Sign in

Products · Condoms & lubricants · LOLA

LOLA Ultra Thin Latex Condoms

Reader ratings
LOLA Ultra Thin Latex Condoms

A latex condom with a full ingredient list and a nitrosamine-free claim, made by a Thai maker that FDA lists for LOLA-named condoms. The nitrosamine claim and the match to FDA records rest on the maker.

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

Our quality rating
Fair (3 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 →

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

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

    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 fuller 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. For context, a 2001 review judged the cancer risk from condom nitrosamines very low, while a 2005 German survey found up to 660 µg per kg released from 32 condoms.
    • 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, a possible PFAS marker. 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 sells mainly through LOLA’s own site to the 48 contiguous states (free shipping over $35). Its store locator did not load for us, so we list no other store.
    What to know Details worth knowing first

    LOLA’s condom is the best match we found for a reader who wants a short, complete ingredient 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. 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.

    Quality & testing How it measures up against our checklist Fair, 3 of 5 · 7 checks
    Quality rating Fair

    An editorial rating of how well it meets our criteria for condoms & lubricants, given what we could verify. We only list products rated 3 or above.

    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.
    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.
    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 10 sources
    1. LOLA Ultra Thin Latex Condoms (maker page). Maker’s page. Ingredients, “made without” list, “FDA 510(K) cleared,” sizes and prices. Open ↗
    2. LOLA help center: are LOLA’s sex products hypoallergenic?. Maker’s page. Says the condoms are not hypoallergenic because they contain latex. Open ↗
    3. 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 ↗
    4. FDA 510(k) database: K081265, Thai Nippon Male Latex Condom, 56 mm flared. Certifier or regulator listing. Open ↗
    5. FDA 510(k) summary for K081265. Certifier or regulator listing. Gives silicone lubricant, cornstarch dressing, ASTM D3492:2008 and ISO 4074:2002. Open ↗
    6. FDA 510(k) database: K994095, Thai Nippon latex condom. Certifier or regulator listing. Open ↗
    7. 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 ↗
    8. 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. Open ↗
    9. 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 ↗
    10. Proksch 2001: toxicological evaluation of nitrosamines in condoms (PubMed). Independent source. A literature review that judged the cancer risk very low. Open ↗
    Alternatives Other options to compare 2 options

    Weekly research digest

    New topics and updated research, once a week when there's something new. How it works