The Top Most Convenient Products To Buy Online

Earlier reports had said PFAS was found in several brands of dental floss

• Oral-B says it has reformulated Glide dental floss to remove PTFE, a material linked to PFAS concerns

• Earlier studies and lab tests connected Glide and similar flosses to higher PFAS exposure

• Independent testing of the new formula has not yet been widely published

Oral-B says it has removed a PFAS-linked material from its popular Glide dental floss, responding to years of scrutiny over the products use of polytetrafluoroethylene, or PTFE the same fluoropolymer used in nonstick cookware.

The claim marks a significant shift for a product that has often been singled out in studies and consumer investigations examining the presence of so-called forever chemicals in dental floss. However, while the company says the ingredient change is complete, independent lab verification of the reformulated floss has not yet been broadly released.

Why Glide floss drew PFAS scrutiny

Concerns about dental floss and PFAS gained national attention after a 2019 peer-reviewed study found that people who reported using PTFE-based floss including Oral-B Glide had higher blood levels of PFHxS, a type of PFAS linked to immune, hormonal, and developmental effects.

PFAS, short for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a large class of synthetic chemicals that resist heat, water, and friction. Their durability has made them useful in consumer products but also difficult to break down once released into the environment or the human body.

Subsequent testing by consumer advocacy groups and investigative labs found high levels of organic fluorine in several floss brands, including Glide. Organic fluorine testing does not identify specific PFAS compounds, but it is widely used as a screening method to flag fluorinated materials such as PTFE.

What Oral-B says has changed

Oral-B, which is owned by Procter & Gamble, has said it no longer formulates Glide floss with PTFE. The company told reporters that the change was implemented as part of a reformulation effort, effectively removing the fluoropolymer most closely associated with PFAS concerns.

Procter & Gamble has consistently maintained that its products are safe and comply with applicable regulations. In past statements, the company has disputed claims that Glide exposes users to harmful PFAS levels, even while acknowledging the presence of PTFE in earlier versions of the floss.

The company has not publicly detailed what material replaced PTFE or when all retail inventory fully transitioned to the new formulation.

What we still dont know

While Oral-Bs statement addresses the central concern raised in earlier studies, experts say independent testing is essential to confirm that PFAS or other fluorinated compounds are no longer present in the reformulated product.

As of early 2026, there are no widely cited, peer-reviewed studies or third-party lab reports specifically testing the new version of Oral-B Glide for PFAS. That leaves consumers reliant on the manufacturers disclosure rather than external verification.

This gap is common in the consumer products space, where ingredient changes often precede independent follow-up testing by months or years.

Legal and regulatory backdrop

Oral-B Glide has also faced legal challenges over PFAS claims. A proposed class-action lawsuit alleging that the floss exposed consumers to harmful PFAS was dismissed after a judge ruled that plaintiffs had not sufficiently demonstrated the presence of specific harmful PFAS or a measurable injury.

The case did not resolve the broader scientific questions about fluorinated materials in floss, but it underscored the difficulty of proving harm in PFAS-related consumer lawsuits.

At the same time, states and federal agencies are increasing scrutiny of PFAS in consumer goods, with new reporting requirements and bans rolling out for certain product categories.

What consumers may want to consider

For consumers concerned about PFAS exposure, the reformulation claim may offer reassurance with an important caveat.

If Oral-Bs statement is accurate, removing PTFE would eliminate the main PFAS-related red flag associated with Glide floss. However, until independent testing confirms the change, consumers seeking certainty may opt for floss brands explicitly labeled PFAS-free or made from non-fluorinated materials such as nylon, silk, or plant-based fibers.

Dental professionals continue to emphasize that flossing itself remains an important part of oral health, regardless of brand choice.

The bottom line

Oral-B says Glide dental floss no longer uses PTFE, the fluorinated material that put the product at the center of PFAS concerns. That represents a meaningful shift but without independent testing of the new formula, questions remain about whether PFAS have been fully eliminated.

For now, the issue highlights a familiar challenge for consumers: balancing manufacturer assurances with the slow pace of external verification.

Testing revealed the presence of a heat-resistant toxin but no illnesses have been confirmed

• Nestl has expanded a recall of infant and follow-on formula over concerns about a heat-resistant toxin

• The recall now affects products distributed across more than 50 countries worldwide

• No illnesses have been reported, but parents are advised to watch for symptoms

Nestl has expanded a global recall of infant formula and follow-on formula to more than 50 countries after testing identified the possible presence of cereulide, a toxin that can cause food poisoning.

The expanded recall follows an earlier action announced in December 2025 and affects a wide range of infant nutrition products sold under multiple Nestl brands. Company officials say no confirmed illnesses have been linked to the recalled products so far.

What prompted the recall

The initial recall was launched after Nestl detected suspected Bacillus cereus contamination in part of a production line at its Nunspeet factory in the Netherlands, according to Food Safety News. The issue was discovered during a routine self-monitoring test.

Further investigation found that cereulide a toxin produced by certain strains of Bacillus cereus was detected in one of the raw materials supplied for use in production. Nestl said the affected ingredient was arachidonic acid (ARA) oil, as well as oil mixes containing ARA, which are used in infant nutrition products.

As a result of the findings, Nestl expanded the scope of the recall to include additional products and countries where the ingredient may have been used.

Heres aclean, skimmable What parents should do boxyou can drop in under the story or run as a sidebar:

What parents should do

• Check product details immediately
  Look at the brand name, batch or lot number, and expiration date on any infant formula or follow-on formula you have at home. Compare them with recall notices issued in your country.

• Do not use recalled products
  If your formula is included in the recall, stop using it right away even if it looks or smells normal. Cereulide toxin is heat-resistant and cannot be destroyed by boiling or reheating.

• Watch for symptoms
  Symptoms linked to cereulide exposure include nausea and severe vomiting, often appearing within five hours of consumption. Illness usually lasts between six and 24 hours.

• Contact a healthcare provider if needed
  If a child has consumed a recalled product and shows symptoms, contact a healthcare provider promptly for medical advice.

• Follow local recall instructions
  Check guidance from your countrys food safety authority or Nestls recall notices for information on refunds, replacements, or how to safely dispose of affected products.

• Monitor updates
  Because the recall has expanded to multiple countries and brands, parents should watch for additional updates from health authorities in case more products or batches are added.

Why cereulide is a concern

According to the Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI), cereulide toxin can be pre-formed in food and is extremely resistant to heat, meaning it may not be destroyed during typical processing or preparation.

Consumption of foods containing cereulide can lead to nausea and severe vomiting, with symptoms typically appearing within five hours. Illness usually lasts between six and 24 hours.

Nestl said parents should contact a healthcare provider if a child has consumed an affected product and experiences symptoms.

Products and countries affected

The recall affects infant formula and follow-on formula distributed in numerous countries, including Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Mexico, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sweden, Turkey and Ukraine, among others.

A wide range of Nestl brands are listed in recall notices, including Alfamino, Lactogen Harmony 1, BEBA OptiPro 1, BEBA Comfort 1, BEBA Supreme, BEBA ExpertPro, NAN Sensilac 1, NAN HA 1, NAN Pro 1, NAN ExpertPro, NAN OptiPro, NAN Supreme, NAN Sensitive 1 and Guigoz OptiPro Relais.

In the United Kingdom and Ireland, Nestl has recalled certain batches of SMA infant formula and follow-on formula, with expiration dates ranging from October 2026 through November 2027.

Company response

In a statement, Nestl said it is working closely with regulators and monitoring the situation.

Although no confirmed cases of product-related illness have been identified, we understand that the situation may raise concerns among parents, the company said. We take any concerns seriously and are monitoring the situation closely.

Nestl also warned that the recall could temporarily affect product availability in some stores, but said it is working to minimize disruptions.

Related recalls

Separately, in December, Croatian authorities recalled Aptamil AR 1 infant formula in 400-gram packages with a use-by date of May 17, 2026, and lot number 111444865. The product was supplied by Nutricia Export BV in the Netherlands and was recalled due to the possible presence of Bacillus cereus.

Bankers' response is tepid bordering on frigid

President Donald Trump is calling on credit-card issuers to cap interest rates at 10% for one year, targeting one of banks most profitable business lines.
The proposal has drawn rare bipartisan interest from lawmakers but stiff warnings from the banking industry about reduced access to credit.
It remains unclear how the administration could compel lenders to slash rates quickly without new legislation.

After a week of market-rattling announcements aimed at lowering housing costs, President Donald Trump turned his attention to another financial pressure point for consumers: credit-card interest rates.

In a social media post, Trump demanded that credit-card lenders cap interest rates at 10% by Jan. 20, placing major issuers including JPMorgan Chase & Co., Capital One Financial Corp. and Citigroup Inc. squarely in his sights.

Credit-card rates, which have hovered above 20% in recent years, have become an increasingly visible target for lawmakers on both sides of the aisle as Americans struggle with high borrowing costs amid persistent inflation.

Industry strikes a cautious but firm response

Banking trade groups responded with a more measured tone than in past fights over rate caps, even as they warned of serious consequences.

We share the presidents goal of helping Americans access more affordable credit, the Bank Policy Institute and the Consumer Bankers Association said in a joint statement late Friday. At the same time, evidence shows that a 10% interest rate cap would reduce credit availability and be devastating for millions of American families and small business owners who rely on and value their credit cards.

The industry has long argued that sharply lower rates would force banks to tighten lending standards, leaving higher-risk borrowers with fewer options beyond payday lenders or pawn shops.

High rates carry real costs for consumers

For consumers who rely on credit cards to manage unexpected expenses, the cost of carrying a balance can be steep. The average credit-card interest rate stood at about 21% at the end of last year, according to the Federal Reserve.

At that rate, carrying a $10,000 balance for three years generates more than $3,500 in interest. By contrast, the average rate on a 30-year fixed mortgage another common consumer loan sits just above 6%, according to Freddie Mac.

Banks argue the difference reflects risk. Credit-card debt is unsecured, meaning lenders have no collateral to recover when borrowers default.

Card lending has become a major profit engine

While losses were severe during the financial crisis with credit-card charge-off rates exceeding 10% card lending has since become one of the most lucrative areas of consumer banking.

JPMorgan reported a net yield of 9.73% on more than $200 billion in credit-card loans in 2024, driving the bulk of the $25.5 billion in revenue for its card services and auto unit. The bank also recorded roughly $7 billion in credit-card charge-offs.

That profitability has made the business a frequent target for politicians seeking to rein in consumer costs.

Path to enforcement remains unclear

After legislative efforts to cap rates stalled last year, it is unclear how Trump could compel lenders to slash rates within days, beyond using the presidencys bully pulpit.

If a 10% cap were imposed, the effects would vary widely across borrowers and lenders. Riskier consumers would likely face canceled or reduced credit lines, higher minimum payments or new fees, according to a Bank Policy Institute analysis.

Using Federal Reserve data from 2019, the group estimated that a 10% cap would have reduced credit availability for roughly 14.3 million people and families.

Smaller and subprime-focused lenders could feel the brunt

Lenders focused on lower-income or higher-risk borrowers would likely be hit hardest, according to Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Himanshu Bakshi. Those include Capital One, store-card specialist Synchrony Financial, and Bread Financial.

Credit unions have also warned of severe impacts. Scott Simpson, president of Americas Credit Unions, said a 10% cap would make credit-card lending untenable for most institutions.

Institutions will not be able to offer credit cards to most consumers at a 10% rate, Simpson said.