Toothpaste Widely Contaminated With Lead and Other Metals, US Research Finds (theguardian.com)
- Reference: 0177059565
- News link: https://science.slashdot.org/story/25/04/18/1130208/toothpaste-widely-contaminated-with-lead-and-other-metals-us-research-finds
- Source link: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/17/toothpaste-lead-heavy-metals
> Toothpaste can be widely contaminated with lead and other dangerous heavy metals, new research shows.
>
> Most of 51 brands of toothpaste [2]tested for lead contained the dangerous heavy metal , including those for children or those marketed as green. The testing, conducted by Lead 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, the federal government has found.
Bruce66423 asks: "As ever the question that should be asked is: 'What level is worth worrying about and why?'"
[1] https://slashdot.org/~Bruce66423
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/17/toothpaste-lead-heavy-metals
Caught in a lie. (Score:5, Insightful)
> Some companies have defended themselves, often claiming that lead is found in trace levels throughout the environment and is impossible to avoid. Others have said the levels Rubin found are not concerning.
> ...
> 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.
So much for impossible.
More Complex (Score:2)
The question is a lot more complex than that. First we need to know what level of lead and the other metals detected is safe for a toothpaste bearing in mind that you spit almost all of it out. Then the question is whether the products containing the trace amounts of lead are necessary to provide better protection against gum disease and tooth decay. You might be able to avoid lead almost entirely but if that means you are are far higher risk of gum disease and tooth decay then, provided the lead level is l
Re:More Complex (Score:5, Insightful)
> First we need to know what level of lead and the other metals detected is safe for a toothpaste bearing in mind that you spit almost all of it out
It has long been determined that no amount of lead is safe for humans. There is a shitload of data to support this conclusion. As such, it becomes a statistical gamble of exposure if there is lead in your toothpaste.
The simple answer to the complex question is that no lead should be in toothpaste.
You seem to be rehashing a lot of the arguments that were made be the oil and gas companies when leaded gas was still legal.
Re: (Score:2)
> It has long been determined that no amount of lead is safe for humans. There is a shitload of data to support this conclusion. As such, it becomes a statistical gamble of exposure if there is lead in your toothpaste.
> The simple answer to the complex question is that no lead should be in toothpaste.
Unwillingness to accept any risk / engage in balancing of competing costs serves no constructive purpose.
> You seem to be rehashing a lot of the arguments that were made be the oil and gas companies when leaded gas was still legal.
Gas naturally contains lead. Leaded gas is still used in some relatively niche applications. Substances having replaced lead have their own set of human health problems. Gas is not risk free.
The result of refraining from adding millions of tons of additional lead to gas was average blood levels in humans being cut in half with substantial measurable impacts on human health. Benefits clearly outweighed
Re: (Score:2)
uncontrolled experiments with brain damage in children due to low level lead exposure is not worth the risk you fucking moron
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck balancing competing costs. It isn't that hard or expensive to remove lead from the source ingredients being used. Whether that is the job of the toothpaste companies or the companies selling the ingredients - doesn't matter. Doesn't matter if it doubles the price of toothpaste on average. Lead is too easily absorbed by the body for ANY amount to be present inside your body, even temporarily. So, either don't use ingredients that contain lead (like the one baby toothpaste) or do work to remove lead from
Re: (Score:2)
> Unwillingness to accept any risk / engage in balancing of competing costs serves no constructive purpose.
That might have been a via argument if every toothpaste tested positive for lead contamination. However, the fact that there are toothpastes from multiple vendors that contain no lead shows that competing costs are not prohibitive to producing lead-free toothpaste.
Arguing in favor of allowing lead in toothpaste is a weird hill to die on but at least you're dead.
Re: (Score:2)
It's enough to cause [1]problems [theguardian.com]:
> 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.
As to why it's happening:
> 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. Calcium carbonate is added to help remove stains from teeth. Bentonite clay is a cleaning agent. Those with the highest levels of lead all had bentonite clay.
Sadly, Earthpaste is advertised as "Natural & Healthy Bentonite Clay Toothpaste." So nature wants to kill you.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/17/toothpaste-lead-heavy-metals
Re: (Score:2)
Whether and how safe it is is going to depend a LOT on what form it is in, Lead nitrate, or lead acetate would be quite concerning, but lead hydroxide much less. I couldn't tell from skimming, but I didn't see anything to make me think we were talking about metallic lead. Lead as part of a molecule in clay *ought* to be relatively save. (OTOH, lead adsorbed into clay would be quite concerning.)
Re: (Score:2)
> So much for impossible.
They are there, just needs more sensitive tests.
Re: (Score:2)
Related question: can I, as an average consumer, have random foods or other tested by a serious lab for any pollutants ? Salad from the garden, mushroom from the forest, dirt from the top of the cupboard, air from the room, water from the tap, etc... Can I pack up samples and send them to a lab somewhere for an affordable analysis ?
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. If you have the cash to pay for it. Quick google search lead to this: [1]https://www.chemsee.com/reside... [chemsee.com]
[1] https://www.chemsee.com/residential/foods-detection/in-lab-sample-testing/
Sample Size of 1 (Score:3, Informative)
They tested a single sample of a product. We don't know the lot number or manufacture date. Yet, the article draws conclusions about entire Brands.
This is someone with an agenda pushing it and has nothing to do with science or safety.
Re:Sample Size of 1 (Score:5, Insightful)
> They tested a single sample of a product. We don't know the lot number or manufacture date. Yet, the article draws conclusions about entire Brands.
> This is someone with an agenda pushing it and has nothing to do with science or safety.
Not only that, but the article is somewhat misleading. 90% of the toothpastes contain measurable lead, but only 3 out of 53 toothpastes exceeded the Washington state limits, so 94% of the toothpastes are far under the Washington state limits. And the Washington state limits are far lower than the federal limits.
As we have seen from some states like California, these state limits are often lower but without necessarily strong science. If "no level of lead is safe," then even Washington state's limit makes no sense. Sometimes I wonder if the limits are totally made up. Like someone is thinking, we'd like to set the limits at zero, but then everyone will just ignore us, so we'll pick a limit that is low but won't be summarily dismissed. But there's no science behind the limit, so the limit is just an arbitrary number.
Re: (Score:2)
You're probably right in practice, but what you're saying doesn't necessarily have to be true. Let's say I really do want to set a zero limit. There are two possible scientifically-based non-zero numbers I could choose to put in legislation:
1. The smallest amount that is reasonably measurable. Since I happen to regularly interact with some of the best analytical chemists in the world, I know that today you can get to around 10 ppq (parts-per-quadrillion or 1:10^15) for some elements in some materials if yo
Re: (Score:2)
So you think the lead levels wax and wane like moon phases?
Re: (Score:2)
You think all toothpaste is made in one factory using one process and one set of raw materials and none of that stuff ever changes over time?
The problem is the 90% (Score:2)
Given what your suggesting we still shouldn't have hit 90%. The fact that you could pull 10 random tubes of toothpaste off the shelf and there would be a good chance there's lead in just one of them would be a concern because lead stays with you for life.
In this case they pulled 51 bottles of toothpaste off the shelf and found lead in 45 of them. So yeah we've got a problem. Big one.
This is a consequence of so many things being made overseas. It's not just about the lower pay and lower environmental
Re: (Score:2)
We've found something that requires further research, not enough information to draw conclusions. A proper study checks more samples from more places.
Single samples are not science. Bob bought some toothpaste and it had microscopic amounts of lead is a story, not science.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it's clearly someone with an agenda. That doesn't, however, imply it "has nothing to do with science or safety".
FWIW, there have been official government statements that there is no such thing as a safe level of lead. While this is probably true, it's also true that small enough amounts don't do any detectable damage. But do remember that it took a long time to acknowledge that tetraethyl lead was doing damage. It was hard (impossible?) to detect in any one individual. To detect the damage requir
Re: (Score:2)
> On the one hand, it's probably a real problem. On the other hand, it's not going to be a major problem.
We cannot tell what is going on with this tiny amount of data.
The full results (Score:5, Informative)
Here is the full chart for those who are interested: [1]https://tamararubin.com/2025/0... [tamararubin.com]
[1] https://tamararubin.com/2025/01/toothpaste-chart/
How much toothpaste do people ingest? (Score:2)
Do you eat your toothpaste? I spit it out and I suspect most people do.
So the real issue is how much lead, etc. does a person typically ingest from the toothpaste relative to the FDA recommended limits rather than how much is in the toothpaste.
Re: (Score:2)
Right. Although we do consume some toothpaste via what's leftover in the mouth after brushing, I'd expect you'd have to have quite high concentrations in the toothpaste to be of any concern. We probably ingest more lead via air pollution and in our food than via this vector, though it would have to be properly studied to be sure, assuming it hasn't been already. This study in particular seems to have some flaws.
It's worth noting... (Score:4, Interesting)
That every few years there's a new crop of mass spectrometer/gas chromatography instruments with 10-100 times the sensitivity of the previous generations of instruments. Of course, one of the very first uses of these new instruments is to find toxic materials in the parts-per-billion range and do a shock story about them. Nevermind that the levels have no know correlation with health hazards other than the toxic materials being toxic.
Re: (Score:2)
If there is an atom in there somewhere they will root it out eventually.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. But the article states “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”. Is that wrong?
Skeptical (Score:5, Interesting)
I've no doubt they're doing the testing in good faith, but Lead Safe Mama doesn't sound like a completely impartial organization. I'd be more interested to see what researchers have to say about those levels of lead in toothpaste.
Dont rely on government regulation (Score:5, Informative)
Lead has been a known poison for centuries yet leaded petrol was a thing for 80 years (and still is with avgas) with mendacious car manufactures whinging about how hard it would be to make valves strong enough to cope without, so useless governments around the world just rolled over until momentum started to grow in the 80s to ban it. I wonder how many people had an early death so car companies could pay out bigger dividends.
Re: (Score:1)
The claims I've read indicate that the problem is valve seat wear, not valve strength. The most recent I've seen say that the problem is with engines run at high power for long periods of time, i.e. marine engines and racing cars. It looks like the carmakers were barking up the wrong tree.
As side notes, it was the problem of lead contaminating catalytic converters that finally pushed lead out of gasoline, and I guess that hardening the valve seats in an engine's manifold is more difficult than hardening val
Rinse vs Eat (Score:2)
Not sure about the rest of the world but here in the UK dentist advise you not to rinse after brushing and to swallow any residual toothpaste for what they call "a systemic effect". To me, being someone who was always told to rinse thoroughly from my childhood days, the idea of swallowing toothpaste sounds like total heresy. It's a complex chemical, for f...s sake!
But, if some of us follow this crazy guidance and swallow, they may indeed absorb quite a lot of those unwanted chemicals...
Re: (Score:1)
dentist advise you not to rinse after... and to swallow any residual... for what they call "a systemic effect"
It's funny, I give my wife the same advice.
Re: (Score:2)
Never heard that and I'd say bad advice. My current regimen is pretty lengthy but I am getting very good results when I go in for cleanings. I went from 3X/yr to 2X and the dentist doesn't scrape much even at 2X. So here goes,
Toothpaste on regular toothbrush. Brush a quick brushing and tongue.
Sonic care brush the normal time with the toothpaste already on the teeth, 2 minutes total.
Put around 2tbsp of a alcohol based rinse into the water flosser and fill the rest with water
Water pik the tooth gaps
Use r
Re: (Score:2)
The NHS (England and Wales) advice seems to be not to rinse immediately after brushing, but to spit out. No mention of swallowing.
[1]How to keep your teeth clean [www.nhs.uk]
Similarly for Scotland:
[2]Teeth cleaning guide [nhsinform.scot]
Again no mention of swallowing.
[1] https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/healthy-teeth-and-gums/how-to-keep-your-teeth-clean/
[2] https://www.nhsinform.scot/healthy-living/dental-health/your-teeth/teeth-cleaning-guide/
Alarm fatigue (Score:2)
Everything being contaminated is somewhat convenient. If you don't eat contaminated food then you won't have to brush your teeth with contaminated toothpaste.
hey if China will hold back on rare earth (Score:2)
We've got plenty of toothpaste around these parts
Joke's on them (Score:2)
I haven't brushed my teeth yet this year.
More harmful than your everyday diet? (Score:1)
Gram-for-gram, does it contain more of these substances than what you eat and drink?
Idiotic (Score:1)
So some clickbaiting alarmist mommy blog for morons wrote this bullshit about how it's basically within the legal standards and nobody ingests it anyway and it makes it onto Slashdot? Really?
Be careful (Score:5, Funny)
It has fluoride, too.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's all about those [1]precious bodily fluids [youtube.com]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KvgtEnABY
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't worry unless you swallow your toothpaste, which the label tells you not to do. Even then the average tube of toothpaste with fluoride doesn't have nearly enough to cause health problems for the average person.
Re: (Score:2)
> Bruce66423 asks: "As ever the question that should be asked is: 'What level is worth worrying about and why?'"
To answer your question too: Why not just mandate 0 lead and arsenic and mercury and cadmium in things that we put into our mouths and vigorously brush our permeable skin with? For fuck's sake, who on earth is in charge of these manufacturing companies? Cant we just have normal shit? All of things are why autism is way up, testosterone in youth is way down, and mental heath is in the toilet in our country. All of these processes are cumulative and we are wildly sick as a result. It isn't "Alpha Male" to be
Re: (Score:2)
For fuck's sake, who on earth is in charge of these manufacturing companies
Rational actors responding to the economic environment.
You want nonpoisonous toothpaste? Legislate it, and hire an executive who will faithfully enforce the law.
Re: (Score:3)
> Why not just mandate 0 lead and arsenic and mercury and cadmium in things that we put into our mouths
I remember a guy once said "Analyze this down to the trace of sodium that's in everything". Because somehow sodium tends to be present in a lot of places.
Also recall that unless you're buying steel smelted before July 16, 1945, or wine fermented before that date, it's radioactive. If you eat candy of any kind, you're also eating rodent and insect feces. Honey? Bee vomit. Like mushrooms on your steak or pizza? Fungus. Warifn, a heart medication, is also used in rat poison. It's a question of dose (and the gr
Re: (Score:2)
> To answer your question too: Why not just mandate 0 lead and arsenic and mercury and cadmium in things that we put into our mouths and vigorously brush our permeable skin with?
That's one of those things that sounds great and everyone can agree with because it sounds so wonderful. Then you realize that the practical effects are that people stop buying toothpaste which naturally becomes more expensive in order to meet the new requirements and that people on average have worse health as a result.
If anything just require companies to report on what's in their products and let consumers decide. Otherwise you risk chasing diminishing returns beyond the point of practicality. Eventua
Re: (Score:2)
But Fluoride isn't a metal.
(Unless you're an astronomer)
Re: (Score:2)
Flouride's fine if you don't swallow it. In fact, it's good for your teeth. [1]https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/what... [nih.gov] Clearly it says that 1.5 mg is the top end, but no studies have been done on the .7 in public water, and nothing in combination with all the other flouride supplementation.
[1] https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/noncancer/completed/fluoride