hover a pillar to set the scene →
Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 52-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 →
Also screened, nothing found: US NTP Report on Carcinogens · IARC Monographs · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · ANSES Endocrine Disruptors
US EPA Safer Choice (SCIL) recognizes 61% of ingredients as safer choices — a marker, never a score.
A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →
Coverage & match quality
6 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
Robust22 of 23 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 22 of 23 listed ingredients; 1 is uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.
Worth a look (7)
Prop 65-listedflagged by 1 of 9 lists
Strong contact sensitizerflagged by 1 of 9 lists
Undisclosed fragrance blendflagged by 2 of 9 lists
Mild sensitizer for someflagged by 1 of 9 lists
EU microplastics-restrictedflagged by 1 of 9 lists
Health Canada Hotlist — restrictedflagged by 1 of 9 lists
EU-restricted (with limits)flagged by 2 of 9 lists
No flags in our sources (15)
No data in our sources (1)
Not a verdict — our authorities simply have no reference for these.