Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 60-point gap between the two loudest voices.
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 →
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: ECHA SVHC Candidate List · California Proposition 65 · IARC Monographs · US NTP Report on Carcinogens
US EPA Safer Choice (SCIL) recognizes 58% of ingredients as safer choices — a marker, never a score.
Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction
Coverage & match quality
6 ratings · 1 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.
No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.
Data availability
Robust26 of 26 characterized
Our sources have reference data on all 26 listed ingredients.
Worth a look (7)
ANSES endocrine candidateflagged by 3 of 9 lists
Strong contact sensitizerflagged by 1 of 9 lists
Undisclosed fragrance blendflagged by 2 of 9 lists
ANSES endocrine candidateflagged by 2 of 9 lists
ANSES endocrine candidateflagged by 2 of 9 lists
Undisclosed fragrance blendflagged by 2 of 9 lists
Health Canada Hotlist — restrictedflagged by 1 of 9 lists
No flags in our sources (19)