Trojan Ultra-Thin condoms are facing allegations of containing toxic “forever chemicals” — substances notorious for their resistance to breaking down in the environment and their potential health risks. The accusation, brought forward by Matthew Goodman in a class-action lawsuit, alleges that Church & Dwight, the manufacturer, failed to inform consumers about the presence of PFAS, leading to questions about whether these condoms are truly fit for their purpose.
At the heart of the controversy is the independent lab testing that reportedly uncovered traces of organic fluorine in the condoms, a marker often associated with PFAS. These chemicals, formally known as per-and polyfluorinated alkyl substances, are ubiquitous, found in everything from food packaging to cosmetics. They’ve earned the nickname “forever chemicals” due to their persistence, sticking around in both nature and the human body for years. Research links PFAS exposure to a range of issues, including elevated cholesterol, reproductive problems, and even cancer. Still, how dangerous they are when absorbed through the skin, especially in small amounts, remains a subject of debate.
Goodman’s lawsuit claims he would never have purchased the condoms had he known about the presence of these chemicals. The suit, filed in Manhattan, argues that the lack of transparency misled consumers into buying a product they believed was safe. Church & Dwight, the lawsuit demands, should compensate buyers to the tune of $5 million.
How solid is the evidence? The lab that tested these condoms for PFAS traces was commissioned by Mamavation, a consumer advocacy blog known for testing products for potentially harmful substances. In February, Mamavation sent 29 brands of condoms and lubricants to an EPA-certified lab, searching for organic fluorine, a broad indicator of PFAS. One of the Trojan Ultra-Thin condoms, according to the results, showed 13 parts per million (ppm) of organic fluorine. Several other Trojan products, including popular varieties like Magnum Large, did not show detectable amounts of fluorine.
Andrea Love, an immunologist and microbiologist, pointed out to Newsweek that organic fluorine does not exclusively signal the presence of PFAS. “There are lots of other chemicals that contain organic fluorine,” Love explains, pointing out that many common drugs, including Prozac and even anesthetics, contain similar chemical bonds.
Moreover, Love notes that not all PFAS are created equal. The class encompasses thousands of chemicals, some of which may pose health risks, while others are harmless. “It’s like saying all mushrooms are bad,” she says, emphasizing that many PFAS compounds, including the fluoropolymers found in Teflon, don’t carry the same dangers as other variants.
Should consumers be worried? According to Love, the short answer is no. The lab tests didn’t identify specific PFAS, nor did they provide any detailed analysis of potential exposure levels. Even if PFAS were present, not all are harmful in the low quantities that might be found in everyday products like condoms.
