Hairitage
Leave-in Conditioner Pudding
Conditioner
hover a pillar to set the scene →
Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 52-point gap between the two loudest voices.
42Greenlens Precautionary ScreenIndependent
vs94Greenlens Tolerance ScreenIndependent
050100
See why, ingredient by ingredientCleaner options
See 482 cleaner alternatives
Same category, all safer. We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.
Every rater, every axis
Ingredient safety
52 pts apartIndependent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →
A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →
Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →
A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →
Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →
Also screened, nothing found: IARC Monographs · California Proposition 65 · ANSES Endocrine Disruptors · Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist · US NTP Report on Carcinogens
Environmental
Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction
Packaging
Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →
Coverage & match quality
6 ratings · 2 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×
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.
1.0×
0 means ignored. Higher = more weight in your composite.
What we know about the packaging
Unidentified0 of 1 identified
Nobody recorded what this pack is actually made of beyond “plastic”, so the packaging score is a stand-in for the middle of that range — not a reading of this container.
- Recorded only as “plastic” — no resin code. It could be PET (#1) (widely recyclable) or PVC (#3) (hard to recycle); nothing on record says which, so it counts as 46 out of 100, the middle of that range.
This says how precisely the packaging is described, not how good it is — a fully identified material can still be a bad one.
How we know the packaging
Nobody published the material for this product, so it was read from the product photo — the container looks like this, rather than the maker saying so. Treat the packaging score as weaker here than on a product with a declared material.
A photo also cannot show the resin code moulded into the base, so every plastic container reads as “plastic, unspecified” — the cautious end of the plastics range, not a finding about this particular pack.
Ingredients, decoded
Data availability
Robust18 of 19 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 18 of 19 listed ingredients; 1 is uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.
Worth a look (5)
Undisclosed fragrance blendflagged by 2 of 9 lists
EU harmonised skin sensitizerflagged by 2 of 9 lists
EU-restricted (with limits)flagged by 2 of 9 lists
Persistent / bioaccumulativeflagged 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 (1)
Not a verdict — our authorities simply have no reference for these.