No fair cohort on file, so no comparison.
Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 69-point gap between the two loudest voices.
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 →
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 →
Also screened, nothing found: IARC Monographs · California Proposition 65 · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI)
Recognized on a safer-ingredients list: US EPA Safer Choice recognizes 64% of ingredients as safer choices — a marker, never a score.
A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. 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
Robust11 of 11 characterized
Our sources have reference data on all 11 listed ingredients.
Worth a look (4)
No flags in our sources (7)
These describe what an ingredient is, not whether it is a problem. The stance marks above are the ratings; these are not.
common irritantDMDM HYDANTOIN
undeclared fragrance blendFRAGRANCE
rich occlusiveMINERAL OIL
Carcinogen-linkedflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
ANSES CMR-listedflagged by 3 of 9 lists →
Undisclosed fragrance blendflagged by 2 of 9 lists →
EU microplastics-restrictedflagged by 1 of 9 lists →