Methodology
Last reviewed July 2026.
What we do — and don't
We do not test cookware. We have no lab, and we don't pretend otherwise. What
we do is clerical, and that's the point: for each brand line we record (1) what the cooking
surface is made of, per the brand's own disclosure; (2) each headline safety claim the brand
makes; and (3) whether a published third-party result or public record backs, ignores or
contradicts that claim. Every cell in the dataset carries a source link or is null —
we never fill a gap with a guess.
The four verdicts
- Verified — the claim is backed by a published third-party result. Two routes count: the brand commissioned an accredited lab and published the results (Caraway, Made In, Xtrema), or an independent party published its own testing (Consumer Reports' 96-PFAS screen). A brand-commissioned report is disclosed as such — it is weaker evidence than independent testing, and the row says so.
- Disclosed — the material is stated plainly and no safety claim is made that would need a lab: bare cast iron, bare stainless, enamel with composition statements, or PTFE that calls itself PTFE. Honesty about chemistry is worth surfacing even when there's nothing to verify.
- Unverified — "non-toxic", "PFAS-free" or similar safety marketing with no published third-party report we could locate. Not an accusation: it means the claim currently rests on trust, and we say exactly that.
- Contradicted — a public record disagrees with a specific claim: a court docket, a regulator's notice, or a published independent test. We word these precisely — an allegation is an allegation, a settlement is a settlement (generally not an admission of wrongdoing), and a lab finding speaks only for the samples tested.
Sources we accept
Published lab results (brand-published or press-published), court records, California Proposition 65 60-day notices (a public database back to 1988), and regulator documents. Sources we do not accept as proof: the claim itself, retailer listing copy, influencer content, and unpublished results a brand says exist but won't show — "our testing is proprietary" is recorded as unverified, whatever the testing may say.
A note on XRF readings
Hobbyist XRF instruments detect what elements are in a material; leach tests measure what transfers into food. Both are real measurements of different things, and treating an XRF hit as an exposure finding is the single most common error in cookware-safety content. Where the two diverge for a brand, the row explains it — full guide here.
How we're paid
Some rows carry Amazon affiliate links; purchases through them may earn us a commission at no cost to you. Links appear only on verified rows and on disclosed rows with no synthetic nonstick coating (bare metal and enamel — where the material itself is the proof). Unverified and contradicted rows never carry a purchase link, so a verdict can never be bought.
Corrections
If a brand publishes a report, obtains certification, changes a claim, or a record we cite is amended, the dataset changes and the pages regenerate. Every number and quote links its source — if we disagree with the source, the source wins. Corrections: hello@cookwarescore.com.