PFAS75/ 100Excellent
Overall57/ 100Good
Garnier Fructis Sleek & Shine Fortifying Shampoo

Garnier Fructis · Shampoo

Garnier Fructis Sleek & Shine Fortifying Shampoo

Excellent

Lower concern for standard liquid shampoo with no PFAS-associated treatments.

Verdict · BuyStandard aqueous shampoo with no established safety red flags; low PFAS concern; suitable for routine use with normal precautions.

This water-based liquid shampoo lacks water-repellent or stain-resistant coatings that would introduce PFAS. Garnier doesn't disclose PFAS status, though the formulation type carries minimal inherent risk.

Check price on Amazon →

We flunk more products than we pass. This one earned its grade. How we grade

Material

aqueous surfactant-based liquid shampoo (no PFAS-indicator coating or treatment)

Brand disclosure

Brand is silent on PFAS

Lab data

No public lab test

You may also be interested in

Top-graded picks in the categories readers replace first, every one scored on the same rubric.

  • polypropylene filter housing, carbon/sediment cartridge
  • We found no PFAS statement from the brand
  • Bacterial growth in spent cartridges

3 hazards checked on this product, all on its full breakdown.

  • RO membrane, carbon filters, stainless steel housing
  • We found no PFAS statement from the brand
  • Bacterial and microbial growth in housing and filters

4 hazards checked on this product, all on its full breakdown.

Avocado Vegan Mattress

Avocado

Vegan Mattress

100ExcellentPFAS grade
✓ MADE SAFE Certified✓ Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS)
  • organic cotton, natural latex, coconut coir, recycled steel coils
  • The brand calls it PFAS-free, which we have not verified
  • Heavy metals

2 hazards checked on this product, all on its full breakdown.

What Garnier Fructis Sleek & Shine Shampoo is made of, ingredients and materials

Garnier Fructis Sleek & Shine is a water-based liquid shampoo formulated with surfactants (cleaning agents), conditioning polymers, and fruit-derived marketing ingredients. The primary risk category for liquid shampoos is preservatives and fragrance components, not structural materials. As an aqueous product with no water-repellent or non-stick coatings, it carries none of the Teflon-type coating or ceramic-coating hazards typical of cookware or treated textiles.

What’s concerning

♾️

Category baseline

The starting point for this type of product, before anything specific to this product is counted.

80/ 100
♾️

No PFAS disclosure

No public statement from the brand about PFAS in this product.

85/ 100
⚠️

1,4-dioxane (synthetic contaminant)

1,4-dioxane is a known contaminant in shampoos resulting from ethoxylation of surfactants during manufacture, not a deliberate additive. FDA does not regulate it as a cosmetic ingredient but notes it as a probable carcinogen; Garnier does not disclose testing or removal steps for this product.

70/ 100
🏷️

Fragrance allergens and undisclosed compounds

Shampoos list 'fragrance' or 'parfum' as single ingredients while concealing dozens of aroma chemicals; some individuals report scalp sensitization. Garnier Fructis does not itemize fragrance constituents, and no third-party analysis of this specific product's fragrance load is publicly available.

70/ 100
🎨

Preservative-related irritation (phenoxyethanol, methylisothiazolinone)

Standard shampoo preservatives prevent microbial growth but are known contact allergens in sensitive individuals. Product formulation varies by region; some versions contain MI (methylisothiazolinone), flagged by dermatologists as a rising cause of scalp dermatitis.

45/ 100

What’s reassuring

✅

Base material not linked to PFAS

The main material recorded for this product is not one associated with PFAS.

100/ 100
⛏️

Heavy metals

No published recalls or independent testing of Garnier Fructis Sleek & Shine for lead, cadmium, or arsenic. Liquid shampoos carry lower inherent risk than pigmented cosmetics (e.g., eyeshadow, powders) for metal contamination.

Source, FDA ↗
95/ 100
💨

Formaldehyde / VOCs

Imidazolidinyl and dmdm hydantoin (formaldehyde releasers) are banned or restricted in EU cosmetics but remain permitted in US shampoos. No evidence this product contains these; Garnier does not disclose its preservative system publicly for this SKU.

Source, ATSDR ↗
95/ 100

How is this PFAS grade calculated?

The brand's record and disclosure

Garnier (L'Oreal subsidiary) does not publish explicit PFAS-free certifications for this line and makes no public disclosure of PFAS testing or avoidance policy. The brand has faced no major recalls or safety controversies specific to Fructis shampoos in recent years. Independent safety databases (EWG, CosmeticsInfo) list no flagged ingredients in the standard formulation, though ingredient lists vary by region and reformulation.

How it compares in its category

Garnier Fructis occupies the mass-market segment; it is comparable in transparency and hazard profile to competitors like Pantene and Dove. It lacks third-party certifications (organic, EWG Verified, Leaping Bunny) that some consumers prioritize. For a standard drugstore shampoo, safety and formulation stability are unremarkable and pose no known differential risk versus major branded alternatives.

If you buy it

Store away from extreme heat and direct sunlight to preserve formula stability. Shake before use as surfactants may separate over time. Discontinue if scalp irritation develops; fragrance and preservatives are the likeliest culprits. Replace every 12-18 months after opening to minimize preservative degradation and bacterial colonization in the bottle.

What is not known about PFAS in this product?

Basis
Model estimate, 78% confidence, not a lab result
Lab test
None on record for this exact product
Brand statement
Garnier Fructis has made none

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

More shampoo 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.