If you’re reading this, chances are you care about what goes into your personal care products - and, like us, you refuse to settle for uncertainty when it comes to “forever chemicals.”
In our original blog post, we broke down what PFAS are, how they get into products, and how we work to keep them out of your daily routine. But the story doesn’t end there. Since then, we’ve gathered even more in-depth information and pushed the boundaries of PFAS testing to new levels.
This post details the exhaustive, multi-method approach we’ve taken, what our results mean in context, and why a nuanced understanding of PFAS testing is key for real safety.
Why a Deeper Dive?
In an age where misinformation spreads quickly, transparency and scientific rigor are essential. Many reports in the media (including those by some watchdog organizations) rely solely on Total Fluorine (TF) testing to determine whether PFAS are present. While this test provides a useful indicator, it doesn’t verify whether PFAS are actually present, it just points in that general direction.
Why Total Fluorine Testing Alone Isn’t Enough
Splashy headlines leading with “PFAS indications” are often based on Total Fluorine testing alone, but here’s what’s crucial:
Total Fluorine detection is just that: an indicator, not proof. This result only tells you that Fluorine is present in a material. It doesn’t identify whether that Fluorine comes from harmful PFAS, harmless naturally occurring minerals, or other sources altogether.
In addition, Fluorine in and of itself isn’t necessarily concerning. Organic Fluorine is the primary concern for PFAS, so a test for Organic Fluorine should always be performed when a positive Total Fluorine result is found.
Without follow-up, targeted tests, a positive Total Fluorine result is not confirmatory evidence of PFAS, it’s just an indicator, and a deeper dive is needed. Many consumer education sites confuse these results (or choose not to clarify the difference) leading to unnecessary concern, and then they don’t dig deeper to find the truth.
Our approach is different: We never stop at an “indication” - we do the detective work to find out the full truth.
Our Testing Approach: Going Well Beyond Industry Standard
While most brands ignore PFAS testing altogether, we took the opposite approach and invested significant time and resources, working with multiple independent labs, to exhaust all commercially available PFAS testing methods. We use our products daily, and so do our friends, family members, and customers. We want to know what’s in our products, and more importantly, what’s not.
With that in mind, here’s an outline of our comprehensive approach to ensuring PFAS-Free products:
1. Total Fluorine (TF) and Extractable Organic Fluorine (EOF) Testing
This is the first step. Use TF and EOF testing to identify whether Fluorine is present, and if so, is it Organic (worrisome) or Inorganic (not worrisome).
Results: All LSF product tests came back negative for Total Fluorine, except our Deodorant Cream. That product tested in the range of 30–100 ppm for Total Fluorine.
The immediate, and obvious, next step is to test for the presence of Organic Fluorine (because that’s where PFAS show up).
Results: The Extractable Organic Fluorine tests for LSF Deodorant Cream resulted in 0–5 ppm for Organic Fluorine, which is essentially zero, and was a great result to see.
While this was a good result, we were still interested in learning more about where the Fluorine content in our Deodorant Cream came from, and what it might be.
2. Raw Materials Testing for Organic Fluorine
So how do we find out where the Fluorine comes from? We test every individual ingredient, one at a time.
Results: All ingredients except one (Magnesium Hydroxide) were “non-detect” for Total Fluorine. We knew from our Organic Fluorine testing that the Magnesium Hyrdroxide likely did not have harmful PFAS, but now that we knew it was the source of the Fluorine, we wanted to be double sure.
3. Targeted PFAS Testing (EPA List)
Our next step was to specifically test the Magnesium Hydroxide for all 40+ PFAS compounds listed by the EPA as priority chemicals using LC-MS/MS analysis.
Result: No detectable PFAS were found.
We also performed an Organic Fluorine test specifically on the Magnesium Hyrdroxide raw material and had similar results with no detectable Organic Fluorine present, confirming our belief that no PFAS are present in the Deodorant Cream.
Key Findings and Assurance for Consumers
No PFAS detected: Across all credible, current EPA-list targeted testing methods, none were found in our finished product.
Trace fluorine is explained and safe: Trace amounts of Fluorine are attributed to a naturally-occurring mineral in the Magnesium Hydroxide, not synthetic PFAS.
Transparency is our standard: We disclose every method used and result found, so you don’t have to rely on vague headlines or hidden data.
We’ve attached all the complete, certified lab reports as PDFs, so you can review the data in detail.
Tests were conducted at Eurofins, Claros Labs, Novem Scientific, and ATS Labs.
We duplicated tests, tried alternative sample preparation, and looked for both organic and inorganic fluorine sources.
Why This Matters for You - and for Clean Beauty
Investing in every available level of PFAS testing costs time and money, but we believe it’s worth it for our customers’ confidence and peace of mind. Our products meet the highest conceivable standard for PFAS safety - one that far exceeds what’s required by regulators or even other beauty brands. We share all data, not just summaries, so you can see exactly what goes into our claims.
If you still have questions or want to know more about the science behind PFAS detection, we’re always happy to talk and connect you with our laboratory partners.
If you'd like to see our lab reports, email hello@littleseedfarm.com.
And if you want further reading on the basics, visit https://littleseedfarm.com/blogs/news/pfas-explained-what-are-these-forever-chemicals
Your health, our products, and the planet: we’re committed to keeping all three clean, safe, and transparent.