PFAS absence / testing
No public PFAS-free claim or test was found for CUB nappies.
Score: 2 / 10
What earns 10/10?*
Accessible product-level independent PFAS test/certificate.
Public PFAS testing or explicit free-from claim.
CUB
Disposable nappies
Nestivo’s take
A low-cost nappy that is easy to add to a supermarket shop. The newborn result is encouraging, but larger sizes and overnight use are less certain. It is best considered for everyday value; its full materials and environmental footprint are less clear.
Scores at a glance
What these scores mean and how we assess them
- Low toxins
- 30 / 100
- Performance
- 67 / 100
- Sustainability
- 25 / 100
- Availability
- 88 / 100
- Price / value
- 92 / 100
Why parents choose it
- One of the cheapest nappies and easy to add to a Coles shop.
- independent laboratory testing gave the newborn size a solid overall result.
- Some parents report good containment once they find the right size.
What to think twice about
- This is a single-use product, and the brand publishes limited detail about plastic content, manufacturing impacts or realistic disposal after use.
- Public product-specific material or chemical-testing information is incomplete, so some baby-health questions cannot be answered with high confidence.
- Reported fit and leakage vary by size and baby.
Evidence behind the scores
Low toxins — 30 / 100
Coles says the range is rigorously tested, but does not publish enough product-specific material or chemical detail to verify the most important free-from questions.
Chlorine and bleaching process
No chlorine-bleaching statement was found for CUB nappies.
Score: 3 / 10
What earns 10/10?*
TCF/no chlorine with clear evidence.
Elemental-chlorine-free or TCF statement.
Fragrance-free / perfume-free
CUB describes its nappies as soft and rigorously tested, but does not publish an explicit fragrance-free statement.
Score: 4 / 10
What earns 10/10?*
Complete formula plus explicit absence or independently verified absence.
Explicit fragrance-free declaration.
Alcohol-free / no alcohol-based additives
No alcohol-free nappy claim was found.
Score: 3 / 10
What earns 10/10?*
Independently verified absence or complete formulation/material list plus explicit alcohol-free claim.
Explicit alcohol-free declaration.
Paraben-free
No paraben-free nappy claim was found.
Score: 3 / 10
What earns 10/10?*
Complete formula or independently verified absence.
Explicit paraben-free declaration.
Phenols / phenoxyethanol concern addressed
No phenol/phenoxyethanol statement was found.
Score: 3 / 10
What earns 10/10?*
Complete formula and explicit phenoxyethanol absence, or product testing covers phenols.
Explicit statement or test.
Pesticide residue risk in plant-derived inputs
No pesticide-residue or plant-fibre testing information was found.
Score: 3 / 10
What earns 10/10?*
Product/residue testing or robust certified organic coverage.
Pesticide-residue testing where plant fibres are used.
Formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releaser absence
No finished-product formaldehyde test or free-from statement was found.
Score: 3 / 10
What earns 10/10?*
Accessible testing/certification plus absence.
Public formaldehyde testing.
Carcinogenic or allergenic dyes / inks
No detailed ink or dye disclosure was found.
Score: 4 / 10
What earns 10/10?*
Independently tested absence or no dyes with verified material list.
Ink/dye composition and allergen testing.
Phthalate-free
No phthalate-free claim or test was found.
Score: 3 / 10
What earns 10/10?*
Independently verified absence or complete formula/material evidence.
Explicit phthalate-free declaration.
Independent skin/material safety verification
Coles states the range is rigorously tested, but no named third-party nappy safety certification was found.
Score: 3 / 10
What earns 10/10?*
Multiple strong product-level independent certifications/tests.
Named certification or accessible test standard.
Ingredient/material disclosure completeness
The public page describes performance features but does not provide a layer-by-layer materials list or broad free-from statement.
Score: 3 / 10
What earns 10/10?*
Full formulation/component list with functions or composition.
Full material and chemical disclosure.
Independent low-tox curation & awards
No exact-product low-tox curation or award was confirmed.
Score: 1 / 10
What earns 10/10?*
Exact product is top-rated/wins with one recognised source and has a second independent curation signal, or receives strong positive curation from 2+ sources.
Independent low-tox curation evidence.
Performance — 67 / 100
Recorded CHOICE results provide useful support for CUB’s absorbency and containment in the tested sizes, although performance differs by size. This gives it a more useful performance basis than the absorbent-core description alone.
Confidence: Medium. Recorded independent tests support the assessment, but the current retailer page could not be rechecked.
Leak and blowout protection
CHOICE rated CUB newborn leakage strongly enough for a 78% overall score, while parent feedback remains mixed and fit-dependent.
Score: 8 / 10
What earns 10/10?*
Strong independent/large-scale parent evidence plus engineered barriers.
Independent testing across larger sizes.
Absorbency / dryness
CHOICE reported a 62% absorbency score for CUB newborn nappies.
Score: 6 / 10
What earns 10/10?*
Quantified independent absorbency plus consistent reviews.
Testing across all current sizes.
Fit, softness and comfort
Parent feedback suggests sizing up can improve fit for chunkier babies, but the structured sample is small.
Score: 7 / 10
What earns 10/10?*
Broad fit range and strong independent/review evidence.
Larger parent sample by baby build and size.
Overnight suitability
Available evidence supports budget daytime use more clearly than dependable overnight use.
Score: 6 / 10
What earns 10/10?*
Strong overnight testing/reviews.
Dedicated overnight testing.
Sustainability — 25 / 100
CUB does not publish the nappy’s plant-based or plastic percentage, sourcing certifications, factory energy or an alternative disposal pathway.
Renewable / plant-based material share
No renewable-material percentage is published for CUB nappies.
Score: 3 / 10
What earns 10/10?*
High quantified renewable share.
Renewable and plant-based material percentage.
Waste and virgin-plastic reduction
CUB nappies are single-use and no finished-product plastic reduction is quantified.
Score: 2 / 10
What earns 10/10?*
Reusable/high displacement of single-use waste.
Plastic content or reduction benchmark.
End-of-life evidence and disposal honesty
No biodegradation, composting or alternative end-of-life pathway is published for the nappies.
Score: 2 / 10
What earns 10/10?*
Precise, evidence-backed disposal limitations and pathways.
Clear nappy disposal guidance.
Packaging sustainability
No detailed packaging composition or recycled-content claim was found.
Score: 3 / 10
What earns 10/10?*
Verified compostable/reusable or high-recycled-content recyclable packaging.
Packaging material and recycled-content disclosure.
Manufacturing powered by renewable energy
No manufacturing renewable-energy information was found.
Score: 2 / 10
What earns 10/10?*
Independently reported 100% renewable electricity at relevant manufacturing sites.
Factory renewable-energy share.
Manufacturing impact disclosure
No product-level manufacturing emissions, water or waste data was found.
Score: 2 / 10
What earns 10/10?*
Public product LCA or independently assured impact metrics.
Manufacturing-impact data.
Sourcing transparency
Material origins and supplier traceability are not detailed in the reviewed information.
Score: 3 / 10
What earns 10/10?*
Full product-material provenance and supplier/chain identifiers are documented across all relevant inputs. None of this catalogue is assigned 10 on current records.
Availability — 88 / 100
Availability based on current Australian retailer presence: Coles.
Retail availability and purchase convenience
Availability based on current Australian retailer presence: Coles. Detailed support for this criterion is limited.
Score: 9 / 10
What earns 10/10?*
Broad major-retailer availability.
Complete a source-by-source audit for 'Retail availability and purchase convenience' for CUB disposable nappies, including product-level evidence and relevant testing or certification.
Price / value — 92 / 100
The recorded score favours low upfront cost, but we cannot confirm today’s value without a current same-size unit price. Fit and changes per day also affect what you actually spend. Current unit prices still need to be checked before comparing value.
Typical unit / upfront price
Current unit prices still need to be checked before comparing value. Detailed support for this criterion is limited.
Score: 9 / 10
What earns 10/10?*
Among lowest relevant current prices.
Complete a source-by-source audit for 'Typical unit / upfront price' for CUB disposable nappies, including product-level evidence and relevant testing or certification.
Value for performance / lifetime cost
Current unit prices still need to be checked before comparing value. Detailed support for this criterion is limited.
Score: 9 / 10
What earns 10/10?*
Excellent performance-to-price or strong lifetime economics.
Complete a source-by-source audit for 'Value for performance / lifetime cost' for CUB disposable nappies, including product-level evidence and relevant testing or certification.
* Benchmarks describe the scoring rubric, not a guarantee of safety or suitability. Read them alongside the product’s findings and limitations.
Sources & evidence confidence
CUB has reliable current price and availability information, a useful newborn performance result and parent feedback on fit and leakage. Confidence is moderate—not low—because the practical evidence is usable, but Coles does not publish a complete material list, fibre certification or product-level chemical-testing results.
Product evidence last reviewed: 2026-10-08
General plastics research
These studies explain the wider research behind materials assessment. They do not test this product or establish its safety, chemical content or exposure.
- Nestivo — practical choices and credited research
- Yannick Mulders et al. (2026) — A place to explore the wider evidence
- Christos Symeonides et al. (2024) — BPA during pregnancy and child development
- Ahmed Elagali et al. (2025) — Phthalates, inflammation and child development
- Maureen Cropper et al. (2024) — Costs beyond the purchase price
- Nancy Lauer et al. (2025) — Plastic’s wider social costs