Kim Chi Chic
UNDERCOVER HOE - 01 Light
skincare
Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 29-point gap between the two loudest voices.
65IARC MonographsGovernment
vs94Greenlens Tolerance ScreenIndependent
050100
See why, ingredient by ingredientEvery rater, every axis
Ingredient safety
29 pts apartIndependent — not funded by the brands it rates. 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 →
A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →
Also screened, nothing found: EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · California Proposition 65 · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · ANSES Endocrine Disruptors · ECHA SVHC Candidate List
Environmental
A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →
Labor
Run by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. This rates Kim Chi Chic as a company and applies to everything they make, not this product alone. Checked this week. about this rater →
Coverage & match quality
7 ratings · 3 of 4 axes
- Some ratings rest on an automatic match that has not been human-reviewed.
- Fewer raters reach smaller-brand products, so a missing rating is not a clean bill of health, only a gap.
Weighted by what you care about
Tune your weights
composite recomputes live
+
1.0×
1.0×
1.0×
Packagingno rating
No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.
0 means ignored. Higher = more weight in your composite.
Ingredients, decoded
Data availability
Robust16 of 18 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 16 of 18 listed ingredients; 2 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.
Worth a look (3)
IARC probable carcinogen (Group 2A)flagged by 5 of 9 lists
EU microplastics-restrictedflagged by 1 of 9 lists
Mild sensitizer for someflagged by 1 of 9 lists
No flags in our sources (13)
No data in our sources (2)
Not a verdict — our authorities simply have no reference for these.
Where this came from
Cruelty-free status recorded from crueltyfree.peta.org ↗
Researched facts on Greenlens always carry the page that stated them — nothing is inferred from a model's memory.