Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 20-point gap between the two loudest voices.
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 →
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 →
Also screened, nothing found: California Proposition 65 · IARC Monographs · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · ANSES Endocrine Disruptors · ECHA SVHC Candidate List
Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction
Coverage & match quality
5 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
Robust9 of 9 characterized
Our sources have reference data on all 9 listed ingredients.
Worth a look (4)
EU harmonised CMR (cat. 2)flagged by 4 of 9 lists
EU-regulated fragrance allergenflagged by 1 of 9 lists
EU-regulated fragrance allergenflagged by 1 of 9 lists
EU-regulated fragrance allergenflagged by 1 of 9 lists
No flags in our sources (5)