hover a pillar to set the scene →
Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 63-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 →
A government authority. 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 →
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 →
A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →
Also screened, nothing found: US NTP Report on Carcinogens · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI)
US EPA Safer Choice (SCIL) recognizes 50% 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
8 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
Robust23 of 26 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 23 of 26 listed ingredients; 3 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.
Worth a look (5)
Carcinogen-linkedflagged by 5 of 9 lists
ANSES CMR-listedflagged by 3 of 9 lists
IARC possible carcinogen (Group 2B)flagged by 1 of 9 lists
EU microplastics-restrictedflagged by 1 of 9 lists
Mild sensitizer for someflagged by 1 of 9 lists
No flags in our sources (18)
No data in our sources (3)
Not a verdict — our authorities simply have no reference for these.