Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 58-point gap between the two loudest voices.
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 →
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: EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · California Proposition 65 · IARC Monographs · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist
US EPA Safer Choice (SCIL) recognizes 61% of ingredients as safer choices — a marker, never a score.
Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction
Run by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →
Coverage & match quality
5 ratings · 2 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.
Data availability
Robust18 of 18 characterized
Our sources have reference data on all 18 listed ingredients.
Worth a look (2)
ANSES endocrine candidateflagged by 1 of 9 lists
Undisclosed fragrance blendflagged by 2 of 9 lists
No flags in our sources (16)