PFAS30/ 100Poor
Overall0/ 100Bad
Clinique Lash Power Mascara

Clinique · Waterproof Mascara

Clinique Lash Power Mascara

Poor

Waterproof mascara likely contains PFAS-adjacent coatings; insufficient disclosure.

Verdict: SkipWaterproof mascara with likely PFAS-adjacent polymers and standard cosmetic pigment risks; Clinique offers no PFAS transparency, but product is mainstream-safe if removed daily.

Clinique does not disclose PFAS status for this waterproof mascara. Waterproof cosmetics often use fluorinated polymers or undisclosed water-resistant treatments. No third-party verification available.

The safe swap

Burt's Bees 100% Natural Nourishing Mascara, Black Brown

Burt's Bees

Burt's Bees 100% Natural Nourishing Mascara, Black Brown

75/100 safety

75Excellent

Same rubric that flunked this product. The swap earned Excellent.

Still want this one anyway? Check the price on Amazon. We’d swap it.

Material

wax, film-forming resins, pigments, waterproof polymer blend

Brand disclosure

Brand is silent on PFAS

Lab data

No public lab test

What’s concerning

♾️

Waterproof / stain-resistant treatment

water-repellent coating treatments have historically used PFAS.

65/ 100
♾️

Category baseline

cosmetics is a category where PFAS exposure is more common.

80/ 100
♾️

No PFAS disclosure

No public statement about PFAS in this product.

85/ 100
💨

Formaldehyde / VOCs

Waterproof mascaras often contain formaldehyde-releasing preservatives (imidazolidinyl urea, dmdm hydantoin) to prevent microbial growth in the aqueous phase. Clinique does not publicly disclose preservative chemistry for this product; standard mascaras of this type have a moderate likelihood of including these compounds.

Source: ATSDR
70/ 100
🎨

Heavy metals

Black and dark-colored mascaras rely on iron oxides and synthetic organic pigments, which may contain trace heavy metals (lead, cadmium, chromium) if source materials are not controlled. Clinique, as a major brand, likely maintains supplier standards, but specific pigment testing data is not publicly available for this product.

Source: FDA
70/ 100
⚠️

Fragrance allergens (if scented)

Lash Power Mascara formulations may include fragrance compounds to mask resin or preservative odor. Fragrance allergens (limonene, linalool, geraniol) can trigger contact dermatitis on the sensitive eye area, though the concentration is typically low and not listed separately on the label.

70/ 100
🎨

Eye irritation from resin film or pigment leaching

Waterproof polymer blends and pigments can migrate into the tear film or mucous membranes if left on the eye too long or if the product is expired. User reports of redness and minor irritation exist for waterproof mascaras in this category; individual sensitivity varies widely.

45/ 100
⚠️

Buildup and ocular irritation from daily accumulation

Waterproof mascaras are designed to resist removal, which means incomplete nightly cleansing can lead to pigment and resin residue on the lashes and eyelid margins. This accumulation over weeks increases risk of folliculitis, contact dermatitis, or bacterial eye infections if hygiene is compromised.

20/ 100

The full breakdown

What it's made of and why it matters

Clinique Lash Power Mascara uses wax bases (likely carnauba or synthetic), film-forming resins (acrylates or similar polymers), and waterproof polymer blends to create durability and water resistance. Waterproof mascaras typically require fluorinated or silicone-based coatings to repel water, which is where PFAS-adjacent chemistry enters. The pigments (likely iron oxides and/or synthetic colorants) are standard in mascara but require verification of heavy-metal purity, particularly in black shades.

The brand's record and disclosure

Clinique (Estee Lauder Corp) does not publicly disclose PFAS content or commit to PFAS-free formulations in their mascara line. The brand meets FDA cosmetic compliance and does not list major safety controversies on this specific product. However, absence of PFAS disclosure is typical across prestige mascara makers and does not indicate testing or absence of the compounds. Estee Lauder has not signed the AFIRM or similar pledges for PFAS transparency in personal care.

How it compares in its category

Lash Power Mascara sits in the mainstream prestige-cosmetics segment where waterproof formulas are nearly universal and PFAS-adjacent chemistry is the industry norm. Waterproof mascaras from comparable brands (MAC, Bobbi Brown, Maybelline) have identical disclosure gaps. PFAS-free or plant-based alternatives exist (e.g., RMS Beauty, Ilia) but are less common in waterproof variants. This product's positioning does not suggest higher or lower chemical risk than competitor waterproof mascaras.

If you buy it

Remove mascara nightly with dedicated makeup remover or oil cleanser to minimize eye-area exposure duration and avoid pigment accumulation. Do not heat or apply near flame due to resin flammability. Replace every 3 months to prevent bacterial colonization inside the tube (cosmetic shelf-life standard). If eye irritation, redness, or swelling occurs, discontinue and patch-test the remover separately to isolate the culprit.

What we don’t know

Basis
Model estimate, 45% confidence, not a lab result
Lab test
None on record for this exact product
Brand statement
Clinique has made none

Formulations change between production runs, so check the current label. How we grade.

Safer alternatives in Waterproof Mascara

Burt's Bees 100% Natural Nourishing Mascara, Black Brown

Burt's Bees

100% Natural Nourishing Mascara, Black Brown

Wax, pigments, natural oils (typical mascara base)

PFAS Grade75Excellent
Overall Grade67Good
🏷️

Fragrance allergens and undisclosed sensitizers

Limited concern

70
⚠️

Bacterial growth and contamination in wax formula

Limited concern

70

Lower concern; conventional non-waterproof formula with no identified PFAS drivers.

Risky category by default

More waterproof mascara grades

How we score: every product runs through the same public 0–100 rubric based on materials, coatings, brand disclosure, lab findings, and recalls. See the full methodology → Spotted a mistake? Report an error.