hover a pillar to set the scene →
Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 40-point gap between the two loudest voices.
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 →
Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →
Also screened, nothing found: California Proposition 65 · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist · IARC Monographs · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · ANSES Endocrine Disruptors
US EPA Safer Choice (SCIL) recognizes 67% of ingredients as safer choices — a marker, never a score.
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
4 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
Robust17 of 18 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 17 of 18 listed ingredients; 1 is uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.
Worth a look (1)
Strong contact sensitizerflagged by 1 of 9 lists
No flags in our sources (16)
No data in our sources (1)
Not a verdict — our authorities simply have no reference for these.