Deyga
Charcoal Body Wash 220ml
body
Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 20-point gap between the two loudest voices.
65California Proposition 65Government
vs85Health Canada Ingredient HotlistGovernment
050100
Cleaner options
See 12 cleaner alternatives
Same category, ranked by ingredient safety, never by affiliate payout.
Every rater, every axis
Ingredient safety
Split · 20 pts apart- 85
- 65
- 82
- 65
- 80
- 65
Lowest 65 · highest 85 · gap 20
Also screened — no listing found
Environmental
Also screened — no listing found
Coverage & match quality
6 ratings · 1 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.
no black box
How this score is built
no black box
How this score is built
We don't rate products ourselves. We collect what each public rater already says, put every scale on common ground, and keep the disagreements visible instead of averaging them away.
- 1
Collect each rater's own score
Every source keeps its native verdict for this product. We never invent a score for an axis a source didn't measure.
- 2
Normalize to 0–100, higher = better
Raters can use different scales and directions: some where a low number means safe, some where a high one does. We map them all onto one 0–100 axis and flip the ones that run backwards so the numbers are finally comparable.
- 3
Average per axis, but keep the spread
Scores on the same axis become one representative number (their mean). When raters split by 20+ points we flag it and keep every rater's number. A disagreement is never blended into silence.
- 4
Your weights make the overall
The ring is the weighted average of the four pillars using your weights. It's computed fresh every time and never stored, so there's no hidden “objective” default.
worked example · Ingredient safety
- Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist85 on 0–10085
- California Proposition 6565 on 0–10065
- IARC Monographs82 on 0–10082
- ECHA SVHC Candidate List65 on 0–10065
- ANSES Endocrine Disruptors80 on 0–10080
- EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI)65 on 0–10065
Average of 85 · 65 · 82 · 65 · 80 · 65pillar69
Raters split here, so this 69 is a midpoint, not a consensus. The spread stays on the “every rater” list above.
Weighted by what you care about
Tune your weights
composite recomputes live
+
1.0×
Environmentalno rating
No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.
Laborno rating
No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.
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
Limited2 of 6 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 2 of 6 listed ingredients; 4 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.
| Ingredient | What it does | Safety | Data |
|---|---|---|---|
| Benzophenoneuv absorberfragrance | uv absorberfragrance | Prop 65-listed· flagged by 5 of 9raters disagree | Referenced |
| BPA | No flags in our sources | Referenced | |
| Sulphate | Not in our sources | No data | |
| Paraben | Not in our sources | No data | |
| More Info | Not in our sources | No data | |
| Legal Metrology | Not in our sources | No data |