What toothpaste have lead in them
Executive summary
Independent, community-funded laboratory testing led by advocacy group Lead Safe Mama found detectable lead in roughly 90% of 51 toothpastes it tested, including many mainstream and “natural” brands such as Colgate, Crest, Sensodyne, Tom’s of Maine, Dr. Bronner’s and Davids; a small number of products tested negative (non-detect) for lead [1] [2] [3]. The work has prompted alarm because some measured values exceeded Washington State’s stricter cosmetic lead limit, even while most samples remained below current federal guidance—raising a debate about testing methods, ingredient sourcing and regulatory adequacy [4] [1].
1. What the tests found: widespread detections, some exceedances
Lead Safe Mama’s testing program, using community crowdfunding to send popular and children’s toothpastes to an independent lab, reported that roughly 90% of 51 toothpaste products contained detectable lead, and that many samples also contained arsenic, mercury and cadmium; some individual variants exceeded Washington state’s 1,000 ppb cosmetic limit for lead [1] [3] [4]. The campaign named a range of implicated brands — including household names Colgate, Crest and Tom’s of Maine as well as smaller “natural” brands such as Dr. Bronner’s, Davids and Dr Jen — and highlighted that multiple children’s formulations were among those with detectable heavy metals [2] [5].
2. Which toothpastes tested negative and which ones raised the greatest concern
The published results note that a handful of products returned “non-detect” results for lead and the other metals tested; RealSimple cited Dr. Brown’s Fluoride-free Baby Toothpaste and Spry Kids’ tooth gel among those without detectable contaminants, while Lead Safe Mama’s public chart later listed seven products with non-detect lab reports as of mid-2025 [2] [6]. Conversely, several products—including variants from brands such as Primal, Redmond and VanMan’s in the Lead Safe Mama dataset—registered some of the highest lead readings, with at least one sample reported well above Washington’s cosmetic limit [4] [3].
3. How contamination might be getting into toothpaste: ingredient and supply-chain hypotheses
Lead Safe Mama and reporting note that likely vectors for contamination are naturally derived ingredients sometimes used in toothpastes—calcium carbonate, hydroxyapatite and bentonite clay among them—which can carry trace metals if not purified; the group cautions that sourcing and refinement practices matter and that naturally sourced components have previously been linked to heavy-metal burdens [3] [7]. Independent reviewers and earlier scientific literature also document that heavy-metal contamination of consumer toothpastes has been observed in multiple countries and studies over time, although methodological quality in some prior studies was variable [8].
4. Regulatory context and the debate over safety thresholds
Measured levels in Lead Safe Mama’s testing often fell below the FDA’s very high cosmetic threshold (10,000 ppb for some toothpaste classifications), which means products may be technically compliant with federal limits even when they exceed state standards like Washington’s 1,000 ppb limit; public-health advocates argue those federal thresholds are not sufficiently protective because no lead exposure is considered safe for children [4] [1]. The American Dental Association points to FDA oversight for dental products, while advocates urge manufacturers to test ingredients and eliminate contaminated sources [2] [1].
5. Strengths, limitations and what can be concluded now
The testing described was third‑party laboratory analysis commissioned and publicized by an advocacy organization that crowdfunded sample collection, which strengthens transparency about motivation but also makes questions about sampling representativeness and broader industry prevalence relevant; Lead Safe Mama’s work is consistent with a pattern in the literature showing heavy-metal contaminants can appear in toothpastes, yet systematic reviews note many prior studies had methodological weaknesses, so broader, regulator-led surveillance would clarify scope [6] [8]. Reporters and public-health experts therefore present two competing interpretations: that these findings reveal an urgent supply-chain problem demanding action by manufacturers and regulators (advocates’ view), and that federal compliance for many products remains intact, prompting calls for clearer standards and routine testing (industry/regulatory view) [1] [4].