LOLA Ultra Thin Latex Condoms

$LOLA Ultra Thin Latex Condoms$

A latex condom with a three-item material list, a silicone lubricant and a nitrosamine-free claim, made by a Thai maker that FDA lists for LOLA-named condoms, at $1 each. The nitrosamine claim and the match to FDA records rest on the maker.

Best for Readers without a latex allergy who want a short, named material list and are willing to pay more than the drugstore price for it.

Our rating: Fair (3.4 of 5)
Price range: Mid-range
Verified marks: FDA device listing under 510(k) K994095 and K081265
Size: 12 condoms; regular (52 mm wide) or large (55 mm wide), 189 mm long

approx. $12 for 12 condoms

See it on LOLA’s site → (opens in a new tab)

We are not affiliated with LOLA. This link goes to the maker’s own page, with no tracking code. How we're funded.

Also sold at Amazon ($23 for 24 condoms (about $0.95 each); approx. $10 for 6) .

Reader ratings & reviews

– out of 5

Loading ratings…

Have this product? Please rate it.

Reviews are personal experiences, not research, and they never change our quality ratings. Every review is read by our team before it appears.

How we evaluated it

How it scores Our rating, metric by metric Fair, 3.4 of 5

Ingredients & materials 40% of the rating 4 of 5

The box names the latex, the cornstarch dusting powder and the silicone oil lubricant, with no spermicide, paraben, glycerin or flavor, though like most brands it omits the vulcanizing chemicals.
Protection 15% of the rating 4 of 5

FDA lists LOLA-named condoms made by Thai Nippon under two clearances whose summaries cite ASTM D3492 and ISO 4074 for contraception and STI prevention, but the sizes differ by about a millimeter from today’s boxes.
Independent testing 20% of the rating 2 of 5

No one outside the maker has tested the condom: the nitrosamine-free claim has no method or report, and the only outside test of a LOLA product was of its gel, which showed a PFAS marker.
Trust 10% of the rating 3 of 5

It names its materials and we found no recall or lawsuit over the condom, but a 2025 Prop 65 notice names its owner over metals in LOLA tampons, and “non-toxic” and “gynecologist-approved” name no standard or doctor.
Value 15% of the rating 3 of 5

About $1.00 a condom ($12 for 12), nearly twice Trojan Original’s 51 cents.

The rating, 3.4 of 5, is the weighted average of these scores. See how we rank condoms & lubricants and our standard.

Where to buy Stores and the prices we saw 1 store

Amazon (opens in a new tab) approx. $23 for 24 condoms (about $0.95 each); approx. $10 for 6. Sold by LOLA (myLOLA) and shipped by Amazon. The listing offers 6 or 24 condoms in Regular or Large, not the 12-count this page prices, so check the pack size before buying. Seen 2026-11-03.

Prices as we saw them on October 23, 2026. They change often. These links carry no tracking code and earn us nothing.

What’s in it Every ingredient, in label order 3 ingredients

Natural rubber latex (condom)
Cornstarch powder (condom)
Silicone oil (lubricant)

Who tested it What each test found, and who paid for it 2 tests

Maker’s own test Thai Nippon Rubber Industry, with FDA review (510(k) summaries K081265 and K994095) October 2009

K081265’s summary describes a 56 mm flared latex condom lubricated with silicone and dressed with cornstarch, meeting ASTM D3492:2008 and ISO 4074:2002. K994095’s 2000 summary describes a 52 mm silicone-lubricated condom meeting ASTM D3492. Both are the manufacturer’s filings and name no brand. Open ↗ (opens in a new tab)
Maker’s own test LOLA (statement on its product page)

Says the condoms are made without nitrosamines, parabens, casein, glycerin, gluten and synthetic flavor, and that every condom is electronically tested. No test method or report is published for the nitrosamine claim. Open ↗ (opens in a new tab)

Who paid, and why it matters

Independent The tester took no money from the maker for it: a consumer group, a journalist, a university or a regulator.
Paid certification An outside lab or certifier tested or listed it, and the maker paid for that.
Maker’s own test A lab report or certificate of analysis the maker commissioned and published.

A certification is a floor, not a verdict: it checks what its program checks and nothing else. We weigh tests by someone with no stake in the result most.

What people ask Worries raised online and elsewhere, and what we found 7 questions

Is it really free of nitrosamines?: Only LOLA says so, and it gives no test method or report. Nitrosamines can form when rubber is vulcanized. A 2001 review (opens in a new tab) judged the cancer risk from condoms very low, while a 2005 German survey (opens in a new tab) of 32 condoms found releases of up to 660 µg per kg. If it matters to you, ask LOLA which test it uses.
Does FDA’s record match this box?: Partly. FDA’s listing database shows two LOLA-named condoms, “53 mm. Contour” (K994095) and “56 mm. FLARE” (K081265), both made by Thai Nippon Rubber Industry in Thailand. Today’s boxes say 52 and 55 mm, and the summaries are Thai Nippon’s own filings, which FDA’s database also lists under other brands. We could not tie today’s boxes to one number.
Has LOLA had a PFAS problem?: Not with the condoms, as far as we know. Mamavation’s 2024 screen (opens in a new tab) flagged LOLA’s Tingling Mint Pleasure Gel at 39 ppm organic fluorine, a PFAS marker, and did not test the condoms. LOLA makes no PFAS statement for either.
Is the three-item list the whole story?: No. Latex condoms are vulcanized with other chemicals, as the fuller materials lists of Sustain and Glyde condoms in the same Mamavation article show (sulfur, zinc oxide and a zinc dithiocarbamate, among others). Those may remain in trace amounts. LOLA’s list is simpler to read, and it does not mention them.
Is it safe for people with a latex allergy?: No. It is natural rubber latex, and LOLA says on its help page (opens in a new tab) that the condoms are not hypoallergenic for that reason. Polyisoprene condoms are the usual alternative.
Has LOLA’s owner had safety problems with other products?: A 60-day Prop 65 notice (opens in a new tab) filed on 14 February 2025 by Golden State Consumer Law Group names Forum Brands, LLC, which owns LOLA, and alleges antimony trioxide, mercury, lead and cadmium in tampons. It concerns tampons and not the condoms, and it is an allegation. We found no notice about the condoms.
Are “non-toxic” and “gynecologist-approved” more than marketing?: The page title says “Vegan & Non Toxic” and the copy says “gynecologist-approved”. “Non-toxic” has no legal definition, and no doctor or standard is named. We found no influencer or ambassador program linked from the product page, and could not read Reddit or social media.

Why we chose it What put it on our list 4 points

LOLA names everything in the box: natural rubber latex, cornstarch powder and a silicone oil lubricant. It says the condom is made without parabens, casein, glycerin, nitrosamines, gluten or synthetic flavor. That is a clearer list than the other condoms we list.
FDA’s listing database shows two LOLA-named condoms, “53 mm. Contour” (K994095) and “56 mm. FLARE” (K081265), both made by Thai Nippon Rubber Industry in Thailand.
The K081265 summary describes a 56 mm flared latex condom lubricated with silicone and dressed with cornstarch, meeting ASTM D3492:2008 and ISO 4074:2002, for contraception and STI prevention. Those are the same three materials LOLA lists.
About $1.00 a condom ($12 for 12), or $10 for 12 on a monthly subscription.

Trade-offs What to weigh before you buy 4 points

“Without nitrosamines” is the maker’s word. LOLA names no test method and publishes no report.
FDA’s two LOLA listings are for 53 and 56 mm condoms; today’s boxes say 52 and 55 mm. We could not match the current box to one record with certainty.
Mamavation’s 2024 consumer test flagged LOLA’s Tingling Mint Pleasure Gel at 39 ppm organic fluorine. The condoms were not tested, and LOLA makes no PFAS statement for them.
It contains natural rubber latex, and LOLA says it is not hypoallergenic. It costs roughly twice Trojan Original per condom, and LOLA’s own site ships only to the 48 contiguous states (free shipping over $35).

What to know Details worth knowing first

LOLA’s condom is the clearest-labeled one we list. The box names natural rubber latex, cornstarch and a silicone oil lubricant, and the maker says it is made without parabens, glycerin, casein or nitrosamines. Our guide to what “clean” and “non-toxic” labels mean shows how to weigh claims like these.

What it protects against: FDA’s summaries give the use as contraception and helping prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. CDC says latex condoms used consistently and correctly are effective against HIV and reduce the risk of several other STIs.

The paper trail is real but not exact. FDA lists LOLA-named condoms made by Thai Nippon Rubber Industry, and the matching summary cites ASTM D3492 and ISO 4074. The sizes in FDA’s listing are a millimeter off today’s boxes, so treat the match as likely rather than proven.

The nitrosamine claim is the maker’s alone, and no one outside the company has tested the condom. The research on nitrosamines in condoms is small and mostly old, and a 2001 review judged the risk very low. If the claim matters to you, ask LOLA which test method it uses. For where condoms fit among other methods, see birth control alternatives.

What we checked Each claim, and how sure we are of it 7 checks

How LOLA Ultra Thin Latex Condoms measures up against our condoms & lubricants criteria
What we checked	What we found
FDA-cleared Maker’s claim	LOLA says “FDA 510(K) cleared.” FDA’s listing database partly corroborates it: it lists LOLA-named condoms made by Thai Nippon Rubber Industry under K994095 and K081265. K081265’s summary cites ASTM D3492:2008 and ISO 4074:2002; K994095’s 2000 summary cites ASTM D3492 and describes a straight-walled 52 mm condom, so that match is loose. Both summaries are Thai Nippon’s own and name no brand, and FDA’s database lists several other brands under the same numbers. We could not tie today’s boxes to one number.
Protection matched to the need Verified	Natural rubber latex. Both FDA summaries give the use as contraception and “to help prevent pregnancy and the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases” (K081265 adds “including HIV”).
Tested for nitrosamines Maker’s claim	LOLA says its condoms are made without nitrosamines. No test method or report is given.
Ingredients listed Maker’s claim	Natural rubber latex, cornstarch powder and silicone oil lubricant. Made without parabens, casein, glycerin, gluten and synthetic flavor, per LOLA. The K081265 summary describes the same latex, silicone and cornstarch. Vulcanizing chemicals are not listed.
No spermicide Maker’s claim	The ingredient list contains no spermicide. LOLA does not use the word, but the list looks complete.
PFAS screen Not verified	LOLA makes no PFAS statement on the condom page. In Mamavation’s 2024 consumer lab test, LOLA’s Tingling Mint Pleasure Gel (not the condom) had 39 ppm organic fluorine, above the 10 ppm flag. The condoms were not tested.
Recalls and company Verified	LOLA’s site footer names Forum Brands, LLC as owner. FDA’s recall database has no entries for LOLA or for Thai Nippon, and we found no Prop 65 notice or federal lawsuit about the condom. A February 2025 Prop 65 notice names Forum Brands over metals in tampons.

What the labels mean

Verified We opened an independent record that confirms it: a certifier’s listing, a regulator’s list or a lab report. It is linked under Sources.
Maker’s claim The maker says so on its own page or label. We read it but found no independent record.
Not verified We looked and could not confirm it, or the maker does not say. Treat it as unknown.

Sources Where our facts come from 12 sources

LOLA Ultra Thin Latex Condoms (maker page). Maker’s page. Materials, “made without” list, “FDA 510(K) cleared,” sizes and prices, seen 2026-10-23. Open ↗ (opens in a new tab)
LOLA help center: are LOLA’s sex products hypoallergenic?. Maker’s page. Says the condoms are not hypoallergenic because they contain latex. Open ↗ (opens in a new tab)
FDA registration and listing data for LOLA condoms (openFDA). Certifier or regulator listing. FDA’s open-data copy of its listing database. Shows LOLA - 53 mm. Contour (K994095) and LOLA - 56 mm. FLARE (K081265). Open ↗ (opens in a new tab)
FDA 510(k) database: K081265, Thai Nippon Male Latex Condom, 56 mm flared. Certifier or regulator listing. Open ↗ (opens in a new tab)
FDA 510(k) summary for K081265. Certifier or regulator listing. Gives silicone lubricant, cornstarch dressing, ASTM D3492:2008 and ISO 4074:2002. Open ↗ (opens in a new tab)
FDA 510(k) database: K994095, Thai Nippon latex condom. Certifier or regulator listing. Open ↗ (opens in a new tab)
FDA 510(k) summary for K994095 (scanned PDF). Certifier or regulator listing. A 52 mm straight-walled silicone-lubricated condom conforming to ASTM D3492. Open ↗ (opens in a new tab)
Mamavation, Condoms & Lubricants Tested For Indications of PFAS “Forever Chemicals” (February 6, 2024, updated May 8, 2024). Test report. An advocacy outlet’s screen for total organic fluorine (a PFAS marker; flag above 10 ppm) at an unnamed lab; the article carries affiliate links. Most products were bought at Walmart or Amazon from February to August 2023. LOLA’s gel was one of the lubricants added on May 8, 2024, with no stated purchase date. Raw lab data is members-only, so we read only the published results. It also lists the materials of Sustain and Glyde condoms. Open ↗ (opens in a new tab)
California Attorney General: 60-day notice 2025-00450 (Forum Brands, LLC). Certifier or regulator listing. Alleges antimony trioxide, mercury, lead and cadmium in tampons sold by Forum Brands, LLC, LOLA’s owner. Filed 14 February 2025. An allegation, not a finding, and not about condoms. Open ↗ (opens in a new tab)
California Attorney General: Proposition 65 60-day notice search (LOLA). Certifier or regulator listing. Only notices against unrelated companies called Lola; none naming the condom, as of 2026-10-23. Open ↗ (opens in a new tab)
Altkofer et al. 2005: nitrosamines released from 32 condoms on the German market (PubMed). Independent source. Found no binding legislation on condom nitrosamines anywhere at the time. Open ↗ (opens in a new tab)
Proksch 2001: toxicological evaluation of nitrosamines in condoms (PubMed). Independent source. A literature review that judged the cancer risk very low. Open ↗ (opens in a new tab)

Alternatives Other options to compare 1 option

Trojan Original Lubricated Latex Condoms About 51 cents a condom, with a named FDA clearance and a clean PFAS result for the same condom, but no ingredient list and no nitrosamine statement.

Reader ratings & reviews

How we evaluated it

Weekly research digest