Home / Brands & Stores
Brands & Stores
Every brand whose products we've reviewed gets a page — how many of their products we've tagged, which lists they appear in, and what we'd buy or skip. Brand pages are generated from the product records, so the counts are always current.
- 299
- brands
- 540
- products
- 37
- stores
A brand tier is a summary, never a verdict.Tiers are computed from the products we've already tagged — a brand can have a “Strong record” and still have one product we'd skip, and a brand on watch can make one thing we love. Always read the product page. Brands we've fully reviewed also carry a safety grade — that one is our editorial verdict, and it links to the full review. How brand tiers are calculated
Brands A–Z(22 matches)
- 365 by Whole Foods Marketfood-dyes · bpa-canned3products4lists0picks0avoid
- Annie's Homegrownfood-dyes2products2lists1picks0avoid
- BareAcceptablefood-dyes · We found no FDA food enforcement record naming a Bare product as of 2026-10-12, searched under Bare Foods, Bare Foods Co, Bare Snacks and Bare Fruit as recalling firm, and by the word "bare" in the product description across every recalling firm, which returned nothing at all. We found no CPSC record under Bare Snacks or Bare Foods. The parent's record is separate and is not Bare's: openFDA lists 27 recall events (53 records) under Frito-Lay between November 2012 and March 2026 and 19 events (23 records) under PepsiCo between March 2018 and September 2025, and none of those product descriptions names Bare. Two California Proposition 65 60-day notices name Bare products. AG 2020-01022, filed 2020-04-20, alleged lead and cadmium in "Bare – Beet Chips – Sea Salt" and named PepsiCo, Inc. and Nowhere Partners, Corp.; it was settled out of court on 2020-09-14 for a $4,000 civil penalty and $36,000 in fees, with PepsiCo agreeing to stop making or buying the product. AG 2021-00139, filed 2021-01-25, alleged lead in "Bare carrot chips" and named Bare Foods Co. and Target Corporation; it was settled out of court on 2021-05-01 for a $500 civil penalty and $31,000 in fees, with the product to be discontinued by 2021-10-31. Neither reached a court. Proposition 65 is a warning-label statute: a notice alleges that a product was sold without a required warning, not that it was found unsafe, and lead and cadmium are taken up from soil by root vegetables such as beets and carrots. We found no federal docket with Bare Foods or Bare Snacks in the case name on CourtListener as of 2026-10-12.
1products1lists0picks0avoid
- COLOR KITCHENfood-dyes4products6lists0picks0avoid
- GoodPopRecommendedfood-dyes · GoodPop is the trade name of Austin's Natural Frozen Pops, Inc. The USDA Organic Integrity Database, read on 2026-10-12, lists that company, of Austin, Texas, as a certified organic handler under Oregon Tilth; the entry, re-read on 2026-10-14, lists its certified products by name, including Freezer Pops (Assorted — Cherry Limeade, Concord Grape, Fruit Punch) and about twenty popsicles, alongside ingredients it brokers. GoodPop is also a Certified B Corporation: B Lab's directory, read on 2026-10-12, lists it as certified since June 2017. B Corp certification measures governance, workers, community and environment, not what is in a product, so it is recorded here and is not what the grade rests on. We found no FDA food or drug enforcement record under GoodPop, Goodpop, Good Pop, GoodPops, Good Pops or Austin's Natural Frozen Pops, as recalling firm or in a product description, and no CPSC record under either name, as of 2026-10-12. We found no 60-day notice under California's Proposition 65, the state's warning-label law, naming GoodPop or Austin's Natural Frozen Pops as an alleged violator, and none naming GoodPop as the product, as of the same date. CourtListener searches on 2026-10-15 under both the trade name and the legal name return three federal dockets. Rodriguez v. Austin's Natural Frozen Pops, Inc. (E.D.N.Y. 1:20-cv-02574, filed 2020-06-10, terminated 2020-08-04) and Contreras v. Goodpop LLC (S.D.N.Y. 1:21-cv-09233, filed 2021-11-08, terminated 2022-06-08) were Americans with Disabilities Act civil-rights cases, not product-safety or labeling matters. Austin's Natural Frozen Pops, Inc. v. Jonny Pops, LLC (W.D. Tex. 1:24-cv-00716, filed 2024-06-27) is pending. GoodPop is the plaintiff, alleging false advertising under the Lanham Act. JonnyPops answered in March 2025 with counterclaims, has amended them since, and was refused leave to amend them a third time in May 2026. We read the original counterclaim, which is free in CourtListener's RECAP archive, and not the amended versions. It argues that if JonnyPops's own fruit imagery and sugar content are found misleading, then GoodPop's statements that its products "never have ... refined sugars" and use "real, whole fruits, juices and purees" are misleading too, and it names several stick pops and ice-cream sandwiches; it does not name the freezer pops and does not allege a safety problem. Both sides moved for summary judgment in July 2026, and no ruling on either motion appears on the docket as of 2026-10-15. An order of 13 April 2026 set jury selection and trial for 30 November 2026; later scheduling orders are not in the free archive, so that date may have moved. Because this is a competitor's false-advertising dispute, not a product-safety matter, it is recorded here rather than as a litigation entry, and it does not move the grade.1products2lists0picks0avoid
- Hintfood-dyes1products1lists1picks0avoid
- HIPPEASfood-dyes2products1lists0picks0avoid
- Late Julyfood-dyes1products1lists0picks0avoid
- Lesserevilfood-dyes1products1lists0picks0avoid
- Made Goodfood-dyes2products2lists0picks0avoid
- Miss Jones BakingAcceptablefood-dyes · USDA Organic Integrity Database, read 2026-10-12: The Purple Mixer, LLC DBA Miss Jones Baking Co., NOP ID 8150001321, certifier Oregon Tilth Certified Organic, status Certified, effective 2015-07-06. We found no FDA food enforcement record under "Miss Jones", "Miss Jones Baking", "Miss Jones Baking Co", "Miss Jones Baking Company" or "Purple Mixer", and none whose product description contains "Miss Jones", in openFDA as of 2026-10-12; CPSC returned no record. One California Proposition 65 60-day notice: AG 2025-02912, filed 2025-08-07 by Gabriel Espinoza through Brodsky & Smith, alleging lead in "Miss Jones Baking Co. Banana Bread & Muffin Mix" and naming The Purple Mixer, Inc. and Gelson's Markets. It was settled without a court filing on 2026-08-06: a $4,000 civil penalty and $40,000 in fees and costs, with injunctive relief recorded as "Reformulation and/or warnings." Proposition 65 is a warning-label statute — the notice alleged a missing warning, not that the mix was found unsafe, and lead occurs naturally in soil and in grain and fruit ingredients. Two federal dockets name The Purple Mixer, Inc. and neither is a consumer matter: a supplier's contract suit (Indiana Sugars, Inc. v. The Purple Mixer, Inc., N.D. Cal., filed 2025-05-12) and the company's own case against U.S. Customs and Border Protection in the Court of International Trade (filed 2025-12-26).
5products1lists0picks0avoid
- Partake FoodsAcceptablefood-dyes · Zero FDA food, drug and device enforcement records for Partake Foods. Zero CPSC recall records. Zero federal dockets name Partake Foods as a party on CourtListener. One California Proposition 65 60-day notice: AG number 2025-04185, filed 2025-10-10 by Clean Product Advocates, LLC through Cliffwood Law Firm, PC, alleging lead in "Partake Top 9 Allergen Free Vanilla Wafers" and naming Partake Foods, Inc. and The Kroger Company dba Ralphs. The register records no complaint, settlement or judgment against it, so it has not reached a court and is not recorded as litigation. Proposition 65 is a warning-label statute — a notice alleges a product was sold without a required warning, not that it was found unsafe, and lead occurs naturally in soil and in the oat, coconut and cocoa ingredients a cookie like this is built from. B Lab's own directory was opened in a browser on 2026-09-25 and confirms the certification: "Partake Foods, Inc.", headquartered in New York, Certified Since December 2022, overall B Impact score 87.1 against a median of 50.9 for businesses completing the assessment, website partakefoods.com, founder Denise Woodard, 2016. That is read off the register rather than inferred from search indexing.
1products3lists0picks0avoid
- Simple Millsfood-dyes3products2lists1picks0avoid
- SturAcceptablefood-dyes · We found no FDA enforcement record with Dyla, Dyla LLC, Dyla Brands or Stur as the recalling firm, and none naming Stur or Dyla in a product description, in openFDA food and drug enforcement as of 2026-10-12. A CPSC search for "Stur" returns only substring matches on unrelated firms (Sturm, Ruger; Vesture; HealthPostures); none is this brand, and we found no CPSC record for Dyla. We found no notice under California's Proposition 65, the state's warning-label law, naming Stur or Dyla as of the same date; the results a search for "Dyla" returns all name Dylan's Candybar, an unrelated company. The parent's record is separate and should not be read as Stur's: openFDA holds six food enforcement events with Keurig Dr Pepper as recalling firm since 2020, all Class II and all terminated, the latest initiated 2025-12-06 on McCafe decaf coffee pods, and none names a Stur or Dyla product. No third-party certification was found on a certifier's register: Stur is listed by neither the Non-GMO Project nor GFCO, and the kosher certification the company cites for its liquids was not checked. One consumer case names Stur's maker, and it concerned a different product: Williamson v. Dyla LLC (S.D.N.Y. 1:22-cv-00402, filed 2022-01-16) was a labeling class action over a Snapple-brand diet peach tea drink mix that Dyla makes, which the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed with prejudice on 2022-02-10, before Dyla answered. The other federal dockets naming Dyla LLC are not product matters: two Americans with Disabilities Act suits (Rodriguez, E.D.N.Y. 1:21-cv-06174, 2021; Young, S.D.N.Y. 1:24-cv-07199, 2024), a patent suit (Soluble Technologies Group, D. Del. 1:23-cv-00984, 2023 to 2025) and a trademark suit (Monster Energy, C.D. Cal. 5:19-cv-00542, 2019), all closed.
1products1lists0picks0avoid
- Suncore FoodsRecommendedResearch in queue0products0lists0picks0avoid
- SupernaturalAcceptablefood-dyes · We found no FDA food enforcement record with Supernatural, Super Natural or Supernatural Kitchen as the recalling firm, and none naming Starfetti, as of 2026-10-12. A product-description search on the word does return records, and all belong to other companies: a 2021 recall of Kalona SuperNatural dairy by Farmers' All Natural Creamery, and two dietary-supplement recalls. We found no CPSC record for this company and no notice under California's Proposition 65, the state's warning-label law, naming it; the three notices that contain the word concern a mascara, rolling papers and a lanyard sold by a clothing retailer. CourtListener's two case-name hits are also other companies: Reid v. Hume Supernatural, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2024, a differently named company) and Supernatural, Inc v. Mervin Manufacturing (D. Minn. 2001, a trademark case that predates this company). No certification was read on a certifier's register; the company states its products are certified kosher and says most of its line is not certified organic or non-GMO.
4products2lists1picks0avoid
- Surf SweetsRecommendedfood-dyes · We found no FDA enforcement record with Surf Sweets, SurfSweets, TruSweets, Sweet Candy Company or Wholesome Sweeteners as the recalling firm, and none naming Surf Sweets in a product description, in openFDA food and drug enforcement as of 2026-10-12. CPSC returned nothing for Surf Sweets or Sweet Candy. We found no 60-day notice naming Surf Sweets, TruSweets or Sweet Candy Company on the California Attorney General's Proposition 65 register as of the same date. Two records that a search turns up are not this brand's: notice 2013-00802 names "Sweet Candy, LLC" of Orange, California, an unrelated company, over licorice, and notices 2017-00159 and 2018-01672 name Wholesome Sweeteners, Inc., which owned Surf Sweets at the time, over molasses, a different product line under a former owner. Proposition 65 is a warning-label statute: a notice alleges a missing warning, not that a product was found unsafe. Certifications, each read on the certifier's own register on 2026-10-12. USDA Organic: the Organic Integrity Database lists Sweet Candy Company, Salt Lake City, Utah, as a certified handler under Quality Assurance International, with "Gummy Worms", "Gummy Bears" and "Sweet's Organic Fruit Snacks" on its product list; the products are listed without the Surf Sweets brand name. Gluten-free: GFCO's product finder lists Surf Sweets products including "Gummy Worms 2.75 oz" (UPC 891475001025). Non-GMO: the Non-GMO Project lists four Surf Sweets products (Cinnamon Organic Bears, Organic Cubby Bears, Organic Delish Fish and Organic Sour Fruity Rings) and not the Gummy Worms. The pack also carries the 1% for the Planet logo, which marks an environmental-giving membership, not a safety certification. We found no product-safety or labeling case naming Surf Sweets, TruSweets or Sweet Candy Company on CourtListener as of 2026-10-12. The two recent federal dockets that name Sweet Candy Company are Americans with Disabilities Act suits, both closed: Williams v. Sweet Candy Company (S.D.N.Y. 1:21-cv-02206, filed 2021-03-12, closed 2021-07-09) and Bennett v. Sweet Candy Company (N.D. Ill. 1:26-cv-03391, filed 2026-03-27, closed 2026-07-23). Neither is a product matter.
1products2lists0picks0avoid
- Three Wishesfood-dyes1products1lists0picks0avoid
- Torie & HowardRecommendedfood-dyes · USDA Organic Integrity Database, read 2026-10-12: American Licorice Co., NOP ID 8150013059, certifier Oregon Tilth Certified Organic, status Certified, effective 2020-04-16, with the Torie & Howard hard candies and lollipops listed under its handling scope. We found no FDA food enforcement record under the firm names "Torie", "Torie & Howard" or "Torie and Howard", and none whose product description names the brand, in openFDA as of 2026-10-12; no Proposition 65 notice names the brand by defendant or product; no federal docket names it. Parent-company record, kept separate because none of it is this brand's: three FDA food enforcement events for American Licorice, all terminated — Class II, initiated 2012-08-21, Red Vines black licorice and Snaps, after California's health department found elevated lead; Class II, initiated 2012-10-02, Natural Vines black licorice, after the firm's own sampling found elevated lead; and Class III, initiated 2014-04-25, Red Vines Fruit Vines Bites, for a nutrition panel that printed sodium as 35 g instead of 35 mg. One Proposition 65 court case named American Licorice among some twenty licorice makers and retailers (CEH v. Trader Joe's Company, San Francisco Superior Court CGC-12-527270, lead in licorice), settled in 2014 with reformulation and a judgment entered 2014-07-02; a 2025 notice over a sugar-free Red Vines black licorice was withdrawn two weeks after it was filed. Proposition 65 is a warning-label statute and those claims alleged a missing warning. Federal dockets naming American Licorice are employment, contract, trademark, disability-access and bankruptcy matters, plus one personal-injury product-liability case from 1994 that we did not read.
3products1lists0picks0avoid
- True Lemonfood-dyes1products1lists0picks0avoid
- UNREALfood-dyes1products2lists0picks0avoid
- YumEarthfood-dyes2products2lists1picks0avoid
How brand tiers are calculated
Tiers derive from the SafeMama Scores and recall records of a brand's tagged products — nothing is assigned by hand, and a tier updates the moment its products do.
- On watchAny product currently under an active recall.
- Not yet ratedNo products with a computed SafeMama Score yet.
- Strong recordEvery scored product sits in the Safer-choice band (80 or above).
- Mixed recordAnything else — at least one scored product below 80.
The score formula itself is published at how we choose.