Girls Pink Body Wash safety rating

Girls Pink Body Wash safety rating | Greenlens

Raters split

Ingredient safety

A 70-point gap between the two loudest voices.

15Greenlens Ingredient ScanIndependent

vs

85Health Canada Ingredient HotlistGovernment

050100

All 9366 cleaner options, safest first We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.

Every rater, every axis

70 pts apart

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 →
A government authority. 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 →
A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →

Recognized on a safer-ingredients list: US EPA Safer Choice recognizes 69% of ingredients as safer choices — a marker, never a score.

Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction

Coverage & match quality

7 ratings · 1 of 4 axes

Some ratings rest on an automatic match that has not been human-reviewed.
Fewer raters reach smaller-brand products, so a missing rating is not a clean bill of health, only a gap.

Tune your weights

composite recomputes live

+

Ingredient safety1.0×

Environmentalno rating

No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.

Laborno rating

No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.

Packagingno rating

No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.

0 means ignored. Higher = more weight in your composite.

Data availability

Robust13 of 13 characterized

Our sources have reference data on all 13 listed ingredients.

Worth a look (6)

BUTYLPHENYL METHYLPROPIONALfragrance materialperfuming · fragranceraters disagree
Reproductive-toxicant concernflagged by 5 of 9 lists →

No flags in our sources (7)

What these ingredient tags mean (2)

These describe what an ingredient is, not whether it is a problem. The stance marks above are the ratings; these are not.

fragrance materialBUTYLPHENYL METHYLPROPIONAL, COUMARIN, HEXYL CINNAMAL
- BUTYLPHENYL METHYLPROPIONAL: A lily-of-the-valley fragrance component the EU no longer permits in cosmetics. It was a declarable fragrance allergen at Annex III entry 83 of EU Regulation (EC) 1223/2009. Commission Regulation (EU) 2021/1902 deleted that entry and moved it to Annex II entry 1666 (2-(4-tert-butylbenzyl) propionaldehyde, CAS 80-54-6), prohibiting it in cosmetic products from 1 March 2022.
- COUMARIN: A sweet hay-scented fragrance component named separately on the label. EU Regulation (EC) 1223/2009, Annex III entry 77: a fragrance substance whose presence must be indicated in the list of ingredients above 0,001% in leave-on and 0,01% in rinse-off products, because of established contact-allergy risk.
- HEXYL CINNAMAL: A jasmine-like fragrance component named separately on the label. EU Regulation (EC) 1223/2009, Annex III entry 87: a fragrance substance whose presence must be indicated in the list of ingredients above 0,001% in leave-on and 0,01% in rinse-off products, because of established contact-allergy risk.
undeclared fragrance blendPARFUM
- PARFUM: A blend the label does not itemize, so what is in it cannot be read from the ingredient list. EU Regulation (EC) 1223/2009 permits the collective term "parfum"; the SCCS Opinion on Fragrance Allergens (SCCS/1459/11) reviews the contact-allergy evidence for the substances it can contain.