According to NonToxicLab, every product we recommend has gone through a consistent, documented evaluation process. We do not guess. We do not rely on brand reputation. We do not take a company’s word for it. We follow a four-step methodology that examines what a product is actually made of, what independent testing confirms, what toxicology data says about those materials, and how the product performs in real use. We cover this topic in chemicals banned in the eu but legal in the us.

This page explains exactly how that process works. We publish it because we believe you should be able to evaluate your evaluator. If you are making purchasing decisions based on our research, you deserve to know how that research was conducted. We cover this topic in chlorine and chloramine in tap water.

Why Methodology Matters

The “non-toxic” product space has a trust problem. According to NonToxicLab, too many review sites make recommendations based on surface-level criteria: brand marketing, Amazon ratings, or a quick scan of the product description. Some sites recommend products they have never examined, tested, or even held in their hands. Others receive free products from manufacturers and review them favorably as a result.

Dr. Philip Landrigan, one of the most cited environmental health researchers in the world and a key figure in establishing the link between lead exposure and childhood development, has argued that consumers need access to reliable, independent information about chemical exposures in products. The problem is not that safe products do not exist. The problem is that consumers lack the tools and information to distinguish genuinely safe products from well-marketed ones.

Our methodology is designed to close that gap. It is not perfect. We are transparent about its limitations, which we describe at the end of this page. But it is systematic, documented, and consistently applied.

The Four-Step Evaluation Process

Step 1. Material Analysis

Every product evaluation begins with identifying what the product is made of. This sounds simple, but it is often the hardest step because many manufacturers do not fully disclose their materials and ingredients.

What we do:

  • Request complete ingredient and material lists from manufacturers. For personal care products and cleaning products, we examine the full ingredient list. For furniture and textiles, we request information about fabrics, foams, adhesives, finishes, dyes, and flame retardant treatments.

  • Review Safety Data Sheets (SDS). For products with chemical formulations (cleaners, paints, sealants), we examine the Safety Data Sheet, which lists hazardous components and their concentrations.

  • Analyze product labels and marketing claims. We note what the company claims and cross-reference these claims against the actual ingredient and material data.

  • Identify undisclosed ingredients. We flag products that use vague terms like “fragrance,” “proprietary blend,” or “natural flavoring” without specifying the actual chemicals. In the US, “fragrance” alone can represent a mixture of dozens of synthetic chemicals, including phthalates, synthetic musks, and other compounds that companies are not required to individually disclose.

  • Contact manufacturers directly when information is incomplete. We email or call companies to request missing information. The willingness (or refusal) of a company to provide material details factors into our assessment.

What we are looking for: Known harmful chemicals, including carcinogens, endocrine disruptors, reproductive toxicants, neurotoxicants, respiratory sensitizers, and persistent environmental pollutants. We check against multiple reference lists, including the EPA’s Safer Chemical Ingredients List, the EU’s REACH Substances of Very High Concern (SVHC) list, California Proposition 65, and the MADE SAFE Hazard List.

Step 2. Certification Verification

Third-party certifications are one of the most reliable indicators of product safety because they involve independent testing by accredited laboratories. But not all certifications are equally rigorous, and not all certification claims are legitimate.

What we do:

  • Verify that certifications are real. We check that the product actually holds the claimed certification by searching the certifying body’s public database. A surprising number of products display certification logos they have not earned.

  • Understand what each certification covers. Different certifications test for different things. OEKO-TEX Standard 100 tests for chemical residues in textiles. GREENGUARD Gold tests for chemical emissions into indoor air. GOTS certifies organic fiber content and processing. CertiPUR-US tests foam for specific chemicals and emissions. Knowing what a certification does and does not cover is critical.

  • Evaluate the rigor of the certification. Not all certifications are created equal. Some require extensive laboratory testing and annual recertification. Others are self-reported or based on less rigorous criteria. We weigh certifications based on their testing protocols, independence, and transparency.

  • Note the absence of certification. A product without any third-party certification is not automatically unsafe, but it means the safety claims have not been independently verified. We note this in our evaluations.

For a complete breakdown of what each certification means and how they compare, see our non-toxic certifications guide.

Certifications we check for (by product category):

Product CategoryKey Certifications
Textiles and beddingOEKO-TEX Standard 100, GOTS, MADE SAFE
MattressesGREENGUARD Gold, CertiPUR-US, GOTS, GOLS
FurnitureGREENGUARD Gold, CertiPUR-US
Paints and finishesGREENGUARD Gold, Green Seal
Cleaning productsMADE SAFE, EPA Safer Choice, EWG Verified
Personal careEWG Verified, MADE SAFE, COSMOS/ECOCERT
CookwareNo widely recognized certification (we rely on material analysis)
Baby productsOEKO-TEX Class I, GREENGUARD Gold, MADE SAFE, JPMA

Step 3. Toxicology Cross-Reference

This step takes the materials and chemicals identified in Steps 1 and 2 and evaluates them against toxicological databases and peer-reviewed research.

What we do:

  • Check each identified chemical against toxicological databases including the EPA’s IRIS (Integrated Risk Information System), the National Toxicology Program (NTP), the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), PubChem, and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) database.

  • Review the relevant peer-reviewed literature. For chemicals of concern, we examine the published research on health effects, with particular attention to studies on chronic low-dose exposure (the type of exposure consumers actually experience), endocrine disruption, developmental toxicity, and carcinogenicity.

  • Evaluate exposure pathways. A chemical in a product is only a concern if it can reach the user. We consider whether the chemical is likely to be inhaled (VOCs from furniture or paint), absorbed through the skin (personal care products), ingested (cookware, food storage), or contacted through dust (flame retardants). The route and duration of exposure determine the actual risk.

  • Assess for regrettable substitutions. When a company removes a known harmful chemical, we investigate what they replaced it with. BPA replaced with BPS. PFOA replaced with GenX. One brominated flame retardant replaced with an organophosphate flame retardant. These substitutions sometimes offer little or no improvement in safety. Dr. Leonardo Trasande has described this pattern as a persistent failure of the chemical regulatory system, where each banned chemical is replaced by a poorly studied analog.

  • Consider vulnerable populations. We evaluate products with the understanding that children, pregnant women, and people with chronic health conditions may be more sensitive to chemical exposures. When a product is marketed for babies, children, or pregnant women, we apply stricter criteria.

Step 4. Real-World Performance Assessment

A product can be perfectly non-toxic and still be a terrible product. Conversely, a product can perform beautifully but contain harmful materials. Our goal is to identify products that meet both criteria: safe materials and genuine functionality.

What we do:

  • Hands-on evaluation. When possible, we use the product ourselves over a period of days or weeks, depending on the product category. We assess build quality, durability, performance, and user experience.

  • Community and owner feedback. For products we cannot test hands-on over long periods (like mattresses tested over months of use), we systematically review owner feedback from verified purchasers across multiple platforms. We focus on reports related to chemical concerns (off-gassing odors, skin reactions, allergic responses) as well as general product quality and durability.

  • Manufacturer responsiveness. We note how responsive and transparent the manufacturer is during our research process. Companies that answer questions thoroughly, provide documentation willingly, and stand behind their products with meaningful warranties earn credit in our evaluation. Companies that are evasive, defensive, or unresponsive get flagged.

  • Value assessment. Non-toxic products often cost more than conventional alternatives. We evaluate whether the price premium is justified by the materials, certifications, and performance of the product.

How Products Are Scored

We do not use a single numerical score because reducing a complex safety evaluation to a single number creates a false sense of precision. Instead, we evaluate products across four dimensions:

Material Safety: Are the materials and ingredients free of known harmful chemicals? Are there any red flags or areas of concern?

Transparency: Does the company disclose full ingredient and material information? Do they hold meaningful certifications? Are they responsive to questions?

Performance: Does the product work well? Is it durable? Does it deliver on its functional promises?

Value: Is the product reasonably priced for what it offers? Are there cheaper alternatives with comparable safety profiles?

Each product review clearly states our assessment in each area, along with the evidence supporting our conclusions.

Independence and Affiliate Transparency

NonToxicLab earns revenue through affiliate commissions when readers purchase products through links on our site. This is how we fund our research without charging readers for access.

How we maintain independence:

  • We never accept payment for reviews. No company can pay to be featured on NonToxicLab, and no company can pay to receive a favorable review.

  • We never accept free products in exchange for favorable coverage. If a company sends us a product for evaluation, that fact is disclosed and does not influence our assessment.

  • Affiliate relationships do not influence our recommendations. We frequently recommend products that we do not have an affiliate relationship with, and we frequently criticize products from brands where we do have affiliate relationships. Our editorial decisions are made before we check whether an affiliate program exists.

  • We disclose affiliate relationships. Every article that contains affiliate links includes a disclosure at the top of the page. This disclosure is visible before the reader encounters any product links.

  • Our editorial and affiliate operations are separate. Product evaluations are completed based on the methodology described on this page. Affiliate links are added after editorial decisions have been made.

We believe this model, while imperfect, is more aligned with reader interests than the alternatives (advertising-supported content, sponsored posts, or paywalled content).

Correction Policy

We make mistakes. When we do, we correct them.

  • Factual errors are corrected as soon as they are identified. The correction is noted at the top of the article with the date.

  • Updated information is incorporated into existing articles on a regular basis. When new research, certification changes, or product reformulations affect our conclusions, we update the relevant articles. The “updatedDate” on each article reflects the most recent substantive revision.

  • Reader feedback is reviewed and, when it identifies an error or important omission, acted upon. If you find an error in our content, contact us. We take corrections seriously.

Limitations of Our Methodology

We want to be clear about what our methodology cannot do:

  • We cannot test chemical composition in a laboratory. We do not operate a chemistry lab. Our material analysis is based on disclosed ingredients, SDS documents, certifications, and manufacturer communications. For products where the company does not disclose complete materials and no certification is available, our assessment has a wider uncertainty range.

  • We cannot evaluate long-term health effects. No one can definitively say that a product is safe for 30 years of daily use. Our assessment is based on the best available science at the time of evaluation, which is always incomplete.

  • We evaluate products at a point in time. Manufacturers change formulations, sometimes without notice. A product we evaluated in 2025 may have a different formulation today. We update reviews when we become aware of changes, but there may be a lag.

  • We rely partly on manufacturer honesty. When a company tells us their product does not contain a certain chemical, we take that at face value unless we have reason to doubt it or a certification contradicts it. Deliberate deception by manufacturers is beyond our ability to detect without laboratory testing.

  • Our real-world testing is limited in scope. We cannot replicate every use case, climate, or individual sensitivity. Your experience with a product may differ from ours.

We present these limitations not to undermine confidence in our work but to set appropriate expectations. Our methodology is rigorous for an independent editorial operation. It is not equivalent to a government regulatory review or a laboratory analysis. We believe it provides significantly more useful and reliable information than the vast majority of product review content available online, and we are always working to improve it.

For more about who we are and why we do this work, visit our about page. For a reference on the specific chemicals we screen for, see our guide to toxic chemicals to avoid.

Common Questions

Does NonToxicLab do laboratory testing on products?

No. We do not operate a laboratory. Our evaluation is based on disclosed ingredients, manufacturer communications, Safety Data Sheets, third-party certifications, toxicological database cross-referencing, and published research. We clearly note in reviews when a product has been independently lab-tested by a certifying body versus when our assessment is based on disclosed information alone.

How often are product reviews updated?

We review and update product evaluations on a rolling basis, typically every 6 to 12 months or sooner if we become aware of a formulation change, new research, or a change in certification status. The “updatedDate” on each article reflects the most recent substantive revision.

Do affiliate commissions influence your recommendations?

No. Our editorial decisions are made before we check whether an affiliate program exists for a product. We regularly recommend products with no affiliate relationship and criticize products from brands where we do have affiliate relationships. Every article containing affiliate links includes a visible disclosure.

What happens if a manufacturer refuses to provide ingredient information?

We note the lack of transparency in our evaluation. Products from unresponsive or secretive manufacturers receive lower transparency scores. If we cannot determine what a product is made of, we cannot recommend it with confidence, and our review will reflect that uncertainty.

How do you handle products that are reformulated after your review?

When we become aware of a formulation change, we re-evaluate the product against our methodology. If the change is significant (new chemicals added, certifications dropped, materials changed), we update the review and note the change. We encourage readers and manufacturers to notify us of reformulations.

No. We do not accept payment for reviews, features, or favorable coverage. Companies cannot buy placement on NonToxicLab. Our editorial calendar is determined by reader interest and the availability of quality products in categories where readers need guidance.

You Might Also Like

Sources

  • EPA Safer Chemical Ingredients List, EPA/saferchoice
  • ECHA REACH Substances of Very High Concern (SVHC), echa.europa.eu
  • California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Proposition 65 list, oehha.ca.gov
  • MADE SAFE Hazard List, madesafe.org
  • EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), EPA/iris
  • National Toxicology Program, ntp.NIEHS
  • Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), ATSDR
  • Landrigan, P.J. et al. “The Lancet Commission on Pollution and Health.” The Lancet, 2018.
  • Trasande, L. “Sicker, Fatter, Poorer.” Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
  • OEKO-TEX certification standards, OEKO-TEX
  • GREENGUARD certification, ul.com/resources/greenguard-certification