Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 50-point gap between the two loudest voices.
Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. 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 →
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 →
Also screened, nothing found: California Proposition 65 · IARC Monographs · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist
US EPA Safer Choice (SCIL) recognizes 62% of ingredients as safer choices — a marker, never a score.
A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. 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
Robust13 of 13 characterized
Our sources have reference data on all 13 listed ingredients.
Worth a look (6)
Endocrine-activeflagged by 3 of 9 lists
Endocrine-activeflagged by 4 of 9 lists
Undisclosed fragrance blendflagged by 2 of 9 lists
EU microplastics-restrictedflagged by 1 of 9 lists
Mild sensitizer for someflagged by 1 of 9 lists
EU-restricted (with limits)flagged by 2 of 9 lists
No flags in our sources (7)