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. about this rater →
A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →
Also screened, nothing found: EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · IARC Monographs · ANSES Endocrine Disruptors · US NTP Report on Carcinogens
Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction
Run by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →
Coverage & match quality
3 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
Not enough to score3 of 17 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 3 of 17 listed ingredients; 14 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill. That is not enough of the label for a safety score to be honest, so we do not publish one.
Worth a look (1)
Prop 65-listedflagged by 2 of 9 lists
No flags in our sources (2)
No data in our sources (14)
Not a verdict — our authorities simply have no reference for these.