hover a pillar to set the scene →
Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 69-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 →
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 →
A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →
Also screened, nothing found: US NTP Report on Carcinogens · IARC Monographs · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI)
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
Robust38 of 38 characterized
Our sources have reference data on all 38 listed ingredients.
Worth a look (3)
Carcinogen-linkedflagged by 5 of 9 lists
ANSES endocrine candidateflagged by 1 of 9 lists
Undisclosed fragrance blendflagged by 2 of 9 lists
No flags in our sources (35)