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 →
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: ANSES Endocrine Disruptors · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist · IARC Monographs · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · California Proposition 65
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
Robust26 of 29 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 26 of 29 listed ingredients; 3 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.
Worth a look (2)
Strong contact sensitizerflagged by 1 of 9 lists
EU harmonised skin sensitizerflagged by 2 of 9 lists
No flags in our sources (24)
No data in our sources (3)
Not a verdict — our authorities simply have no reference for these.