La Croix PFAS Testing (2026): Is It Actually Safe to Drink?

La Croix and PFAS — The Short Version

Three numbers tell most of the La Croix PFAS story. 1.16 ppt — the total PFAS detected by Consumer Reports in 2020. 5 ppt — the bottled water industry’s voluntary safety limit per the International Bottled Water Association. 4 ppt — the EPA’s 2024 final Maximum Contaminant Level for PFOA and PFOS individually in public drinking water.

La Croix’s measured level sits comfortably below both the industry standard and the EPA’s new federal limit. It sits slightly above the most cautious scientific recommendations, including the Environmental Working Group’s 1 ppt total PFAS guideline.

That gap — between “below US regulatory limits” and “slightly above the strictest scientific recommendation” — is where the controversy lives. Both interpretations are defensible. Which one matters to you depends on how much you trust current US standards and how much PFAS exposure you’re already getting from other sources.

What Consumer Reports’ 2020 Testing Actually Found

In September 2020, Consumer Reports published the results of an independent lab analysis testing 47 bottled water products — 35 still and 12 carbonated — for PFAS contamination and heavy metals. The carbonated water results were the ones that went viral.

Here’s what the lab found across the carbonated water brands tested, ordered from highest to lowest:

Several other brands tested non-detectable. La Croix’s 1.16 ppt placed it in the lower middle of the pack — significantly cleaner than Topo Chico and Polar, slightly higher than Perrier and the still-water leaders like Spindrift.

The 2019 Lawsuit — Why La Croix’s Reputation Still Suffers

Before the Consumer Reports PFAS findings, La Croix had already weathered a separate controversy that’s still confused with the PFAS issue online. Understanding the difference matters because the two are completely unrelated.

In October 2018, attorney Beaumont Costales filed a class-action lawsuit in Cook County, Illinois, against National Beverage Corp, alleging that La Croix’s “natural” labeling was deceptive. The complaint named specific flavor compounds — limonene, linalool, linalool propionate, and ethyl butanoate — and made the inflammatory claim that linalool was “used in cockroach insecticide.”

The technical reality is more boring. All four named compounds occur naturally in citrus fruits, lavender, ginger, and sage. They can also be produced synthetically. The lawsuit’s lab couldn’t distinguish between the two sources.

The case was formally dismissed in February 2020, with a complete retraction signed by plaintiff Lenora Rice and her law firm. In the retraction, they admitted the laboratory that performed the original testing “could not, and did not, determine whether the ingredients were ‘synthetic'” and that the same compounds “can be derived naturally.” National Beverage’s independent retesting confirmed the flavor essences were 100% natural per supplier certifications.

Despite the formal dismissal six years ago, the original allegations still circulate online — often blended with the unrelated PFAS findings into one composite “La Croix is toxic” narrative that doesn’t match the actual evidence on either count.

What “1.16 Parts Per Trillion” Actually Means

One part per trillion is an extraordinarily small concentration. For scale, 1 ppt is equivalent to roughly one drop of water in 20 Olympic-sized swimming pools, or one second over approximately 32,000 years.

That doesn’t automatically make PFAS at 1 ppt harmless. The concern with PFAS isn’t acute toxicity — it’s bioaccumulation. PFAS don’t break down in the environment or the human body, so even small daily exposures can build up over decades. This is why different regulatory bodies have set different “safe” thresholds depending on their risk tolerance.

Here’s where the major regulatory benchmarks sit:

The picture is consistent: La Croix’s measured PFAS level falls below every binding regulatory limit in the US — and below most non-binding advisories — but slightly above the strictest scientific recommendation from EWG.

La Croix’s Official Response — and Why It Matters

National Beverage Corp, which manufactures La Croix, responded publicly to the 2020 Consumer Reports findings with a statement that the products are “subject to strict quality control and robust filtration systems” and that their samples “exceeded the most stringent PFAS requirements” in the US.

The company also disputed Consumer Reports’ testing methodology, arguing that the total PFAS calculations included compounds at trace amounts that might not represent real exposure risk. This is a defensible point technically — the way you aggregate “total PFAS” across many compounds is genuinely debated among scientists — but it doesn’t change the underlying measurements.

What matters more is independent verification. Mamavation’s 2025 retest of La Croix produced PFAS levels similar to Consumer Reports’ 2020 findings, suggesting the original numbers were reproducible across labs and time periods. When two independent investigators using different methodologies reach similar conclusions, the data has held up.

The EPA’s April 2024 Final Rule — The Real Goalpost

The most significant change in the PFAS regulatory landscape since the original La Croix testing happened in April 2024, when the EPA finalized the first-ever national legally enforceable drinking water standard for PFAS.

The new National Primary Drinking Water Regulation sets Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) at:

• 4 parts per trillion — for PFOA individually
• 4 parts per trillion — for PFOS individually
• 10 ppt — for PFHxS, PFNA, and HFPO-DA (GenX) individually
• A combined Hazard Index limit for mixtures of four PFAS chemicals

Public water systems must complete initial monitoring by 2027 and implement treatment solutions by 2029 if levels exceed limits. Under section 410 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the FDA is required to either establish parallel standards for bottled water or determine such regulation isn’t necessary.

Here’s the key implication for La Croix: even if you applied the strictest individual-compound EPA limit to La Croix’s total PFAS measurement, La Croix would still be below the federal threshold. The 1.16 ppt total represents multiple different PFAS compounds combined — no single compound in La Croix has been reported anywhere near the EPA’s 4 ppt single-compound MCL.

FDA’s April 2025 Bottled Water Investigation

The most recent and largest US bottled water PFAS dataset comes from the FDA. Between 2023 and 2024, the agency sampled 197 domestic and imported bottled water products, testing for 18 different PFAS compounds. Results were released in April 2025.

The findings:

• Only 10 of 197 samples contained any detectable PFAS
• Zero samples exceeded the EPA’s Maximum Contaminant Levels for drinking water
• Of the 10 detection samples: 4 PFAS compounds were detected at levels below EPA MCLs; 2 detected compounds had no MCLs established by EPA
• Most positive detections were either spring water or imported artisan water — not specifically named, but the pattern aligns with source-water contamination rather than processing introduction

This is the broadest independent test of US bottled water PFAS contamination available, and it tells a different story than the viral social media narrative. The viral version says “your bottled water is full of forever chemicals.” The data says: detectable PFAS exists in a minority of products, and none of those exceed federal safety limits.

How La Croix Compares to Competitors in 2026

The PFAS landscape across sparkling water brands has shifted since 2020. Some brands improved their filtration. Some new entrants have published their own testing. And some leaders quietly slipped backward.

The Spindrift movement is notable — once positioned as the cleanest brand on PFAS, the 2025 retest found one flavor at 2.62 ppt, higher than La Croix. This may reflect a single batch, a different flavor formulation, or genuine production variance. It’s a reminder that no single brand is permanently “safe” or “unsafe” based on one test.

For a brand-by-brand comparison of the broader market, see our guide to the healthiest sparkling water for daily drinking.

Should You Stop Drinking La Croix? An Honest Verdict

This is where most PFAS articles either reassure too easily or panic too quickly. The honest answer requires distinguishing between three different reader scenarios.

For the median reader who drinks 1-3 cans of sparkling water a week, La Croix’s PFAS level is unlikely to be the biggest health concern in their day. Cooking on a Teflon pan or eating from fast-food wrappers typically contributes more PFAS exposure than a single can of La Croix.

How to Reduce Your PFAS Exposure

If you want to actively lower your PFAS load — whether or not you keep drinking La Croix — these are the highest-impact changes ranked by typical effectiveness:

For a deeper look at home water filtration options, our guide on best water filter pitchers covers what actually removes PFAS.

Frequently Asked Questions

What Readers Say

Related Reading

• Healthiest Sparkling Water for Daily Drinking — 2026 Ranked
• Liquid Death Sparkling Water Review: All Flavors Explained
• Top Zero-Calorie Sparkling Waters
• Best Water Filter Pitchers That Remove PFAS
• Sparkling Water vs Seltzer vs Club Soda — Full Comparison
• Best Bottled Water Brands Reviewed

References & Sources

• Consumer Reports — Bottled Water PFAS Testing (2020)
• EPA — Final PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (April 2024)
• FDA — Bottled Water PFAS Testing Results (April 2025)
• Mamavation — Sparkling Water PFAS Retest (2025)
• Environmental Working Group — Tap Water Database
• National Beverage Corp — Lawsuit Dismissal & Retraction (February 2020 SEC Filing)
• International Bottled Water Association — Voluntary PFAS Standards