Chuck Taylor All Star Cx Exp2 4.5 Men A07199C vs Rush Women's Running Shoes: which is safer?
Converse Chuck Taylor All Star Cx Exp2 4.5 Men A07199C is our pick: better on PFAS and on the overall hazard picture.
Our pick
Converse
Chuck Taylor All Star Cx Exp2 4.5 Men A07199C
PFAS grade
Good 65/100
Overall grade
Good 57/100
Verdict
Skip
Hazard flags
⚑ 2
Material
Canvas upper, rubber sole
Confidence
72%
PossibleAzo dyes in canvas
PossibleFormaldehyde resin finishing on canvas
Reebok
Rush Women's Running Shoes
PFAS grade
Good 65/100
Overall grade
Good 53/100
Verdict
Skip
Hazard flags
⚑ 3
Material
Mesh textile upper, rubber/foam sole
Confidence
62%
PossibleAzo dyes in textile
PossibleFormaldehyde resins in textile finishing
PossibleVolatile organic compounds (VOCs) from adhesives and coatings
Where these two actually differ
- We flag Azo dyes in canvas and Formaldehyde resin finishing on canvas on the Converse and not on the Reebok.
- We flag Azo dyes in textile, Formaldehyde resins in textile finishing and Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from adhesives and coatings on the Reebok and not on the Converse.
- The Converse is Canvas upper, rubber sole where the Reebok is Mesh textile upper, rubber/foam sole, which is most of the difference in these two grades.
- These two are level, close enough that price and fit should decide it rather than our grade.
Both products run through the same public rubric: materials, coatings, brand disclosure, lab findings, and recalls, plus a beyond-PFAS hazard analysis. Grades are model-based estimates, not lab tests. How grades work →
More running & athletic shoes: see the full ranking