before use. No recalls for this product specifically.
Contaminants in organic cotton supply chain
Organic certification reduces pesticide residue risk, but Lola does not disclose auditing or third-party organic verification. Soil contamination or processing facility cross-contamination cannot be fully ruled out without public certification.
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 Tampons
Seventh Generation
Organic Cotton Tampons Applicator
organic cotton (tampon & applicator core); cardboard applicator
Lower-concern buy, organic cotton & MADE SAFE cert reduce PFAS risk, though brand is silent on the topic.
✓Verified PFAS-free by a third party
Lola
Organic Cotton Tampons
organic cotton (no synthetic coatings)
Lower concern, uncoated organic cotton with transparent PFAS-free positioning and third-party certification.
✓Verified PFAS-free by a third party
Cora
Organic Tampons with Applicator
organic cotton tampon with cardboard/plastic applicator
Lower-concern choice; organic base material and MADE SAFE cert suggest thoughtful sourcing, but no explicit PFAS commitment.
✓Verified PFAS-free by a third party
More tampons 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.