Thinx Hi-Waist Period Underwear

Common questions

Is Thinx Hi-Waist Period Underwear healthy?

Thinx Hi-Waist Period Underwear scores 22/100 on Scout's independent analysis of ingredients, additives, and lab results — one of the lower scores in Scout's catalog. Thinx Hi-Waist scores 22/100.

How does Thinx Hi-Waist Period Underwear compare to other feminine care?

Thinx Hi-Waist Period Underwear ranks #26 of 29 feminine care in Scout's independent rankings. The current top score in the category is joni Organic Cotton Tampons Regular at 100/100.

Which ingredients drive Thinx Hi-Waist Period Underwear's score?

In Scout's ingredient-by-ingredient analysis, Cotton Outer (95%) counts in its favor; Elastane (5%), Proprietary Moisture-Wicking Lining, Historical PFAS Contamination are flagged as ingredients of concern. The full breakdown, with why each one matters, is in the Key ingredients section on this page.

Healthy alternatives

See more

Thinx Hi-Waist Period Underwear

Thinx
22 Poor

At a glance

Beneficial ingredients 1
Harmful ingredients 3
Owned by Thinx (Kimberly-Clark)
Category Feminine Care
Summary

Thinx Hi-Waist scores 22/100. In 2022 Thinx agreed to a $4 million class-action settlement after independent testing detected PFAS (forever chemicals) and silver nanoparticles in their gusset — directly contradicting their 'non-toxic' marketing claims. The brand was subsequently acquired by Kimberly-Clark (parent of Kotex, Huggies, Depend), the same disposables conglomerate this app's clean-feminine-care entries are designed to provide alternatives to. While Thinx now publishes 'reformulated' PFAS-free claims, no independent third-party verification has been made publicly available post-settlement, and customer trust collapsed for valid reasons. The outer fabric is 95% cotton, but the proprietary moisture-wicking lining remains undisclosed. Significantly worse track record than every other period-underwear brand on this list.

Key ingredients 5

Proprietary Moisture-Wicking Lining
Very Bad

Composition is not publicly disclosed. In 2020 independent testing detected per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS / forever chemicals) and silver nanoparticles in the gusset, leading to a $4 million class-action settlement in 2022. Thinx claims post-settlement reformulation but has not published independent third-party test results to substantiate this.

See more about Proprietary Moisture-Wicking Lining →
Historical PFAS Contamination
Very Bad

Class-action confirmed detectable per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in product despite explicit 'non-toxic' and 'free of harmful chemicals' marketing claims. These compounds bioaccumulate, persist in the environment, and are linked to endocrine disruption, immune dysfunction, and certain cancers.

See more about Historical PFAS Contamination →
Elastane (5%)
Bad

Processed additive flagged under Scout's ingredient doctrine.

See more about Elastane (5%) →
Kimberly-Clark Corporate Ownership

Acquired by Kimberly-Clark (Kotex, Huggies, Depend, Scott) post-settlement. Corporate parent's mainstream feminine-care brands score poorly on this app for fragrance and bleached-pulp concerns.

See more about Kimberly-Clark Corporate Ownership →
Cotton Outer (95%)
Good

Cotton outer shell is one structural positive. Not specified as organic on most styles.

See more about Cotton Outer (95%) →

Get the full breakdown in the Scout appTake Scout shopping

Scan any product to see lab results, healthy alternatives, and your personalized analysis.

Download on theApp Store GET IT ONGoogle Play
Amazon pricing & content

Amazon price as of . Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon.com at the time of purchase will apply to the purchase of this product.

CERTAIN CONTENT THAT APPEARS ON THIS SITE COMES FROM AMAZON. THIS CONTENT IS PROVIDED “AS IS” AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE OR REMOVAL AT ANY TIME.