75/ 100
C
OverallD67/100
Method Body Wash Energy Boost

Method · Body Wash

Method Body Wash Energy Boost

C · Moderate

Lower concern; Method's liquid body wash formulation has no known PFAS triggers, but brand is silent on the topic.

Verdict: BuyWater-based body wash with no known hazards in standard use; Method has transparent ingredient disclosure and no documented safety recalls in this category.

Method Body Wash Energy Boost is a rinse-off aqueous cosmetic with no water-resistant, grease-resistant, or non-stick properties that would require PFAS treatment. The formula relies on plant-based and synthetic organic surfactants rather than fluorinated coatings.

Shop Method on Amazon →

Material

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

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

Method Energy Boost is a water-based liquid body wash formulated with plant-derived surfactants and botanical extracts rather than traditional petroleum-derived soap. The aqueous base means no volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are released during normal use, and the surfactant package is designed to be readily biodegradable. The "Energy Boost" variant includes citrus and herbal extracts (typically lime, ginger, or similar) as fragrance and functional agents, which are water-soluble and do not require synthetic carriers that might pose inhalation or skin sensitization risks.

The brand's record and disclosure

Method is known for publishing detailed ingredient lists and has achieved Cradle to Cradle and EWG Verified certifications on multiple product lines, signaling commitment to safety and environmental standards. The brand does not highlight PFAS avoidance in marketing (hence the "silent" stance noted), but liquid body washes in this formulation class have no established pathways for PFAS incorporation. Method has no documented recalls or regulatory actions related to cosmetic safety violations in the United States or Europe for this product type.

How it compares in its category

Liquid body washes occupy a lower-risk tier compared to bar soaps (which may contain heavy metals in colorants or talc-derived fillers) or shower gels with heavy fragrance loads. Method's plant-based surfactant approach is increasingly standard in the premium/eco-conscious segment but contrasts with mass-market brands that use more traditional sodium lauryl sulfate and synthetic fragrance blends. This product sits in the middle-to-upper safety tier for the category, with transparent formulation but without the third-party toxicology testing that medical-grade or pharmaceutical cleansers provide.

If you buy it

Store in a cool, dry place and ensure the dispenser pump is sealed between uses to prevent bacterial growth in the reservoir (standard practice for all liquid body washes). Use as directed on the label; no special precautions are needed for skin contact during normal bathing. If you have sensitive skin or fragrance allergies, perform a patch test first, as the botanical extracts and essential oil-derived components can trigger contact dermatitis in susceptible individuals. Shelf life is typically 18-24 months unopened; discard if the formula separates, thickens abnormally, or develops an off-odor, which would indicate degradation or contamination.

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

Fragrance allergens and sensitizers

The citrus and herbal extracts in Energy Boost formulations may contain limonene and other natural fragrance compounds known to trigger contact dermatitis or allergic reactions in individuals with sensitive skin or fragrance sensitivity. This is not unique to Method but is common across all scented body washes.

None known

1,4-dioxane (dioxane contamination in surfactants)

Method's plant-derived surfactant strategy significantly reduces the likelihood of dioxane as a byproduct contaminant, which is more commonly associated with ethoxylated surfactants in conventional brands. No published testing or recalls have documented dioxane in Method body wash products.

None known

Formaldehyde releasers

Liquid body washes do not require formaldehyde-releasing preservatives if properly formulated with phenoxyethanol, methylisothiazolinone, or other modern preservatives. Method's ingredient transparency suggests no reliance on formaldehyde donors, and no regulatory action or recall exists for this product.

None known

Heavy metals in pigments or colorants

Energy Boost formulations typically use azo dyes or plant-derived colorants rather than inorganic pigments that might contain lead or cadmium. No documented heavy metal contamination has been reported in Method body wash products.

Possible

Bacterial or fungal growth in product or dispenser

Like all water-based liquid body washes, this product provides an aqueous environment where bacteria or mold can proliferate if the dispenser is contaminated, left open, or stored in warm, humid conditions. This is a usage and storage issue rather than a formulation defect, and proper maintenance eliminates the risk.

What we don’t know

This grade is a model-based estimate from public materials, coatings, and brand disclosure at 78% 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 Body Wash

Dr Bronner's Baby Unscented Pure Castile Liquid Soap

Cetyl

Dr Bronner's Baby Unscented Pure Castile Liquid Soap

saponified vegetable oils (castile base), no protective coatings

A
C
PFASAll
A · Very low PFAS2 flags

Lower-concern choice; simple castile soap formulation carries minimal PFAS risk.

Risky category by default

Dr. Bronner's Pure-Castile Liquid Soap

Dr. Bronner's

Pure-Castile Liquid Soap

Plant-based soap (coconut, olive, palm oils); no coatings or treatments

A
C
PFASAll
A · Very low PFAS3 flags

Lower PFAS concern, uncoated liquid soap with no water- or stain-resistant treatments.

Risky category by default

Dr Bronner's Baby Unscented Pure Castile Liquid Soap

Dr. Bronner's

Dr Bronner's Baby Unscented Pure Castile Liquid Soap

Plant-based soap (coconut, olive, palm oils)

A
C
PFASAll
A · Very low PFAS3 flags

Lower PFAS concern, pure castile liquid soap has no typical vector for forever chemicals.

Risky category by default

More body wash 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.