Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 33-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 →
Also screened, nothing found: US NTP Report on Carcinogens · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist · IARC Monographs · California Proposition 65
Recognized on a safer-ingredients list: US EPA Safer Choice recognizes 64% of ingredients as safer choices — a marker, never a score.
Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction
Coverage & match quality
4 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
Robust22 of 22 characterized
Our sources have reference data on all 22 listed ingredients.
Worth a look (2)
ANSES CMR-listedflagged by 3 of 9 lists →
Mild sensitizer for someflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
No flags in our sources (20)
These describe what an ingredient is, not whether it is a problem. The stance marks above are the ratings; these are not.
comedogenic in testingISOPROPYL MYRISTATE
common irritantPROPYLENE GLYCOL
rich occlusiveMINERAL OIL, DIMETHICONE
humectantGLYCERIN