Please scroll down to see the comparative chart of Lead Safe Mama, LLC’s lab test results for popular sunscreen products nominated for testing and reporting by our online community.
Each product image in the grid above is a link to an article which includes the full original lab report for the product pictured (or is a link to the fundraising campaign to cover the cost of testing and reporting for that product if it is noted as “Pending”, but not “Funded”).
For more information about the Lead Safe Mama, LLC Community Collaborative Laboratory Testing Initiative, & to see our full chart comparing the independent, third-party lab test results for all of the sunscreen products we have tested to date please continue reading below.
Please also join us on Patreon to be among the first to see new articles with product lab reports as soon as they are published (including those noted in the grid below as both “Pending” and “Funded”).
You can join us on Patreon for FREE or with a small monthly contribution in support of the work of Lead Safe Mama, LLC. Thank you!
Background on Lead Safe Mama, LLC’s Community Collaborative Laboratory Testing Initiative
The Lead Safe Mama, LLC (LSM) team has been conducting independent, community-funded, scientific testing of consumer goods since 2009. Prior to 2024 our work primarily focused on testing consumer goods (including dishes, toys, household items, furniture, jewelry, etc.) using XRF technology.
How are products chosen for testing? How is this third-party, independent testing and reporting paid for?
This laboratory testing initiative is driven by the interests and priorities of the greater Lead Safe Mama community (we had nearly 2.3 million unique individual readers here on this website in the 2024 calendar year alone – and again in 2025 — and also have a strong social media presence — with over 108,000 followers each on both Instagram and Facebook).
Lead Safe Mama online community members nominate products for laboratory testing and then the LSM community uses crowd-funding (including through GoFundMe) to raise the money needed and cover the costs related to testing and reporting for these nominated products. This is how the products listed in the chart below were chosen for testing, and how the testing and reporting was paid for.
If enough funding is not raised via a GoFundMe campaign set up to cover our costs for testing and reporting on a specific product, undesignated gifted funds may be allocated to cover the remaining costs. We periodically share updated summaries of how we allocate undesignated gifted funds. You can see a full summary of our use of designated gifed funds on this link.
This unique model of community-directed (and community-funded) testing and reporting helps ensure that this initiative is truly free of corporate influence, and instead strongly rooted in science (without bias).
Pending Sunscreen Campaigns
In addition to the lab test results for the THIRTY FIVE sunscreen products we have published to date (scroll down to see the summary chart with those lab test results – links to each of the published reports are also in the grid at the top of this page), through the Lead Safe Mama, LLC Community Collaborative Laboratory Testing Initiative (in our search for a safer sunscreen product) the additional sunscreen products included in the numbered list below (scroll down) have also been nominated for testing and reporting.
Each line item below is a link to a campaign on GoFundMe for which we have not yet raised all the funds to cover the costs of testing and reporting for the product listed
If you would like to help us get the reports for any of these products published more quickly, please click the link and make a contribution in support of helping to cover the costs for laboratory testing and reporting for the product you are curious about — even $10 or $15 would be helpful in getting us closer to getting all of these products tested and getting their lab reports published and shared!
Some of the sunscreens for which we have already published the lab reports did not fully fund (we did not raise enough to cover the costs of testing and reporting for that product, but chose to send it off to the lab early as we felt it would be an important data point to collect). Any still-open, not-yet-funded campaigns for additional sunscreen testing are also included in the list below.
Raw, Direct-to-Consumer Data that’s Never Behind a Paywall
Since you may be new here, we wanted to make sure to share with you that another unique aspect of Lead Safe Mama, LLC’s work is that all of our findings (including the raw data/ original lab reports) are always shared publicly (here on the Lead Safe Mama website and our social media), free of charge, and not behind a paywall of any kind. While contributions in support of our work are always welcome, they are not required.
The intention behind the Lead Safe Mama, LLC laboratory testing initiative is twofold:
To identify lab-tested safer products, helping consumers make science-informed choices regarding the products they use with their families, and
To identify products with egregious levels of toxicants that we can then (collectively) report to public agencies (including the FDA) in an effort to get those products recalled.
A foundation of LSM’s work is the understanding (and agreement with the consensus in the scientific and medical communities) that there is no safe level of Lead exposure for human beings, and that we (as consumers) should demand that companies be held accountable for manufacturing and selling Lead-contaminated products — especially products marketed and sold for use by children (or products marketed for general use that will likely be used or consumed by children).
We also want to hold agencies (like EWG) accountable for giving their top ratings (like the “EWG Verified” badge) to Lead-contaminated products. In the chart below there are several “EWG Verified” products that have tested positive for concerning levels of Lead (and other toxicants). This is a significant concern, as consumers expect that the “EWG Verified” distinction means these products should be free of toxicants like Lead, Mercury, Cadmium, and Arsenic.
Chart Updated: April 19, 2026
The chart below (comparing the toxicant profiles of laboratory-tested popular sunscreen products) is a work-in-progress.
We have found only TWO sunscreen products that have tested “non-detect” for Lead, Cadmium, Mercury, and Arsenic to date – as of April 19, 2026 (this product: https://amzn.to/3G4xKub and this product: https://amzn.to/4fA9Q72 ) – and will continue to test more products in this category looking for more safer choices — at the request and direction of the greater Lead Safe Mama community. NOTE: These are each chemical sunscreens.
While finding a sunscreen that tests “non-detect” for Lead, Cadmium, Mercury, and Arsenic is a good place to start — we encourage all of you to further research the other ingredients in these products (especially the ingredients in the chemical sunscreens) to make an informed decision as to whether or not the product is truly safe for your family (and especially safe for your children, taking into account your personal sunscreen usage patterns).
Our work is specifically limited to determining safety considerations based on the presence of (or absence of) heavy metals, which we acknowledge is only one part of the equation.
More articles and lab reports are pending/ will be published shortly and those are noted at the top of this page.
We update the grid at the top of this page periodically with new pending lab test results.
Each product image within the grid is a link to the published article with the full original lab report for that product..
Please check back periodically for the latest updates.
We first share our newly published articles on our Patreon.
Lead Safe Mama, LLC is not a 501(c)3 nonprofit, so contributions are not tax-deductible.
You can click the chart image below for a downloadable PDF copy.
Continue reading below the chart for additional information (including the full list of lab-tested safer products identified to date through this initiative) — thank you!
Tamara Rubin is a multiple-federal-award-winning independent advocate for childhood Lead poisoning prevention and consumer goods safety, and a documentary filmmaker. She is also a mother of Lead-poisoned children (two of her four sons were acutely Lead-poisoned in 2005).
Tamara owns and runs Lead Safe Mama, LLC — a unique community collaborative woman-owned small business for childhood Lead poisoning prevention and consumer goods safety.
Since July 2022, the work of Lead Safe Mama, LLC has been responsible for seven product recalls (FDA and CPSC).
All test results reported on this website are science-based, accurate, and replicable.
Key points related to the data in the sunscreen chart below:
94.29% of the Sunscreen Products we have tested to date have tested positive for Lead.
82.86% of the Sunscreen Products we have tested to date have tested positive for Cadmium.
37.14% of the Sunscreen Products we have tested to date have tested positive for Arsenic.
14.29% of the Sunscreen Products we have tested to date have tested positive for Mercury.
An “EWG Verified” product made for use by babies had one of the highest levels of Arsenic
Another “EWG Verified” product – also for made for use by babies – had the highest level of Cadmium
At least one “EWG Verified” product would be a violation of the Washington State Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act (TFCA) IF the TFCA covered sunscreens. Unfortunately we recently learned that it appears the TCFA has a loophole that allows an exemption for sunscreens (we are working on challenging this loophole, especially as it allows for products marketed and sold for use by and/ or assumed safe to be used on children to have dangerous levels of Lead).
Four out of five of the Sunscreens that tested positive for Mercury are marketed and sold as products intended for use with Babies, Kids, and/or Families (implying they are safe for children of all ages).
NINE sunscreens listed below — 25.7% of the 35 sunscreen products tested to date — have tested positive for a level of Lead that exceeds the 1,000 ppb (1 ppm) limit for Lead in cosmetics / personal care products set with the TFCA as of January 1, 2025.
2026 UPDATE:
Unfortunately, we recently learned that the position of the Washington State administrators of the TCFA is that this 1,000 limit does not apply to sunscreens (including sunscreens made and sold for use by babies and young children) — as sunscreens are considered to be a “medicated” and – based on their interpretation of this law, “medicated products” or products with a “medical purpose” are exempt from this new regulation (where “exempt” means “allowed to have Lead levels above 1,000 ppb” regardless of the intended user of the product), and so sunscreens are exempt.
Said another way: There is an exemption from the TFCA 1,000 ppb limit for Lead in cosmetics and personal care products if (and only if) the product is considered medicated. Medicated products (which are supposed to have health benefits for which they have been approved by the FDA) are ALLOWED to have DANGEROUS levels of Lead, even if those products are manufactured and marketed/sold expressly noting that they are products intended for use by infants and children.
“Medicated” products that we have found to be heavily Lead contaminated to date include many sunscreen products and diaper ointment products.
Action Item: As a result of this outrageous loophole that makes absolutely no sense (combined with the data we have collected for this product class over the past year through the Lead Safe Mama, LLC Community Collaborative Laboratory Testing Initiative) we are planning on creating a petition to Washington State TFCA administrators to ask them to close this loophole, at least when it comes to products intended for use by babies and children.
We will be launching this petition on Earth Day – April 22, 2026.
Please subscribe to our Patreon channel to make sure to see the petition when we launch it (you can subscribe for FREE or with a small monthly contribution in support of our work). Patreon Channel Link Here.
If you click the chart below you can see it full-sized. This chart is a Work in Progress and will be updated shortly. Please check back here periodically to see the latest updates. Thank you! The last date updated is on the chart itself.
If you want to share this chart on your website or social media channels you have permission to do so as long as you link it to this article – so we can make sure the context for the chart is also shared with the chart. Thank you!
The chart above compares the toxicant profiles of popular sunscreen products that we have tested through the community collaborative (community directed and funded), independent, third-party laboratory testing Lead Safe Mama, LLC is coordinating.
A “spacer graphic” like the one above can be found in each of our articles that include the Lead Safe Mama, LLC Lab-Tested Safer Choices List. The graphic differs depending on which version of the list is below it. The Leprechaun with Shamrockgraphic above (with the pink border) is our newest spacer for the March 2026 update of this Lab-Tested Safer Choices List. If the graphic is different when you see this list in any article (a pumpkin, sun, leaf, rainbow, flower, turkey, Christmas ornament, or shamrock), that means it is an earlier version of the Lab-Tested Safer Choices List.
While the date of the list, as it was last updated, is included in the text below it, we also wanted to introduce the visual tool that we use to identify the latest version of our lab-tested safer choices list. Lead Safe Mama team members strive to update the list with the current spacer graphic on all older articles, indicating that the most recent list of safer choices is below. However, they may not have had a chance to update every copy yet. Please be patient! Thank you.
Are you interested in seeing MORE safer choices?
Below is an expanding list of products (foods, supplements, cosmetics, and personal care items, including sunscreens and toothpaste) for which the lab reports showed “non-detect” for Lead, Mercury, Cadmium, and Arsenic with independent, third-party, community-funded laboratory testing coordinated by Lead Safe Mama, LLC (an Oregon-based small business with a unique community-collaborative business model and a focus on consumer goods safety and childhood Lead poisoning prevention).
These 120 product examples below clearly demonstrate that companies can manufacture safer choices (at least from the perspective of concerns for heavy metals contamination).
The limits of detection (low-threshold of detection) for each of the metals tested are noted in the lab report for each specific product. To see the full, original lab report for any of these products, type the brand or product name into the search bar at the top of any page on Lead Safe Mama dot com and scroll down to the bottom of the related article. The original lab report can always be found at the very bottom of each related article. Most of our published lab reports are also linked here, on our lab testing landing page.
This landing page is updated weekly (most weeks) and is a good page to bookmark and check back on periodically if you want the latest test results.
Flavors (or specific variations) tested are noted in the list below (and on all of our related articles). Other variations of the same product (or other products from the same brand) have either not been tested or have been tested but did not yield similar results.
Test results only apply to the specific products listed and linked below.
Test results are PRODUCT SPECIFIC, not BRAND SPECIFIC.
One should never assume that all products from a specific brand are clean just because one or more products from that specific brand came back with clean test results.
Products on our “Lab-Tested Safer Choices” list are retested periodically (annually if possible, or more frequently, as funding permits). If a product no longer tests clean (non-detect for all, or safe-by-all standards) with a second round of lab analysis, it is removed from the list. If you have questions about a product that was removed from this list, please use the search bar at the top of the page to see more on that product, including its most recent test results. Products previously on this list that have since been removed are also noted at the very bottom (three products currently fall in that category).
Lab-Tested Safer Choices List UPDATED: March 15, 2026 — Sunday Now at 114 products + 6 “bonus” products Scroll down to see all 120 Lab-Tested Safer Choices We are working on updating this list this week.
INDEX — See Product Categories Below
Section A) Newly Identified Safer Choices — 14 products
Section A.1) Newly Identified Safer Choices Not Available on Amazon— 4 products (18 total)
Section #19) Products Not Available On Amazon — All Categories — 7 products (106 total)
Section #20) Products That Tested Clean — But That We Do Not Recommend — 8 products (114 total)
Section #21) Bonus Products — Tested Safe By All Standards, but positive for Arsenic — 6 products (120 total)
Section #22) Products Removed From This List based on LSM Re-Test Results — 3 products (not included in total)
Not A “Recommended Products List”
In general this list should not be seen as a list of product recommendations. This list is — instead — simply and expressly a list of products that tested clean (non-detect for Lead, Cadmium, Mercury, and Arsenic) when sent in to third party independent labs for scientific testing.
Some examples:
As a mother of a child with reactive airway disease, I would NEVER under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES recommend the use of any essential oil products, yet there is an essential oil product in this list.
I personally don’t take any supplements and believe the entire supplement industry is just a money grab — yet there are quite a few supplements on the list below (because they were nominated for testing by all of you!) You will never ever find me recommending a supplement product.
I don’t use sunscreens and would never recommend a particular sunscreen. The two sunscreens that tested clean for heavy metals are chemical sunscreens, so that is also problematic for reasons outside of the heavy metals concerns, yet they are on the list below.
What you choose to do with the information in this list is up to you! All of the products in this list were nominated for testing by members of the greater Lead Safe Mama online community.
It is extremely rare that we — here at Lead Safe Mama, LLC — go out of our way to recommend specific products. We have however added a section of products we would expressly “not recommend” because of bad reviews, health concerns, and negative feedback from the community. These products are still on our lab tested safer choices list as readers still may choose to use them if they are looking for a product in that category (given they had clean test results when tested for heavy metals).
Color Coded Key
Orange = Tested in 2024 Purple = Tested in 2025 Pink = Retest Teal = Tested in 2026 Products noted with “TAMARA” — are products I use with my family.Many of these are products I only started using once they had be tested through the Lead Safe Mama, LLC Community Collaborative Laboratory Testing Initiative!
Section A.) Newly Identified Lab Tested Safer Choices (Jan, Feb, March 2026)
Lipstick!!**: [Tested: March 2026] — article with lab report to be published shortly — more info here — (only the one color noted – “Delight” – was tested) — direct manufacturer link (not an affiliate link)
[Tested: Nov 2024] OUAF Once Upon A Farm Dairy-free Fruit Smoothie Pouch in Strawberry Banana Swirl Flavor: https://amzn.to/3CPMbAw
[Tested: Aug 2025]OUAF Once Upon A Farm Organic Smart Blend in Pear-y Blueberry & Spinach Flavor**: https://amzn.to/4mEIe3n
[Tested: Aug 2025] OUAF Once Upon A Farm Organic Fruit & Veggie Blend in OhMyMega Veggie Flavor**: https://amzn.to/4mIeanF
[Tested: Aug 2025] OUAF Once Upon A Farm Organic Immunity Blend in Pineapple, Banana & Dragon Fruit Flavor**: https://amzn.to/4mJ4fON
[Tested: Aug 2025]OUAF Once Upon A Farm Organic Immunity Blend in Mango, Banana & Spirulina Flavor**: https://amzn.to/429BjXE
[Tested: Aug 2025]OUAF Once Upon A Farm Organic Immunity Blend in Blueberry, Banana & Ginger Flavor**: https://amzn.to/3HScYis
[Tested: Aug 2025] Pumpkin Tree Organic Pear Puree with Oat Fiber & Seeds**: https://amzn.to/425mTb7
[Tested: Aug 2025] HappyTot Organics Super Bellies Immune & Digestive Support Blend in Organic Pears, Beets & Blackberries Flavor**: https://amzn.to/4fZTaGk
[Tested: Aug 2025] HappyTot Organics Fiber & Protein in Organic Pears, Peaches, Pumpkin, Apples & Cinnamon Flavor**: https://amzn.to/47UaUAS
**Lab reports pending/ Not yet published as of 3/15/2026
Section #2) Infant & Pediatric Nutrition Formulas
Pediatric Formula — 1 —[Tested: Oct 2025] — Kate Farms Pediatric Standard Sole-Source Nutrition Formula 1.2 in Vanilla Flavor: https://amzn.to/4qpJbPk
Infant Formula — 1 —[Tested: Nov 2024] — Bobbie Organic Gentle Infant Formula Milk-Based Powder with Iron (pink and white can): https://amzn.to/3YYb849
Infant Formula — 2 —[Tested: Nov 2024] — Bobbie Organic Infant Formula Milk-Based Powder with Iron (green and white can): https://amzn.to/3VOr4Vy
Infant Formula — 3 —[Tested: Nov 2024] — Bobbie Grass-Fed Milk-Based Powder with Iron (green can): https://amzn.to/3ZlAaeJ
Infant Formula — 4 —[Tested: Oct 2024] —Holle Bio Goat Stage 2 Infant Formula (for 6-10 months, organic, European — Swiss/ German/ Austrian) is not available on Amazon, but the Stage 3 version of this product is (not yet tested, but will likely test similarly): https://amzn.to/3BVU7zI
ByHeart Formula tested clean for heavy metals but has been removed from this list due to a November 2025 product recall for botulism contamination.
Section #3) Breakfast Cereals
TAMARA — [Tested: Oct 2024] Nature’s Path Envirokidz Organic Panda Puffs: https://amzn.to/4fo1crf
TAMARA — Brewed Tea (tested as liquid) — [Tested: Dec 2024]Tao of Tea Organic Genmaicha (Tamara’s favorite, Made in Japan, sold by a Portland, Oregon-based company!): https://amzn.to/3Dp8Fsd
Prepared Ready-To-Drink Coffee with Almond Milk —[Tested: Dec 2024]Califia Farms Almond Latte Cold Brew (XX Espresso): https://amzn.to/4gTTGoJ
Section #5) Dairy Products
TAMARA — (cheese in snack form)—[Tested: Dec 2024]Babybel Mini Original Snack Cheese: https://amzn.to/3ZY5noO
TAMARA — (coffee creamer in carton)— [Tested: Nov 2024]Organic Valley Grassmilk Half and Half: https://amzn.to/4fHJIWT
Navitas Organic Chia Seeds tested clean for heavy metals but has been removed from this list due to a January 2026 product recall for possible salmonella contamination.
Section #14) Candy
TAMARA — Hard Candy Suckers —[Tested: Nov 2024] — Cavendish & Harvey Wild Berry Drops, not organic (Made in Germany): https://amzn.to/3Z1Jxjr
TAMARA — Gummy Candy — [Tested: Jun 2025] — Haribo Gummy Bears (Made in Germany, not USA-produced): https://amzn.to/3FCGVlu
TAMARA — White Chocolate — [Tested: Dec 2024] — Lindt White Chocolate Bar (Made in USA, New Hampshire): https://amzn.to/3OXkyIm
TAMARA — Hard Candy Suckers —[Tested: Jun 2025] — Werther’s Original Butter Candies (Made in Germany, not USA-produced): https://amzn.to/4nkFc5i
TAMARA —[Tested: Jun 2025]Aquafresh “FRESH & MINTY” Fluoride Toothpaste, Purchased in London, England (Made in U.K. or Slovakia): https://amzn.to/4lhRMjO
TAMARA —[Tested: Feb 2025]Orajel Kids Training Toothpaste, Fluoride-free in Natural Berry Fruity Flavor with Elmo Sesame Street packaging: https://amzn.to/41wxtrY
[Tested: Mar 2025]Dr. Brown’s Fluoride-free Baby Toothpaste in Strawberry Flavor: https://amzn.to/3DCehzZ
[Tested: Mar 2025]Kid’s SpryFluoride-free Tooth Gel with Xylitol in Original Flavor: https://amzn.to/41GZb4e
Section #19) “Lab Tested Safer Choices” — Products Not Available on Amazon
TAMARA — Toothpaste — [Tested: Mar 2025] – MiessenceFluoride-free Mint Toothpaste (Made in Australia) – If this Amazon link is sold out, do not buy knock offs from other links (buy direct from the manufacturer in Australia) https://amzn.to/4bJc4PO
Infant Formula — 1a —[Tested: Nov 2024] — Kendamil Goat Infant Formula (not organic): This product may be available at Target.
Infant Formula — 2a — [Tested: Oct 2024] — Kendamil Organic Follow-On Milk (European/ British Toddler Formula, for 6-12 months, Cow Milk)
Infant Formula — 3a —[Tested: Dec 2024] — Kendamil Whole Milk Infant Formula (from Europe, pink can, not organic), available at Target
Infant Formula — 4a —[Tested: Nov 2024] — Kendamil Organic Infant Formula (Cow Milk): May be available at Target
Infant Formula — 5a —[Tested: Nov 2024] — HiPP Bio Combiotik Infant Formula Powder, Stage 1 (imported)
Infant Formula — 6a —HiPP HA Stage PRE (0+ Months) Combiotic Formula (imported)
Section #20) “Lab Tested Safer Choices”Not currently recommended
These are products that tested clean (across the board) when tested for heavy metals (so they also demonstrate that the levels we are striving for through this movement are achievable), but they are otherwise products that we (here at Lead Safe Mama, LLC) specifically do not recommend for reasons outside of heavy metals testing concerns.
For more information, please read our related articles specific to the products (enter the product name in the search bar at the top of any page of our website, or look for the product image on this landing page – and click through to the article), and do your own research before choosing these products. Reason products may be on this list: excessive plastic packaging, predatory subscription model for purchasing, consistently bad product reviews. You may still choose to purchase these products, no one is going to judge you! Now you know they are free of heavy metals (or were free of heavy metals when they were last tested!) We do not plan on re-testing these particular products given the considerations noted above.
Baby Food — 5b — [Tested: Nov 2024] — Little Spoon Banana + Pitaya BabyBlends — Reason: Plastic Packaging, etc.*
Supplement — 1b — (adult) — [Tested: Jun 2025]Clean Creatine (100% Creapure), Made in Germany (use with caution,please read article): https://amzn.to/43UjrS6
*Brand sells products for consumption by infants that may be heated in the microwave in plastic. Packaging heavy brand, with subscription model.
**Lab reports pending/ Not yet published as of 3/15/2026
Here’s a link to our landing page featuring all the third-party lab reports for the foods, supplements, and cosmetic products we have published to date, including those listed above. This is a good page to bookmark, since it is updated several times each week, as we publish new lab reports: https://tamararubin.com/lab-reports/
Section #21) Bonus Products
Below are dditional products that each tested positive for trace (very low levels of) Arsenic — at levels considered safe by all standards (with the limits of detection noted in the lab report for the specific product listed).
Infant Formula — [Tested: Nov 2024] Kendamil Goat Toddler Milk, not organic (positive for traces of Arsenic): May be available at Target or through other online retailers of European infant formulas
Ingredient — [Tested: Feb 2025] Maseca Instant Corn Masa Flour, Product of Mexico (positive for traces of Arsenic): https://amzn.to/4iR8qWN
Fruit Snack — [Tested: Nov 2024] That’s It Apple Cherry Bars, not organic (positive for traces of Arsenic): https://amzn.to/4fHkSWV
Oil —[Tested: Oct 2024]Chosen Foods 100% Pure Avocado oil, organic (positive for traces of Arsenic): https://amzn.to/3BVQYQa
Supplement —(adult)— [Tested: Nov 2024]Now Sunflower Lecithin, not organic (positive for traces of Arsenic): https://amzn.to/3AFdHzO
Supplement —(adult)— [Tested: Jan 2025]WishGarden Immune Boost Seasonal Rescue for Pregnancy: https://amzn.to/3Cd940N
Section #22 Products Removed from the Above “Lab-Tested Safer Choices” List Due To Re-Test Results
The three products in the numbered list below were previously on the Lead Safe Mama, LLC Lab-Tested Safer Choices List, but were removed after 2025 retesting found traces of toxicants present.
In each case (for the three products noted below), the retests detected very low levels of toxicants — consistent with the idea that these products are still relatively cleaner choices compared to similar items in their categories. However — even though these products could still be classified as “cleaner” by nearly every standard — we only include products on the list above if the most recent lab results for that product show non-detect levels for all four metals we test for (Lead, Cadmium, Mercury, and Arsenic), or “safe by all standards” for Arsenic levels below 10 ppb with no other metals detected. So while these three products tested positive for very low levels of toxicants with the most recent round of lab testing, they no longer meet our standards to remain on our Lab-Tested Safer Choices List.
You can read more about these products and see the most recent lab test results for each in the articles linked below:
Amazon links are affiliate links. If you purchase something after clicking on a Lead Safe Mama, LLC Amazon Affiliate Link, Lead Safe Mama, LLC may receive a percentage of what you spend at no extra cost to you.
Never Miss an Important Article Again!
Join our Email List
29 Comments
What sunscreen do you use ? I bought the sport Badgers mineral SPF 40 and after seeing what you posted for the other Badgers I am returning it. With the results of all the chemicals, is that in each application or the entire bottle? I’m hoping you can find a safe mineral sunscreen. Thank you for all you are doing in testing.
When will you publish the report for the organic sunscreen that took the #2 spot? We have an outdoor party this weekend and could use another option of sunscreen for our child.
We are publishing the reports as the campaigns to cover the costs of testing and reporting fund. Please make a contribution in support of any of the open / pending GoFundMe campaigns linked near the top of the page – Thank you!
We are publishing reports as the testing and reporting is funded.
If the campaigns have not yet funded we do not have the funds to pay our team to publish the reports.
If there are specific sunscreens you would like to see the reports for, please consider contributing to our open gofundme campaigns to support the testing and reporting of those products. These open campaigns are linked above.
In the 20 reports linked above there are two safer sunscreen products we have published so far. Those two safer products can be found on this link as well: https://tamararubin.com/2025/06/81/
There is no safe level of Lead exposure and the only two sunscreen products that have tested non-detect for Lead to date have been published.
Thank you Tamara for all of the work that you do. I am really devastated by this. My baby has extremely sensitive skin and it is impossible for me to cover her head to toe all of the time from the sun and I quite frankly don’t know what to do with these results. Can you explain if these results are with each application or for the entire bottle? Are there any sunscreens that you and your family use personally? I will be making a donation for the Tubby Todd mineral sunscreen and a Mustela sunscreen as well. Hoping for something good. Thanks
Please post the #2 sunscreen so families have a better choice to use!! Everyone is looking for something safer for their families, and it is really discouraging to see all of the toxic reports. Thank you for sharing this knowledge….but please share any safer options with us first!
I agree! It would be nice to know since it is summer after all. She said earlier that we could donate, which is 100% fine but it doesn’t garentee that the number 2 will be posted. For me personally it doesn’t make me want to donate because for all I know it won’t be posted till the end of summer after I spent all summer slathering my daughter in potentially toxic sunscreen.
You list supergoop unseen sunscreen as testing safe but it looks like it’s marketed on Amazon to women as an under makeup primer and makes no mention if it’s safe for kids.
Chemical sunscreens with ingredients like avobenzene (in the supergoop sunscreen) are said by the AAP to not be safe for infants, but they may not be safe for anyone. I’m not an expert but there’s been a lot of research done on chemical sunscreens. I wish I had a better alternative to suggest to you, I have no idea what I’m going to use for my 1-year-old when we go to the beach this week. We were using ThinkBaby, because it was EWG certified but clearly that means nothing. I feel horrible about using it on him.
We always encourage readers to evaluate ALL ingredient considerations, not only heavy metal content considerations. In general we do not recommend any sunscreen product and I do not personally use any sunscreen products (I use protective clothing and stay out of mid-day sun whenever possible).
I personally think the entire sunscreen industry is a scam, and I personally do not use any cosmetics products at all.
We publish test results for community nominated products so our community can use this information to make science-informed choices for their families. It is hopefully just one part of the data people are using to evaluate safety concerns.
Wild that the whole summer has passed and you never posted the less harmful options. You state that you post them when they are funded, but how do we know which one to donate to? And isn’t the important thing keeping children safe? Multiple people asked for the number 2 and 3 sunscreens to keep their kids just a little bit safer, yet you refused to post them? You have posted many not yet funded campaigns. Why not those?
We posted the two safer choices – one was funded, one was not.
They are both on the safer choices list.
These are the only two safer choices for sunscreen that we found.
Given there is no safe level of lead exposure, the priority was to publish the ones that came back “non-detect” for lead, which we did.
People somehow think that a lower amount of lead is safer to put on a child’s skin. This is simply not true.
The ones that tested positive for low levels of lead are not safer choices, they simply are not. so you can basically assume that anything but those two tested positive for Lead (until further notice).
We found two safer choices and we shared those.
We have to prioritize our time allocation – especially when we don’t have enough funding to pay our costs.
I did not pay my mortgage for three months this summer in order to be able to publish the results that we published. I cannot sacrifice more than that. I’m sorry – but that’s the bottom line.
We have to prioritize publishing funded campaigns – and I cannot lose my house over it.
When is number 3 in the table going to be published? The results are there but the product name hasn’t been released yet?
It is now mid-Spring in Australia and beach weather has already begun.
We can’t get the two non-detect products in Australia (supergoop and the specific la roche posay sunscreen you tested) and they’re expensive anyway.
Hasn’t the testing for that product already been done and paid for though? The results are there in the table, it’s just the brand and product name that is being kept hidden at the moment.
Revealing the product name of number 3 in the table and making a big social media push aimed at Australian mums and dads (with a super clear caveat that no lead is safe but this one is orders of magnitude, literally, better) would surely garner a lot of support and donations from downunder. It could even encourage the manufacturer (especially if it’s one of the big brands) to tighten up their quality control to get themselves onto the list of perfect sunscreens since they’re already so close. Post it as a challenge for the manufacter. It may even prompt La Roche-Posay and Supergoop to offer their lead-free products here.
Recent testing by consumer group ‘CHOICE’ of the SPF levels of popular sunscreens here has resulted in products being voluntarily pulled from the shelves from embaressment and consumer boycottts; many of the brands have improved their products, re-tested and re-released them ensuring they meet the advertised SPF levels. More recently in the last two weeks our TGA (similar to your FDA) has been prompted into action by all this and they have now forced dozens more sunscreens to be pulled from the market. It’s been a big ongoing story for a couple of months here so the timing couldn’t be more perfect to get your message out and to maybe even get some action from the authorities. I would even republish and contrast the results with the Australian Cancer Council sunscreen results to force their hand to improve their product or suffer from reduced sales. It would generate A LOT of buzz right now. I guarantee it.
I can share posts about the two non-detect products and get comments like “this is so expensive” and “It’s so unfair. I either (a) poison my child with sunscreen that I can afford and can get access to in Australia or (b) I can let them get skin cancer”.
FWIW skin cancer is a super serious life and death issue here in Australia – we’ve got the ozone hole right above us (yeah that didn’t go away), we get so much sun down here – most days in spring and summer we have “extreme” UV levels (meaning white people start getting burned after about 5 minutes in the sun). More than 2000 Aussies die every year from skin cancer which is mostly due to getting sunburned during their childhood. Wearing sunscreen when you go outside here is no different than putting on your shoes.
I understand and respect and wholeheartedly agree with the the position that no lead level is safe. But the two perfect lead-free options are simply out of reach for many families from an affordability standpoint, or for us in Australia aren’t even available here and we can’t even import them so they’re not even an option.
The difference between the number 3 product and various other products that are available in Australia could be the difference between exposing your child to much less lead ppb than what you typically find for example in potatoes, versus slathering them with something that’s got hundrends or even thousands of ppb lead. It’s not a perfect product, absolutely, but it’s undeniably better (by orders of magnitude looking at some of the other results in the table) than everything else further down the table (and presumably versus the majority of products on the shelves here too). Australian kids are going to be exposed to sunscreen (there’s simply no avoiding that), so isn’t it better they get exposed to the lowest possible (known) lead option rather than something so much worse?
I’m eager to see them! I’ve seen the 2 that tested non detect so far but yikes the ingredients list for them are a nightmare I hope we can find a non detect sunscreen that is safer to use in all areas. I’m keeping my fingers crossed (even tho I know this would be a holy grail product) cause keeping little kids out of the sun and covered is exhausting.
For anyone else who is searching- (and I know that Tamara has noted that we need to look into all the ingredients) the supergoop sunscreen is a chemical formula, so it has some ingredients that may be hormone disrupters, I think the Hawaiian tropic sheer touch is chemical as well. Physical sunscreens use zinc, which seems to naturally be contaminated with lead. Last year I bought the Australian cancer council’s sensitive sunscreen to use on my one year old. I should have done more research into the ingredients, like Tamara suggested, because when I went to re-order it this year, I checked the ingredients and found out that it’s a hybrid physical and chemical sunscreen. So along with zinc, it has other ingredients including at least one controversial compound that may be a hormone disrupter. So basically, the reason that sunscreen tested low for lead is because it doesn’t have much zinc in it, because it’s taking chemical sunscreen compounds. I feel terrible that I used it on my baby. There seems to be no safe option. I live in a sub-tropical climate and the UV is already reaching 10 in April. My toddler loves playing outside and it would be so wonderful to find a decently safe sunscreen so he can play outside without worry of damaging his skin or disrupting his development. I am really looking forward to Tamara releasing the data on the new sunscreens she tested. I’m beyond thankful for her tireless work.
Mackenzie, until you manage to find a good sunscreen, can you perhaps look into SPF clothing for your little one? And maybe SPF umbrella too if your toddler is not running around. I realize that kids might hate having to wear long sleeved clothes in the sun/heat, and I wish things were different, but as of yet I don’t think we have much options 🙁
What sunscreen do you use ? I bought the sport Badgers mineral SPF 40 and after seeing what you posted for the other Badgers I am returning it. With the results of all the chemicals, is that in each application or the entire bottle? I’m hoping you can find a safe mineral sunscreen. Thank you for all you are doing in testing.
When will you publish the report for the organic sunscreen that took the #2 spot? We have an outdoor party this weekend and could use another option of sunscreen for our child.
We are publishing the reports as the campaigns to cover the costs of testing and reporting fund. Please make a contribution in support of any of the open / pending GoFundMe campaigns linked near the top of the page – Thank you!
Yes could you please publish this, it’s been months
We are publishing reports as the testing and reporting is funded.
If the campaigns have not yet funded we do not have the funds to pay our team to publish the reports.
If there are specific sunscreens you would like to see the reports for, please consider contributing to our open gofundme campaigns to support the testing and reporting of those products. These open campaigns are linked above.
Here’s the link with all of the sunscreen lab reports we have published to date (there are 20 published reports so far):
https://tamararubin.com/category/sunscreen/
In the 20 reports linked above there are two safer sunscreen products we have published so far. Those two safer products can be found on this link as well:
https://tamararubin.com/2025/06/81/
There is no safe level of Lead exposure and the only two sunscreen products that have tested non-detect for Lead to date have been published.
This one:
https://tamararubin.com/2025/08/la-roche-posay-anthelios-kids-gentle-lotion-sunscreen-spf-50/
and This one:
https://tamararubin.com/2025/06/supergoop-unseen-sunscreen/
Thank you.
Glad to hear you finally found a no-detect for heavy metals. But are we concerned about any other elements in the long-list of ingredients?
https://supergoop.com/products/unseen-sunscreen-spf-50?variant=41610270802018
click on “Ingredients” tab
EWG rated it a 2, so hopefully not too detrimental
https://www.ewg.org/sunscreen/about-the-sunscreens/7363914/Supergoop_Glowscreen_Sunscreen_Lotion%2C_Golden_Hour%2C_SPF_40/
Thank you Tamara for all of the work that you do. I am really devastated by this. My baby has extremely sensitive skin and it is impossible for me to cover her head to toe all of the time from the sun and I quite frankly don’t know what to do with these results. Can you explain if these results are with each application or for the entire bottle? Are there any sunscreens that you and your family use personally? I will be making a donation for the Tubby Todd mineral sunscreen and a Mustela sunscreen as well. Hoping for something good. Thanks
Any update on when the #2 & #3 will be published? I cannot push myself to buy the #1 based on the other ingredients!
Please post the #2 sunscreen so families have a better choice to use!! Everyone is looking for something safer for their families, and it is really discouraging to see all of the toxic reports. Thank you for sharing this knowledge….but please share any safer options with us first!
I agree! It would be nice to know since it is summer after all. She said earlier that we could donate, which is 100% fine but it doesn’t garentee that the number 2 will be posted. For me personally it doesn’t make me want to donate because for all I know it won’t be posted till the end of summer after I spent all summer slathering my daughter in potentially toxic sunscreen.
You list supergoop unseen sunscreen as testing safe but it looks like it’s marketed on Amazon to women as an under makeup primer and makes no mention if it’s safe for kids.
Chemical sunscreens with ingredients like avobenzene (in the supergoop sunscreen) are said by the AAP to not be safe for infants, but they may not be safe for anyone. I’m not an expert but there’s been a lot of research done on chemical sunscreens. I wish I had a better alternative to suggest to you, I have no idea what I’m going to use for my 1-year-old when we go to the beach this week. We were using ThinkBaby, because it was EWG certified but clearly that means nothing. I feel horrible about using it on him.
Supergoop is NOT ok. It’s a super toxic chemical sunscreen.
We always encourage readers to evaluate ALL ingredient considerations, not only heavy metal content considerations. In general we do not recommend any sunscreen product and I do not personally use any sunscreen products (I use protective clothing and stay out of mid-day sun whenever possible).
Tamara
I personally think the entire sunscreen industry is a scam, and I personally do not use any cosmetics products at all.
We publish test results for community nominated products so our community can use this information to make science-informed choices for their families. It is hopefully just one part of the data people are using to evaluate safety concerns.
Tamara
Wild that the whole summer has passed and you never posted the less harmful options. You state that you post them when they are funded, but how do we know which one to donate to? And isn’t the important thing keeping children safe? Multiple people asked for the number 2 and 3 sunscreens to keep their kids just a little bit safer, yet you refused to post them? You have posted many not yet funded campaigns. Why not those?
We posted the two safer choices – one was funded, one was not.
They are both on the safer choices list.
These are the only two safer choices for sunscreen that we found.
Given there is no safe level of lead exposure, the priority was to publish the ones that came back “non-detect” for lead, which we did.
People somehow think that a lower amount of lead is safer to put on a child’s skin. This is simply not true.
The ones that tested positive for low levels of lead are not safer choices, they simply are not. so you can basically assume that anything but those two tested positive for Lead (until further notice).
We found two safer choices and we shared those.
We have to prioritize our time allocation – especially when we don’t have enough funding to pay our costs.
I did not pay my mortgage for three months this summer in order to be able to publish the results that we published. I cannot sacrifice more than that. I’m sorry – but that’s the bottom line.
We have to prioritize publishing funded campaigns – and I cannot lose my house over it.
T
When is number 3 in the table going to be published? The results are there but the product name hasn’t been released yet?
It is now mid-Spring in Australia and beach weather has already begun.
We can’t get the two non-detect products in Australia (supergoop and the specific la roche posay sunscreen you tested) and they’re expensive anyway.
We’re still working on raising funds to cover the costs of the remaining reporting.
T
Thanks Tamara.
Hasn’t the testing for that product already been done and paid for though? The results are there in the table, it’s just the brand and product name that is being kept hidden at the moment.
Revealing the product name of number 3 in the table and making a big social media push aimed at Australian mums and dads (with a super clear caveat that no lead is safe but this one is orders of magnitude, literally, better) would surely garner a lot of support and donations from downunder. It could even encourage the manufacturer (especially if it’s one of the big brands) to tighten up their quality control to get themselves onto the list of perfect sunscreens since they’re already so close. Post it as a challenge for the manufacter. It may even prompt La Roche-Posay and Supergoop to offer their lead-free products here.
Recent testing by consumer group ‘CHOICE’ of the SPF levels of popular sunscreens here has resulted in products being voluntarily pulled from the shelves from embaressment and consumer boycottts; many of the brands have improved their products, re-tested and re-released them ensuring they meet the advertised SPF levels. More recently in the last two weeks our TGA (similar to your FDA) has been prompted into action by all this and they have now forced dozens more sunscreens to be pulled from the market. It’s been a big ongoing story for a couple of months here so the timing couldn’t be more perfect to get your message out and to maybe even get some action from the authorities. I would even republish and contrast the results with the Australian Cancer Council sunscreen results to force their hand to improve their product or suffer from reduced sales. It would generate A LOT of buzz right now. I guarantee it.
I can share posts about the two non-detect products and get comments like “this is so expensive” and “It’s so unfair. I either (a) poison my child with sunscreen that I can afford and can get access to in Australia or (b) I can let them get skin cancer”.
FWIW skin cancer is a super serious life and death issue here in Australia – we’ve got the ozone hole right above us (yeah that didn’t go away), we get so much sun down here – most days in spring and summer we have “extreme” UV levels (meaning white people start getting burned after about 5 minutes in the sun). More than 2000 Aussies die every year from skin cancer which is mostly due to getting sunburned during their childhood. Wearing sunscreen when you go outside here is no different than putting on your shoes.
I understand and respect and wholeheartedly agree with the the position that no lead level is safe. But the two perfect lead-free options are simply out of reach for many families from an affordability standpoint, or for us in Australia aren’t even available here and we can’t even import them so they’re not even an option.
The difference between the number 3 product and various other products that are available in Australia could be the difference between exposing your child to much less lead ppb than what you typically find for example in potatoes, versus slathering them with something that’s got hundrends or even thousands of ppb lead. It’s not a perfect product, absolutely, but it’s undeniably better (by orders of magnitude looking at some of the other results in the table) than everything else further down the table (and presumably versus the majority of products on the shelves here too). Australian kids are going to be exposed to sunscreen (there’s simply no avoiding that), so isn’t it better they get exposed to the lowest possible (known) lead option rather than something so much worse?
It has not been paid for. We are working on raising funds to cover the shortfall so we can finish posting the results.
T
Hi Tamara, have any more been funded? Do you have a link to the sunscreen funds? Thanks!
Two have – we are working on getting those published. One still has to get off to the lab, will be publishing more shortly.
T
I noticed that the goal for testing has been met for the mustela mineral sunscreen stick. Has it been tested yet?
We have a couple of funded sunscreens on the pending list.
T
I’m eager to see them! I’ve seen the 2 that tested non detect so far but yikes the ingredients list for them are a nightmare I hope we can find a non detect sunscreen that is safer to use in all areas. I’m keeping my fingers crossed (even tho I know this would be a holy grail product) cause keeping little kids out of the sun and covered is exhausting.
For anyone else who is searching- (and I know that Tamara has noted that we need to look into all the ingredients) the supergoop sunscreen is a chemical formula, so it has some ingredients that may be hormone disrupters, I think the Hawaiian tropic sheer touch is chemical as well. Physical sunscreens use zinc, which seems to naturally be contaminated with lead. Last year I bought the Australian cancer council’s sensitive sunscreen to use on my one year old. I should have done more research into the ingredients, like Tamara suggested, because when I went to re-order it this year, I checked the ingredients and found out that it’s a hybrid physical and chemical sunscreen. So along with zinc, it has other ingredients including at least one controversial compound that may be a hormone disrupter. So basically, the reason that sunscreen tested low for lead is because it doesn’t have much zinc in it, because it’s taking chemical sunscreen compounds. I feel terrible that I used it on my baby. There seems to be no safe option. I live in a sub-tropical climate and the UV is already reaching 10 in April. My toddler loves playing outside and it would be so wonderful to find a decently safe sunscreen so he can play outside without worry of damaging his skin or disrupting his development. I am really looking forward to Tamara releasing the data on the new sunscreens she tested. I’m beyond thankful for her tireless work.
Mackenzie, until you manage to find a good sunscreen, can you perhaps look into SPF clothing for your little one? And maybe SPF umbrella too if your toddler is not running around. I realize that kids might hate having to wear long sleeved clothes in the sun/heat, and I wish things were different, but as of yet I don’t think we have much options 🙁