Consumer Reports' June 2026 PFAS testing of 18 baby wipe brands, including Hello Bello, Honest, Dyper, and Coterie, all clean, with Kudos and Abby & Finn not included in the study.
By James T. Reilly · September 25, 2026
Part of the complete guide to diaper delivery subscriptions for multi-child and small-age-gap households.
Bottom line up front: Consumer Reports, one of the most established independent testing organizations in the country, published results in June 2026 from testing 18 baby wipe brands for 30 specific PFAS compounds down to a 2.3-nanogram detection limit. The result was uniformly reassuring: zero detections across every brand tested, including four of the five brands central to this cluster — Hello Bello, Honest Company, Dyper, and Coterie. This is good news, and it deserves to be reported as plainly good news rather than buried under caveats. But two brands this cluster has covered in depth — Kudos and Abby & Finn — were not part of this specific study, and this article says so directly rather than assuming their wipes share the same clean result by association.
The independent PFAS lab testing review covered independent PFAS testing of diapers. Wipes are a different product, used differently, and the case for testing them separately is stronger than it might first appear. Consumer Reports cites research estimating a child goes through roughly 10,000 wipes in their first three years of life — meaningfully more individual product-uses than the diaper-count estimates this cluster has referenced elsewhere. Ashita Kapoor, who leads Consumer Reports' product safety testing, explained the specific reason wipes warranted dedicated investigation: "We wanted to assess whether products routinely applied to babies' skin, including the genital area where absorption is particularly efficient, could be exposing infants to harmful chemicals without consumers' knowledge."
Consumer Reports' reporting adds a physiological detail worth including directly: an infant's skin is estimated to be 20 to 30 percent thinner than adult skin, meaning it absorbs chemicals more readily — combined with the fact that babies have substantially more hand-to-mouth contact than adults, creating a second exposure pathway beyond direct skin absorption. These are real, specific reasons wipes merit independent testing rather than being assumed safe by extension from diaper testing, which is exactly what this article's underlying source set out to determine.
Consumer Reports purchased wipes from 18 companies — a mix of store brands, direct-to-consumer subscription brands, and widely available mass-market brands — including products labeled "sensitive," "fragrance free," "organic," "conscious," and "gentle." An external laboratory analyzed each sample for 30 individual PFAS compounds, using the same standardized method the EPA uses to test drinking water for PFAS. The detection limit was 2.3 nanograms per sample — a nanogram is one-billionth of a gram, meaning this is a considerably more sensitive test than the organic-fluorine screening The independent PFAS lab testing review documented for the earlier diaper study. No PFAS compounds were detected above this limit in any of the 18 brands tested.
| Brand | PFAS Result | Material |
|---|---|---|
| Hello Bello Baby Wipes | Not detected | 100% plant-based cloth |
| The Honest Company Clean Conscious Wipes | Not detected | Plant-based viscose |
| Dyper Baby Wipes | Not detected | 100% natural fibers |
| Coterie The Wipe | Not detected | Plant-based viscose and lyocell |
| Kirkland Signature (Costco) Baby Wipes | Not detected | Tencel |
| Kudos | Not included in this study | — |
| Abby & Finn | Not included in this study | — |
For additional context beyond this cluster's own brands, the same testing also found non-detect results for Huggies Natural Care, Pampers Aqua Pure, Pampers Sensitive, Seventh Generation, WaterWipes, Natracare, Parasol, Pipette, Bambo Nature, Caboo, HealthyBaby, Amazon Elements, and Walmart's Parent's Choice — a genuinely broad, cross-tier sample spanning store brands through premium direct-to-consumer lines, all returning the same clean result. Kapoor's own framing of this breadth is worth quoting directly: "The absence of detectable PFAS across such a diverse set of products—ranging from store-brand and mass-market options to premium and eco-positioned lines—suggests that PFAS contamination is not a widespread or systemic issue in the baby wipes currently available to U.S. consumers."
The eco-subscription cost comparison documented real, ongoing consumer complaints about Costco's Kirkland Signature diapers following a 2024–2025 manufacturer switch — thinner material, reported rashes. This article's findings are about a different product line entirely: Kirkland wipes, which tested completely clean for PFAS in this June 2026 study. These are separate products from separate manufacturing processes, and a clean PFAS result for Kirkland's wipes says nothing about the ongoing quality questions this cluster documented for Kirkland's diapers. Worth keeping these two Kirkland threads distinct rather than letting one result color the other.
There's a real legal history specific to wipes worth documenting precisely here too. Consumer Reports' own reporting notes that a 2024 lawsuit against Costco and Kirkland's wipes manufacturer, Nice-Pak Products, alleged the wipes contained harmful PFAS levels — that suit has since been withdrawn. A separate 2024 lawsuit against Kimberly-Clark (maker of Huggies wipes) making similar allegations was dismissed in 2025 for insufficient evidence that the PFAS levels found would actually harm infants. Both of these are distinct from the Coterie diaper lawsuit The independent PFAS lab testing review documented in detail — three separate pieces of PFAS-related litigation across this broader product category, with three different outcomes (withdrawn, dismissed for insufficient evidence, dismissed for lack of standing), none of which should be conflated with each other.
This is worth stating as plainly as the good news above, because it would be easy for a summary of this research to imply a clean bill of health for every brand this cluster covers. It doesn't. Kudos and Abby & Finn's wipes were simply not part of Consumer Reports' 18-brand sample, for reasons this article has no visibility into — sample selection for a study like this reflects the researchers' own methodology choices, not a judgment about the brands left out. This is a real information gap, not a red flag, and this article isn't going to imply otherwise in either direction: there's no evidence these two brands' wipes contain PFAS, and there's also no independent testing confirming they don't, at least not located in the sources available for this research.
The independent PFAS lab testing review's PFAS findings on Kudos's diaper (not wipes) were drawn from Mamavation's 2023–2024 testing, with the explicit caveat that this predates Kudos's reported 2026 manufacturing changes. During research for this article, a second, entirely independent data point surfaced: Consumer Reports' own diaper-testing program — a June 2026 evaluation of 31 diaper brands for total chlorine-free (TCF) versus elemental chlorine-free (ECF) processing and absorbency performance — directly includes "Kudos Cotton Lined Diapers" in its current, actively-tested product lineup. This article could not access the specific rated outcome of that test (the underlying ratings tables did not load in the research conducted for this piece), so this isn't a claim about what CR found — it's a pointer. A reader wanting the most current, independently-tested picture of Kudos's diaper, more recent than the 2023–2024 Mamavation data The independent PFAS lab testing review relied on, should check Consumer Reports' current diaper ratings directly, since that data point exists and is more recent than anything this cluster has been able to incorporate so far.
This ties directly into a complaint that ran throughout The independent PFAS lab testing review's underlying sourcing: diaper and wipe manufacturers have historically not been required to disclose their full ingredient lists, making independent testing like the studies this article and the independent PFAS lab testing review document the primary way consumers get this information at all. That's beginning to change, and recently enough that this cluster's earlier research didn't have it available.
A New York state law took effect in December 2025 mandating that all disposable diapers sold in the state include an ingredients label on their packaging — the first law of its kind in the country, per Consumer Reports' reporting. A similar bill was introduced in California in March 2026, backed jointly by Consumer Reports, Children Now, and the Environmental Working Group, which would require diaper manufacturers selling in California to disclose all ingredients and their specific purposes, both on packaging and online. Neither law, as documented in available sources, currently extends to wipes — a real, specific gap Consumer Reports' own reporting flags directly, meaning the transparency push this article is documenting is, for now, diaper-specific rather than covering the full product category this cluster addresses.
This matters directly for every brand this cluster has covered: if the California bill passes, households would gain access to exactly the kind of ingredient-level detail this cluster has had to reconstruct through independent lab testing and brand-by-brand research across fourteen articles, directly from the package itself. That would be a meaningfully lower-friction path to the information this entire cluster exists to help readers find.
PFAS is not the only chemical category Consumer Reports' wipes reporting raises, and it's worth including the rest of that picture rather than letting a clean PFAS result stand in for a full safety clearance. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) — which can originate from added fragrances or as manufacturing byproducts — have been linked in the broader toxicological literature to respiratory and reproductive effects and liver and kidney concerns. Consumer Reports cites a 2023 study that found traces of VOCs in baby wipes and suggested repeated exposure could affect both the children using them and the adults handling them regularly. Consumer Reports' own reporting is direct about the limitation here: "it's hard to tell if the wipes you're using contain them," since VOC disclosure isn't standardized or required the way this article's PFAS testing was specifically designed to check for. This is consistent with the same transparency gap The independent PFAS lab testing review documented for diapers — a clean result on one specific, well-tested chemical category (PFAS) doesn't mean a product has been comprehensively screened for every category of potential concern, and this article isn't going to imply otherwise for wipes any more than the independent PFAS lab testing review did for diapers.
Nearly every article in this cluster has mentioned TCF (totally chlorine-free) or ECF (elemental chlorine-free) processing when describing a brand's absorbent core, without fully explaining the underlying chemistry — worth correcting here, drawing on Consumer Reports' own explainer published alongside its 2026 diaper testing. Until the 1960s, diaper pulp was bleached using elemental chlorine, a process that produced dioxins — a genuinely harmful byproduct linked to both health and environmental concerns. EPA regulations issued in 1998 to reduce dioxin emissions pushed the pulp and paper industry toward ECF processing, which uses chlorine dioxide (a different, structurally distinct chlorine compound) instead of elemental chlorine, producing far fewer dioxins as a byproduct. TCF processing goes a step further, avoiding chlorine in any form and using hydrogen peroxide, oxygen, or ozone instead.
Two nuances from Consumer Reports' analysis are worth adding directly to what this cluster has said about TCF processing so far. First, TCF diapers in CR's own 31-brand evaluation ran roughly 1.5 times the cost of the least expensive diaper rated — a real, independently-verified premium figure consistent with the cost patterns The Hello Bello vs. Dyper audit and the eco-subscription cost comparison documented, now confirmed by a source outside this cluster's own research. Second, and more surprising: because the bleached pulp is in the absorbent core, not the topsheet that touches a baby's skin, Consumer Reports notes the direct skin-contact benefit of TCF over ECF processing "may be minimal" — the more meaningful skin-contact factors are usually the separate questions of plant-based versus plastic topsheet material, and whether a product is fragrance-, lotion-, and dye-free, which this cluster has covered brand-by-brand throughout. This is a useful corrective: TCF processing is a real environmental and dioxin-byproduct improvement worth paying for on those grounds, but it isn't, by itself, the same claim as a cleaner skin-contact experience, and conflating the two — something several brands' own marketing language invites, per this cluster's research — overstates what the TCF label specifically guarantees.
Consumer Reports' own guidance, worth relaying directly since it's grounded in the same testing this article summarizes: favor fragrance-free formulations, since "fragrance" on an ingredient label can legally represent over 100 undisclosed individual ingredients, some linked to endocrine disruption. Favor biodegradable, plant-based materials — organic cotton, viscose, lyocell, modal, or Tencel (a trademarked form of lyocell or modal) — over polypropylene or PET plastic-based wipes, which contribute to landfill waste and can continue leaching chemicals over time. Avoid flushing any wipe regardless of "flushable" labeling, since even biodegradable wipes can cause blockages in home plumbing, community sewer lines, or septic systems. None of this is brand-specific advice — it's general guidance applicable across every brand this cluster has covered, useful for evaluating any future reformulation or new product line from any of them.
The 10,000-wipes-in-three-years estimate this article opened with is a single-child figure. This cluster's audience is frequently managing that volume, or something close to it, twice over — an infant and a toddler both in diapers, both generating wipe use daily, often on overlapping timelines given the close-age-gap framing running through this entire series. The Diaper Bundle Dashboard guide documented that Hello Bello's standard bundle includes 4 packs of wipes (240 wipes) at no separate charge, while Dyper's wipes, per The Hello Bello vs. Dyper audit, are priced separately — a distinction that becomes more financially relevant, not less, once wipe consumption is doubled across two children rather than assumed for one. A household using Dyper for two children is paying the separate-wipes premium documented in the Hello Bello vs. Dyper audit at roughly double the volume, while a Hello Bello household absorbs that doubled wipe volume within the same included allotment, up to whatever point actual consumption outpaces the standard 4-pack inclusion.
This article's contribution to that math isn't new pricing data — it's the reassurance that, for four of this cluster's brands, doubling wipe consumption across two children doesn't mean doubling PFAS exposure risk, since none was detected regardless of volume. For Kudos and Abby & Finn specifically, the untested status documented above applies with the same doubled weight The twins and multiples subscription guide and the independent PFAS lab testing review applied to diaper exposure in twins and multiples households: an unconfirmed result carries more practical weight for a household using it at higher volume across more than one child, simply because more total product-uses are riding on an answer this article cannot yet provide.
Were any brands' wipes found to contain PFAS in this testing? No — all 18 brands tested by Consumer Reports in June 2026 returned non-detect results for all 30 PFAS compounds tested, down to a 2.3 nanogram detection limit.
Does this mean Kudos and Abby & Finn wipes are unsafe? No — it means they simply weren't part of this specific 18-brand study. This article has no evidence either confirming or ruling out PFAS in these two brands' wipes.
Is this the same testing The independent PFAS lab testing review covered? No — that article covered Mamavation's 2023–2024 testing of diapers specifically. This article covers Consumer Reports' June 2026 testing of wipes specifically, a different product, a different lab, a different (more sensitive) testing method, and a more recent testing window.
Did Kirkland (Costco) products test clean for PFAS? Kirkland's wipes did, in this specific June 2026 testing. This is unrelated to the manufacturing-quality complaints The eco-subscription cost comparison documented for Kirkland's diapers, a completely separate product line.
Was Coterie's product tested for PFAS again after the lawsuit covered in The independent PFAS lab testing review? This specific test covered Coterie's wipes (The Wipe), which came back clean, consistent with the clean diaper results The independent PFAS lab testing review documented from Mamavation's earlier, separate testing.
Are there other lawsuits related to PFAS in baby wipes? Yes — a 2024 lawsuit against Costco/Kirkland's wipes manufacturer was withdrawn, and a similar 2024 suit against Kimberly-Clark (Huggies) was dismissed in 2025 for insufficient evidence of harm. Both are separate from the Coterie diaper lawsuit covered in The independent PFAS lab testing review.
Does any law currently require wipes manufacturers to disclose ingredients? Not based on available sources — the New York law (effective December 2025) and the proposed California bill (introduced March 2026) both currently apply specifically to diapers, not wipes.
Should I switch my wipes brand based on this article? If you're using one of the four brands confirmed clean here — Hello Bello, Honest, Dyper, or Coterie — this article gives you no reason to switch on PFAS grounds specifically. If you're using Kudos or Abby & Finn, this article simply can't tell you either way, which is different from a reason to switch.
How does the detection limit in this study compare to the diaper testing in The independent PFAS lab testing review? This wipes testing used a considerably more sensitive method — 2.3 nanograms per sample, compared to the 10 parts-per-million organic fluorine threshold used in the diaper study. This is a meaningfully more rigorous test, which makes the clean results here even more reassuring for the brands that were included.
Is there a more current independent test of Kudos's diaper than what The independent PFAS lab testing review covered? Yes, potentially — Consumer Reports' June 2026 diaper testing program includes Kudos's cotton-lined diaper in its current lineup. This article could not access the specific results, but flags this as a more current data source worth checking directly.
Does TCF processing mean a diaper is gentler on my baby's skin? Not necessarily, based on Consumer Reports' own analysis — TCF bleaching affects the absorbent core, which doesn't directly contact skin, so its skin-contact benefit "may be minimal." The more relevant skin-contact factors are topsheet material and whether a product is fragrance-, lotion-, and dye-free, which are separate claims from TCF processing itself.
Does doubling wipe use across two children double PFAS risk for the brands tested here? No — for the four brands in this cluster confirmed clean (Hello Bello, Honest, Dyper, Coterie), no PFAS was detected regardless of the volume tested, so higher household consumption doesn't change that result. For Kudos and Abby & Finn, the untested status simply means more total product-uses are riding on an answer this article doesn't have, not that risk is confirmed to scale with volume.
This article summarizes independent laboratory testing published by Consumer Reports in June 2026, along with related legal and regulatory developments reported by the same source. This is not medical advice. Testing reflects specific samples at a specific point in time; product formulations change, and confirming current information directly with each brand or with Consumer Reports' current ratings is recommended before making a purchasing decision based on this article.
This cluster's related coverage: the eco-subscription cost comparison documents the separate Kirkland diaper manufacturing-quality concerns referenced above. the Coterie vs. Kudos comparison covers Coterie's materials composition in depth. the independent PFAS lab testing review covers the earlier, diaper-specific PFAS testing this article extends to wipes.
More to read
An independent EPA-certified lab testing review finding Kudos diapers showed PFAS indications despite OEKO-TEX certification, while Hello Bello, Honest, Dyper, Abby & Finn, and Coterie tested clean.
There is no single best diaper subscription for a household with two kids in diapers at once. The complete 15-part cluster: mixing sizes inside one bundle, the real volume math, brand showdowns, potty-training transitions, and PFAS test results.
How to mix diaper sizes within one Hello Bello or Honest Company subscription bundle for two children.
A full cost-per-diaper, materials, and shipping comparison between Hello Bello and Dyper subscriptions.
Two babies under two — sleep, feeding, gear, and the decisions that actually matter, in one place.
James T. Reilly
James Reilly is the father of Irish twins and writes Sibling Stack's guides from the inside — the gear that actually held up, the schedules that actually synced, and the stuff nobody warns you about when two kids are close enough in age that everything overlaps.
Free to use
Sibling Stack shows both your kids' sleep and feed windows on one timeline — so you can see conflicts before they happen, not after. No subscription required.
Create your account