No fair cohort on file, so no comparison.
Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 46-point gap between the two loudest voices.
A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →
A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →
Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →
Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →
Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →
Also screened, nothing found: California Proposition 65 · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI)
Recognized on a safer-ingredients list: US EPA Safer Choice recognizes 55% of ingredients as safer choices — a marker, never a score.
Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction
Coverage & match quality
5 ratings · 1 of 4 axes
Tune your weights
composite recomputes live
+No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.
No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.
No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.
Data availability
Good8 of 11 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 8 of 11 listed ingredients; 3 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.
Worth a look (3)
ANSES CMR-listedflagged by 5 of 9 lists →
No flags in our sources (5)
No data in our sources (3)
Not a verdict — our authorities simply have no reference for these.
Undisclosed fragrance blendflagged by 2 of 9 lists →
EU-restricted (with limits)flagged by 2 of 9 lists →