Nylon Floss by Butler · Dental Floss
GUM ButlerWeave Floss Waxed Mint 60yds 12/Pack
Lower concern; standard nylon floss unlikely to contain PFAS, but wax coating composition undisclosed.
GUM ButlerWeave is conventional nylon dental floss with wax. Nylon itself does not inherently require PFAS. However, the wax coating formulation is not publicly disclosed, and Butler/Sunstar provides no transparency on PFAS content or avoidance. No lab data or third-party verification available.
Shop Nylon Floss by Butler on Amazon →Material
Nylon floss with wax coating (mint flavored)
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
GUM ButlerWeave is nylon monofilament floss coated with wax (composition unspecified by manufacturer) and mint flavoring. Nylon is a thermoplastic polymer that does not leach into saliva under normal use conditions, and wax coatings on floss are typically food-grade paraffin or beeswax. The mint flavoring is added for taste but represents a negligible ingestion amount during brief daily flossing.
The brand's record and disclosure
Butler/GUM is a major established oral care brand owned by Sunstar Group with no known product safety recalls related to floss composition. The manufacturer does not publicly disclose detailed wax or flavoring formulations, which is common in the floss category but limits independent verification. No certifications such as ADA Seal or third-party material testing are prominently advertised for this specific product line.
How it compares in its category
Waxed nylon floss is the dominant category standard and functionally similar across most brands; GUM ButlerWeave is a mid-market conventional offering with no distinguishing safety profile versus competitors like Oral-B or Crest. Some alternative flosses use silk or Teflon-type coating (Teflon) instead of nylon, but nylon carries no documented safety disadvantage for oral use. The 60-yard pack is standard sizing.
If you buy it
Use normally; floss is not ingested in meaningful quantity and oral mucosa contact is brief. Replace the pack when depleted or if the coating becomes sticky or frayed, which indicates degradation. Storage in a cool, dry place preserves the wax coating; no special precautions are needed. Not suitable for children under 3 without supervision due to choking risk, a standard warning across all floss products.
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.”
Wax coating composition (undisclosed)
Manufacturer does not specify whether wax is paraffin, beeswax, carnauba, or a blend. Food-grade waxes are presumed, but independent confirmation is unavailable. Contact with saliva during normal flossing is minimal and brief.
Flavoring agents (mint)
Mint flavoring composition is not detailed. Natural or synthetic mint extracts are typical in oral care products and are generally recognized as safe in small quantities. No allergic reactions or toxicity specific to this product have been reported.
Nylon material leaching
Nylon monofilament does not leach monomers or additives into saliva under the brief, cool contact of flossing. This material class has a long safety history in oral care applications with no established adverse effects from routine use.
Choking or ingestion risk
Floss fragments could pose a choking hazard if swallowed in large quantities or if lodged in the throat, though this is rare with responsible use. Standard supervision recommended for children under 3 years old, consistent with all floss products.
Dye or colorant in mint flavoring
If the mint coating includes synthetic colorants, no heavy metals or azo dyes are documented in Butler/GUM products. Manufacturer does not disclose pigment identity, but conventional food-grade dyes are presumed for oral products.
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.