Toothpaste can be widely contaminated with lead and other dangerous heavy metals,new researchshows.Most of 51 brands of toothpastetested for leadcontained the dangerous heavy metal, including those for children or those marketed as green. The testing, conducted byLead Safe Mama, also found concerning levels of highly toxic arsenic, mercury and cadmium in many brands.About 90% of toothpastes contained lead, 65% contained arsenic, just under half contained mercury, and one-third had cadmium. Many brands contain a number of the toxins.The highest levels detected violated the state of Washington’s limits, but not federal limits. The thresholds have been roundly criticized by public health advocates for not being protective – no level of exposure to lead is safe, thefederal government has found.Lead contamination in applesauce possibly ‘economically motivated’, says FDARead more“It’s unconscionable – especially in 2025,” said Tamara Rubin, Lead Safe Mama’s founder. “What’s really interesting to me is that no one thought this was a concern.”Lead can cause cognitive damage to children, harm the kidneys and cause heart disease, among other issues. Lead, mercury, cadmium and arsenic are all carcinogens.Rubin first learned that lead-contaminated ingredients were added to toothpaste about 12 years ago while working with families that had children with high levels of the metal in their blood. The common denominator among them was a brand of toothpaste, Earthpaste, that contained lead.Last year she detected high levels in some toothpaste using an XRF lead detection tool. The levels were high enough to raise concern, and she crowdfunded with readers to send popular brands to an independent laboratory for testing.Among those found to contain the toxins were Crest, Sensodyne, Tom’s of Maine, Dr Bronner’s, Davids, Dr Jen and others.So far, none of the companies Lead Safe Mama checked have said they will work to get lead out of their product, Rubin said. Several sent her cease-and-desist letters, which she said she ignored, but alsopostedon her blog.Some companies havedefended themselves, oftenclaimingthat leadis foundin trace levels throughout the environment and is impossible to avoid. Othershave saidthe levels Rubin found are not concerning.The federal Baby Food Safety Act of 2024, which is stalled in Congress, calls for lead limits in kids’ food of 10 ppb. California’s limit on lead in baby food is six ppb, but neither includes toothpaste.Most toothpastes exceeded those thresholds.skip past newsletter promotionSign up toDetox Your KitchenFree weekly newsletterA seven-week expert course to help you avoid chemicals in your food and groceries.Enter your email addressSign upPrivacy Notice:Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see ourPrivacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the GooglePrivacy PolicyandTerms of Serviceapply.after newsletter promotionThe FDA’s current lead limit for fluoride-free toothpastes is 10,000 ppb, and 20,000 ppb for fluoride toothpastes. 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.The FDA did not immediately respond to a request for comment, nor did Crest’s parent company, Procter & Gamble.Rubin said the contamination seems to lie in some ingredients added to toothpaste, including hydroxyapatite, calcium carbonate and bentonite clay. Hydroxyapatite is extracted from cow bone and added because it allegedly helps teeth absorb calcium, though Rubin said she doubts it does. Calcium carbonate is added to help remove stains from teeth. Bentonite clay is a cleaning agent.Those with the highest levels all had bentonite clay. Meanwhile, Rubin’s testing of hydroxyapatite and calcium carbonate as individual ingredients showed concerning levels of lead and other metals, suggesting those are the source.Several children’s toothpastes, like Dr Brown’s Baby Toothpaste, did not test positive for any metals and did not contain the ingredients in question.The story was amended on 17 April 2025 to correct errors on regulatory limits of lead in toothpaste and other products.
Toothpaste widely contaminated with lead and other metals, US research finds
TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:
"Study Reveals Widespread Heavy Metal Contamination in Toothpaste Brands"
The Guardian
6.6
TruthLens AI Summary
Recent research conducted by Lead Safe Mama has revealed alarming levels of heavy metal contamination in toothpaste, with 90% of the 51 brands tested containing lead. The study also found significant amounts of arsenic, mercury, and cadmium, with 65% of the toothpastes containing arsenic, nearly half containing mercury, and one-third showing cadmium presence. Many brands, including those marketed for children and those claiming to be environmentally friendly, were implicated in this contamination. Notably, the highest levels of these toxins exceeded the state of Washington's limits, despite remaining below federal thresholds, which have been criticized for not being sufficiently protective against health risks. Public health advocates emphasize that there is no safe level of lead exposure, highlighting the serious health implications, particularly for children, who may suffer cognitive damage and other health issues due to these contaminants.
Tamara Rubin, the founder of Lead Safe Mama, has been investigating the issue of lead in toothpaste for over a decade, initially discovering the problem while assisting families with children affected by lead poisoning linked to a specific toothpaste brand. Last year, she utilized an XRF lead detection tool to uncover concerning levels of lead in various popular toothpaste brands, prompting her to crowdfund for independent laboratory testing. Brands such as Crest, Sensodyne, and Tom’s of Maine were among those found to contain these harmful metals. While some companies have defended their products by claiming that environmental lead contamination is inevitable or that the detected levels are insignificant, Rubin's findings indicate a need for stricter regulations. In light of the current federal and state regulations, which lag behind public health recommendations, the urgency for action remains high, particularly as new laws are proposed to establish lead limits in food products but fail to address toothpaste contamination directly.
TruthLens AI Analysis
The findings reported in this article raise significant concerns about public health, particularly regarding everyday products like toothpaste. The revelation that many brands contain hazardous heavy metals, including lead, arsenic, mercury, and cadmium, is alarming. This discovery not only poses risks to consumers, especially children, but also highlights potential regulatory shortcomings.
Public Perception and Trust Issues
The article aims to evoke a sense of urgency and concern among consumers regarding the safety of a widely used product. By emphasizing the prevalence of heavy metal contamination, it seeks to challenge the trustworthiness of major toothpaste brands. The statement by Tamara Rubin underscores the expectation that such issues should have been addressed by now, reflecting a broader failure in consumer protection.
Regulatory Critique
The article critiques the federal standards for heavy metal contamination, which are described as inadequate by public health advocates. This criticism may influence public opinion about regulatory bodies and their effectiveness in ensuring consumer safety. The mention of Washington state's stricter limits versus federal limits further illustrates the variability in safety standards across different regions.
Potential Hidden Agendas
There is a possibility that the article aims to divert attention from other pressing issues in the health and safety sector. By focusing on toothpaste, it may serve as a distraction from other significant health risks or regulatory failures that are currently under scrutiny.
Manipulative Elements
The use of emotionally charged language and alarming statistics can be seen as a form of manipulation. The article presents the data in a way that emphasizes the health risks without providing a balanced view of the overall safety of dental products. This could lead to fear-based reactions from the public rather than informed decision-making.
Comparative Analysis
When compared to other health-related news, this article shares a common theme of highlighting consumer safety issues. There is an ongoing trend in media coverage that focuses on product safety, which could foster a coalition of consumer advocacy groups calling for stricter regulations.
Impact on Society and Economy
This revelation could lead to a decline in consumer trust, resulting in decreased sales for affected brands and a potential reassessment of product safety regulations. Public health campaigns might emerge, advocating for increased scrutiny of personal care products, which could reshape market dynamics.
Targeted Communities
The article is likely to resonate with health-conscious consumers, parents, and environmental advocates. These groups may feel particularly alarmed by the implications of toxin exposure and may push for more stringent regulations or alternative products.
Market Reactions
Investors in the personal care industry may respond to this news with caution, potentially affecting the stock prices of brands implicated in the contamination. Companies like Crest and Sensodyne could see fluctuations in consumer trust that impact their market performance.
Global Implications
While this article primarily addresses a U.S. issue, it could have broader implications for international health standards and consumer safety regulations. It aligns with growing global concerns over environmental toxins and public health.
AI Influence
There is no clear indication that artificial intelligence was used in the writing of this article. However, if AI had been involved, it might have influenced the tone and presentation of the data to evoke stronger emotional responses from readers. In summary, the article presents a significant health concern backed by alarming statistics, aiming to raise public awareness and critique regulatory inadequacies. However, the manner in which the information is conveyed may lead to fear-mongering rather than constructive dialogue about consumer safety.