Three labels, three different promises
Research shortlist
An option worth investigating. Its exact model, materials, claims, and current costs still need review. We give you practical questions and tradeoffs, without presenting it as a tested or approved purchase.
Source-reviewed
An editor has checked the exact model against linked product documentation and recorded the review date. The page distinguishes manufacturer statements, third-party reports, and any certification listing. This label does not mean we handled the product or measured particle release.
Hands-on review
We used the product and published what we did, when, and what we observed. We also describe the test's limits. Using a kettle or washing a container cannot establish a microplastics-reduction percentage; that requires suitable product-specific measurement evidence.
What every completed comparison needs
- A clear use case. Who it suits, what it replaces, and when keeping what you own makes sense.
- The whole materials picture. The main body, food- or water-contact parts, lids, seals, coatings, and replaceable components. “Glass body” is not “no plastic anywhere.”
- Traceable claims. Direct documentation for the exact model and claim, with its date, conditions, and limits. Testing to a standard and holding a current certification are different claims.
- Everyday costs. Upfront price, consumables, cleaning, space, handling, and repair options. Price checks need dates; the catalog's dollar signs are only approximate comparison bands.
- Real drawbacks. Weight, breakage, maintenance, compatibility, remaining plastic, or another limitation that could change your decision.
Science belongs next to its limits
We cite peer-reviewed research for science and health claims. We distinguish a laboratory experiment, a human observational study, and evidence about a particular consumer product. We do not turn a finding about one tested material into a promise about every product in its category.
For example, the 2020 feeding-bottle study investigates polypropylene bottles under specified preparation conditions. The 2024 carotid-plaque study is observational research in a particular patient population. Neither paper is a clinical trial of a product on our Swap List.
“Lower-plastic” describes a material or routine choice. We do not use it as a guarantee of zero particle release, freedom from every chemical, or an improved health outcome. A shopping recommendation needs its own evidence.
Why there are no numerical ratings
We are not publishing numerical scores. A decimal can look more precise than the work behind it. For now, explicit fit, evidence, and drawbacks are more useful than a number. We would publish a clear, reproducible scoring method before introducing ratings.
How affiliate revenue fits
We may earn commissions from qualifying purchases through clearly labelled affiliate links. Eligibility for commission is not evidence that a product works, and it does not buy a favorable review. Shopping links are enabled only after product source review and a check of the affiliate destination.
We will identify affiliate links near the link itself, disclose any free sample or paid relationship, and keep non-purchase options in the conversation. Read our affiliate disclosure.
Corrections and updates
A completed review carries the date we checked it. If a material claim, certification, or product model changes, the recommendation needs another check. We will correct the affected statement and explain material changes on that page; a newer date alone is not a new review.
Corrections should identify the affected page, exact model or claim, and original source. A public correction contact is still being set up.