We came across a post on X from a popular social media influencer, Paul Saladino, claiming that using commercially branded dental floss causes harmful chemicals to be absorbed into the body. Within 24 hours, the post has amassed over 121,000 views.
In his post, Saladino references per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) – a group of synthetic compounds more commonly referred to as “forever chemicals” because they are durable, resistant, and break down slowly in the environment and the body. PFAS are widely used in products such as non-stick cookware and waterproof fabric due to their non-stick, stain-resistant and waterproof properties.
The presence of PFAS in consumable products, such as food and drinking water, has become a growing concern globally. These chemicals have been linked to medical conditions such as cancer and liver disease, as well as compromising the function of the body’s immune system, kidneys, and reproductive organs. However, experts have emphasised the need for further research to fully understand the long-term impact of PFAS on public health.
In 2023, the Singapore Food Agency collaborated with Dr Wesley Yu from the National Centre for Food Science to publish an article about public health concerns regarding PFAS in food. However, to date, no specific regulations exist regarding the presence of PFAS in dental products such as dental floss. Hence, Saladino’s claims have sparked consumer concerns about the safety of their everyday oral hygiene products.
Who is Paul Saladino?
Paul Saladino is a controversial health and wellness influencer known for promoting alternative nutrition theories. He gained significant traction as a vocal advocate for the carnivore diet and has previously made contentious claims about various food products, including seed oils.
Saladino has been accused of regularly making sweeping health claims that lack robust scientific evidence. He has been called out for misrepresenting nutritional research and cherry-picking data to support his arguments, raising concerns about the reliability of his statements.
Understanding PFAS in dental products
In 2024, environmental news outlet EHN.org and consumer advocacy platform Mamavation analysed 39 dental floss brands. Their testing reportedly found that nearly one-third of the samples contained trace elements of PFAS. The study used ‘marker testing’ to detect fluorine, a common indicator of PFAS, a method that has been used by other studies in the past to identify these chemicals in products.
One of the tested products, Oral-B Glide—specifically mentioned in Saladino’s viral post—was found to contain nearly 25 percent fluorine, raising concerns about PFAS exposure through everyday oral hygiene products.
Further research is needed to corroborate the presence of PFAS across different brands and types of commercial dental floss. However, some studies have explored the potential link between flossing and PFAS exposure. A January 2025 study found that there is some evidence to suggest that using certain dental flosses could increase the risk of PFAS exposure.
Additionally, a 2019 study involving a small sample of 178 women examined PFAS levels in blood samples and found that those who flossed with Oral-B Glide had higher levels of PFHxS (perfluorohexanesulfonic acid) compared to non-users.
However, the American Dental Association (ADA) responded to the 2019 study, stating that the data was insufficient to conclude that flossing with Oral-B Glide—or any specific floss—directly leads to increased PFAS levels in the body.
Moreover, a review of existing regulations in Singapore found no specific restrictions on PFAS in dental products. While there are import regulations around products with chemicals such as decaBDE (which was the focus of a previous factcheck), no such regulations currently exist for PFAS in dental floss. In fact, the aforementioned Oral B Glide appears to be readily available in Singapore through a number of supermarkets and health retailers.
Given the available evidence, the claim that commercially branded dental floss contains PFAS can be considered partially true. While some studies have detected PFAS in certain floss brands, not all brands contain these chemicals and further research is needed to determine the extent of their presence across different products and whether they pose significant health risks.
However, the claim that using PFAS-containing dental floss is harmful requires careful interpretation. Currently, there is limited evidence directly linking PFAS in dental products to specific health conditions. Most studies on this topic emphasise the need for further research to establish a causal connection. As a result, Saladino’s claim should be viewed with a nuanced perspective, as the existing data does not conclusively support his assertion.
Regular flossing has proven health benefits, such as preventing gum disease and cavities. For individuals concerned about PFAS exposure through dental floss, experts suggest opting for PFAS-free alternatives made using nylon or silk. Consulting a dental professional for guidance on safe flossing methods and maintaining good oral hygiene can also help mitigate concerns.
