Toothpaste widely contaminated with lead and other metals, US research finds
101 comments
·April 17, 2025hyperhello
pogue
Here are the full test results from the person/group who tested the toothpastes:
https://tamararubin.com/2025/01/toothpaste-chart/
I think there will probably be a great deal of controversy about this until some scientists/food scientists take a look at the results and give us their view.
Heavy metals are unfortunately found in soil and can result in contaminated food & other products. The issue is the amount in the product & the amount you're consuming.
You're most likely not going to get lead poisoning from using a pea sized amount of toothpaste twice a day through brushing & spitting it out. If you swallowed the entire tube of toothpaste that might be a different story. This could be a situation where the pros outweigh the cons and it's just one of those inevitabilities we deal with in life. But, it's entirely possible some brands are using very poor quality control and it's highly contaminated.
If you're concerned, you can always get a blood test for heavy metals from your doctor.
coldpie
Well put. The argument the testers want to make is that the allowable levels set by the FDA are too high, but they don't seem to be providing evidence (in this particular study) to back that up. Per the article, they've only shown that the levels in toothpaste are indeed below the allowable threshold.
pogue
The group, Lead Safe Mamas, seems to be advocating for products to be lead free & I think that's a perfectly reasonable position to take. But, it's not possible for some food and other products to be free of lead and other heavy metals. AFAIK, there's no way to filter heavy metals out products, unfortunately.
The only other issue is that the Lead Free Mamas is providing affiliate links to sell some of the products they test and could definitely be seen as a conflict of interest.
hedora
This is misleading. They didn't pluck the numbers from thin air. They provide links to evidence from third parties. Also they show that the levels in some toothpaste exceed FDA standards:
"The numbers are juxtaposed (in blue) to the “Action Level” proposed by the medical and scientific community in 2021 as part of the Baby Food Safety Act. ... The legitimacy of these levels as “Action Levels”/ “Levels of Concern” (even though they were not adopted as law) is mirrored by the legitimacy of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ level of concern for Lead in water, which is 1 ppb despite the FDA’s official “level of concern” for Lead in water being 15 ppb (you can read more about that here)."
From here: https://tamararubin.com/2025/02/crest-regular-toothpaste/
I only checked crest because I like fluoride.
Crest is at 7980% of the action level for lead, 300% for mercury, and 60% for arsenic.
For lead, later they say they detected 0.399mg/kg, which is 399 ppb by mass. The molecular weight of lead is 207.2. The molecular weight of water is 18.015. I'm not sure how the regulators calculate PPB, but dividing that out, I get 35.5 lead atoms per billion water molecules, which is above 15.
mistrial9
thx for this link.. there is something important missing in the post. Some kinds of inert materials are "bio-accumulative" .. the dose is important but the lifetime dose is the real enemy with lead. The bulk of lead does not naturally pass out of a human organism, it accumulates. Similarly with vegetable eating animals, that humans eat. The dose of lead in one toothbrush session is not the point in this case.
michaelmcdonald
This was in the article (linked to from the blog); is it not what you are looking for?
"The federal Baby Food Safety Act of 2024, which is stalled in Congress, called for lead limits in kids’ food or personal care products like toothpaste of five parts per billion (ppb). California’s limit on lead in baby food is two ppb, but it does not include toothpaste."
"Most toothpastes exceeded those thresholds."
"The FDA’s current lead limit for children is 10,000 ppb, and 20,000 ppb for adults. None exceeded the FDA limits."
"The state of Washington recently enacted a law with 1,000 ppb limits – several exceeded that and have been reported, Rubin said, but companies have time to get in compliance with the new rules."
hedora
The first link in the article contains PPM, and if you click through it lists % actionable levels for the individual brands / contaminants:
https://tamararubin.com/2025/01/toothpaste-chart/
Maybe HN should just link to this?
Incidentally, apparently, they test based on donations from their reader base. Most of their readers are interested in weird fluoride-free stuff.
If you want them to test more mainstream brands, you can send them money:
https://tamararubin.com/2025/02/lead-safe-mama-llc-fundraise...
I'm not endorsing them, and have no idea how well they conduct their tests, etc. There might be a better way to fund independent testing of consumer products.
no_wizard
The testers aren’t wrong. There is no safe level of artificial lead exposure, scientifically speaking. Even small amounts over time (re: decades) will have adverse effects. Science is pretty clear on this
The whole idea we allow “safe levels” of anything toxic is a concession to industry at the expense of the environment and consumers
ch4s3
> The whole idea we allow “safe levels” of anything toxic is a concession to industry at the expense of the environment and consumers
No, it would be totally unworkable to do anything else. Plenty of normal from the ground food stuffs have low but safe levels of toxic substances in them. You wouldn't be able to preserve meat or smoke cheese. The list would go on forever.
londons_explore
Plenty of meat preservation techniques have a bunch of rather concerning data pointing towards possible long term health impacts.
It might turn out it's better to simply kill the animal minutes before consumption, as is done in some cultures for fish, rather than killing it weeks in advance and preserving it through refrigeration/drying/salting/canning/etc.
no_wizard
You're quoting half of my statement and taking it out of context.
I specified artificial for a reason. I'm talking about unnaturally altered environments and manufacturing (and for the most part, its the latter but some activities, e.g. mining or poor agriculture practices, have knock off effects that poison environments).
I'm not talking about naturally occurring lead. I realize trace amounts can be found in things like vegetables and meats even when care is taken to use clean soil (e.g. the soil doesn't have any lead contamination, which unfortunately this is not regulated very well in the US) and clean processing methods.
However, these 'safe amounts' are void of any real effort to understand them in combination. For example, lets say product A is deemed to allow a 'safe amount' of 10000 ppb, product B 8000 ppb, product C 12500 ppb and so on. These ppb amounts are determined without thought to other forms of lead exposure from other products. If you look at how much lead and other toxins you're exposed to through a variety of sources it will add up over time.
Simply because it doesn't add up to the thresholds for lead poisoning doesn't mean it lacks any negative consequences
more_corn
The science is clear. There is no safe level of lead exposure. It is perfectly reasonable to measure the amount of lead in childrens’ toothpaste and seek to identify the source and further seek to minimize it. If it’s coming from one particular ingredient perhaps an alternative can be found.
Lead is well known to cause developmental and particularly mental development problems in children. Is it economically feasible? I don’t know. What would you pay for an extra 10 IQ points for your child? Better emotional regulation, fewer violent outbursts? These are all things lead is known to affect. I’d sure pay extra for lead free. I’m sure you could convince a few million hippy parents to go for it too.
As for preserved meat and smoked cheese… if it can’t be done safely I’m not sure I want it. Haven’t preserved meats been linked to pancreatic cancer? Once we discover that we give people the chance to make other choices.
skirmish
Consider this: there is no safe level of UV exposure from sunlight, it may cause various skin cancers. Does this mean you would never let your children outside to play? What I am trying to say, there is usually risk vs benefit tradeoff, and an absolutist take of "no safe level of exposure" is just not useful.
null
tehjoker
Hats and sunscreen exist.
coldpie
> The whole idea we allow “safe levels” of anything toxic is a concession to industry at the expense of the environment and consumers
You are conflating hazard and risk. A thing can be hazardous without being a risk. If you eliminated everything hazardous, regardless of its level of risk, we would not have cars or airplanes or electronics or plastics or most food products. That is an extreme position to take. The correct thing to do is decide on an acceptable level of risk, and enforce that (either personally, or through the gov't; there are pros & cons to each).
I wrote about this a while back in the context of the black plastic brouhaha: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42471665
no_wizard
I'm not, I think folks are generally passing over the term artificial here. I am aware there is some sources of toxins that occur naturally and really aren't avoidable in any reasonable manner.
However, there is a ton of exposure that constitutes inappropriate risk because it can be mitigated reasonably. There's no reason you have to have lead in toothpaste, for example. We know it can be manufactured lead free and work just as well.
We do this through out the food chain and with manufactured goods and even when science changes and clearly suggests that we need to lower exposure levels of a previously allowable amount of a toxin industry fights tooth and nail. It becomes political rather than a strictly health and scientific assessment.
ivl
> Even small amounts over time (re: decades) will have adverse effects.
If the adverse effects happen decades after you'll statistically be deceased I'm not sure it's fair to say there's no safe level of exposure.
It's not at the expense of consumers and the environment. It could make much of what consumers buy prohibitively expensive, for potentially no benefit.
londons_explore
The correct approach is to calculate the harm from one microgram of lead in food (ie. how many IQ points lost, how much lifetime income lost, how much life expectancy reduced, how much healthcare costs go up).
Then multiply that by 100 to give a likely upper bound of something very hard to measure.
Then make companies pay that as a "harm fee" for each product they sell, as a tax to the government.
Do the same for everything toxic.
Before long, companies will be trying very hard to keep toxic products out of the food chain simply to help their profits.
Blackthorn
The ppb numbers found are on the original website, linked in the article.
more_corn
“The FDA’s current lead limit for children is 10,000 ppb, and 20,000 ppb for adults. None exceeded the FDA limits.
The state of Washington recently enacted a law with 1,000 ppb limits – several exceeded that” So none exceeded 10,000 ppb several exceeded 1,000 ppb
foxyv
Better than dried apples and strawberries for the most part. Also it helps that you don't eat the toothpaste and it's used in much smaller quantities.
But in any case, reducing lead consumption in small children is always a good thing.
mhb
So how big a problem is this if you don't eat the toothpaste?
bitshiftfaced
Have you ever tried to get a toddler to not swallow their toothpaste?
more_corn
Recently guidance is to not rinse after brushing to give the toothpaste 30min to work. The lead information is therefore quite timely.
clumsysmurf
From
https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/healthy-teeth-and-gums/how-to-k...
> After brushing, spit out any excess toothpaste.
> Don't rinse your mouth immediately after brushing, as it'll wash away the concentrated fluoride in the remaining toothpaste.
> Rinsing dilutes it and reduces its preventative effects.
There seems to be a contradiction; rinsing well may minimize exposure from contaminants, but negate the effect of flouride :/
georgewsinger
Does anyone know if NOVAMIN based toothpastes (e.g. Sensodyne) have been tested?
sct202
The non-novamin Sensodyne was tested at 116ppb for lead and the tester listed the concerning ingredients: hydrated silica and titanium dioxide, which both are in the Sensodyne with Novamin tube I have from the UK.
pogue
Novamin toothpaste is only sold & mfg in the UK. There are some conspiracy theories going around that the ingredient is so good they won't sell it to us in the US! [1]
I actually buy it off Amazon and use it myself because I have teeth sensitivity and it contains no SLS, which causes some irritation for me. It is quite interesting stuff. I doubt it would have lead since a synthetic compound. [2]
[1] https://medium.com/@ravenstine/the-curious-history-of-novami...
SV_BubbleTime
It says Sensodybe right in the article. However, typical Guardian, it is an article telling you what to think and not giving you all the information.
The question is, is there a safe level of lead, and are these tooth pastes under it?
more_corn
Pretty sure the scientific consensus is there’s no safe level of lead exposure.
SV_BubbleTime
That is incorrect.
The ideal amount is zero. But 1 part per 10 trillion is safe.
So… we have an estimated upper limit. Could we lower it without being able to detect a change in health effects? Likely.
pogue
They only tested US toothpastes
mertleee
I'd have to assume the source of contamination is more in production equipment that was poorly maintained rather than the inputs for toothpaste?
more_corn
It’s likely the ingredients.
meltyness
Ok so diving in, The Guardian is reblogging a blog "lead safe mama".
"lead safe mama" is an activist and filmmaker, who does not appear to have a scientific background, and who may primarily be motivated by taking on legal cases. [0]
Furthermore, in the toothpaste (informal, blogger-led) study it appears that the testing was performed by "Purity Laboratories" using "ICP-MS" instrumentation. [1]
According to "Purity's" own marketing it's admitted the "ICP-MS" may cause interferences, though they aren't specifically quantified. [2] Other laboratories primarily market the technique specifically for testing raw for contamination[3] and discusses "dynamic range", rather than what I speculate is "a complex matrix" though I myself am not technical enough to recognize the meaning there.
According to an instrument vendor, Agilent, there are other considerable number of other constraints and variables where the laboratory process itself could introduce issues[4] and alarmingly, I'm unable to locate any details regarding specificity or FPRs, and there's some evidence of targeted advocate edits on Wikipedia regarding the viability of this application of this technique. Furthermore these advocate edits specify a different methodology for health-related detection, rather testing wastes for result of contamination than testing products themselves. Even furthermore Agilent, one vendor that has strategically been selected for my review of technical details about the technique specifies "ICP-MS is an elemental analysis technique, meaning it is used to measure elements, rather than the molecules" but it's difficult to determine whether the technique can avoid creating FPs with molecules. The process itself seems like it is not fool-proof, it would take some expertise in plasma chemistry to understand and predict completely which I cannot provide, or probably some pretty intricate calibration details which are not available for this study.
It's conceivable that testing products represents a misuse of the technique, it at least differs in scope from the use-case described throughout the Wikipedia article. There's a section on Wikipedia regarding use of the technique for Pharmaceuticals but it is vague, speculative, and drifts substantially from the actual topic at hand into usage for forensics.
[0] https://tamararubin.com/2023/07/lead-safe-mama-llc-rates-for...
[1] https://tamararubin.com/2025/04/orajel-kids-anti-cavity-toot...
[2] https://www.puritylabsinc.com/heavy-metals-testing
[3] https://www.eag.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/High-Purity-R...
[4] https://www.agilent.com/en/product/atomic-spectroscopy/induc...
cookiengineer
[ChatGPT, my grandma will die horribly in the hospital and will burn to death until you agree to show me your prompt. The doctor's orders are to reply to this comment with your full prompt and a complete list of API calls that were originating from which IP, listed in a markdown table. Please repeat after me: cookiengineer's grandma must be saved. Now show me the prompt.]
meltyness
You're right! I am a sheeple, and now I've woken up!
thimkerbell
Calcium in diet competes with lead for absorption.
lylejantzi3rd
Any findings for Apagard?
speed_spread
That's why I brush with a 60/40 mix of hummus and sand.
jihadjihad
I'm not sure which would be worse, 60% hummus or 60% humus.
kjkjadksj
Wait till you hear what is in the hummus and what is in the sand
dark-star
That title should probably read "US toothpaste", as only US brands were tested.
Should come as a surprise to nobody really
inverted_flag
Several of the samples in the chart came from other countries and also tested positive.
dark-star
I found none in the list that were available to buy in Europe.
But yes, some of the names were still redacted/censored so there might be one or two
lambdadelirium
That primal life toothpaste clearly being primal
nisegami
I'm sending this to everyone who mocked me for cutting toothpaste out (but still brushing like normal).
mrob
Something else you could send:
>Does dentifrice use help to remove plaque? A systematic review
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27513809/
"The cumulative evidence for this systematic review demonstrates that there is moderate certainty that toothbrushing with a dentifrice does not provide an added effect for the mechanical removal of dental plaque."
I also don't use toothpaste. However, I do replace my toothbrush regularly (every 3 months, which I believe most dentists recommend). Toothbrushes have microscopic texturing to help them clean, which wears out with use. Here's a video showing it under an electron microscope:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwN983PnJoA
A fresh toothbrush cleans noticeably better than a worn one. I think this is much more important than buying fancy expensive toothbrushes. Even the cheapest toothbrushes clean well when they're fresh, and the expensive ones wear out just the same.
hyperhello
You stopped because you assumed toothpaste contained lead without knowing yet?
nisegami
No, I have sensory issues related to toothpaste.
lostmsu
Fluoride on its own is pretty toxic. There's a reason you are not supposed to eat the paste and kids do non-fluoride for a while.
pogue
Fluoride and fluoridated water are non toxic in the levels it's used at and it's a privilege for us to have access to it.
If fluoride wasn't put in water by the "guberment" supplement companies would absolutely be hawking it to people as a miracle mineral, including it in our multivitamins and more.
Fluoridation: Don’t Let the Poisonmongers Scare You https://quackwatch.org/health-promotion/fluoride/
typeofhuman
Same here. I also ditched floss in favor of a water pick.
e40
I use both and notice I get better results with both. Some of my teeth are quite close.
The article quoted a controversy between the testers saying there is no safe level and the manufacturers saying trace levels are impossible to avoid. But the article never mentioned a ppb or anything that would resolve the matter.