Earth Mama
Sweet Orange Baby Wash (2018 formulation)
Babytypically $12–30
Cleaner pick · Safest bath & hair we have rated
Pacha Soap
Bath Crayons+8 on ingredient safety
$14.99
Ingredient safetyRaters agree
Ranked by safety only. We may earn a commission on the link; it never changes the order.
All 116 cleaner options, safest first We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.
Every rater, every axis
Ingredient safety
raters agreeIndependent — 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 · IARC Monographs · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · California Proposition 65
US EPA Safer Choice (SCIL) recognizes 55% of ingredients as safer choices — a marker, never a score.
Environmental
Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction
Labor
Run by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →
Packaging
Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →
Coverage & match quality
6 ratings · 3 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.
Weighted by what you care about
Tune your weights
composite recomputes live
+
1.0×
Environmentalno rating
No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.
1.0×
1.0×
0 means ignored. Higher = more weight in your composite.
What we know about the packaging
Partly identified1 of 2 identified
1 of 2 packaging components is a named material; Plastic (unspecified) is recorded only in general terms, so that part of the score is a stand-in.
- Recorded only as “plastic” — no resin code. It could be PET (#1) (widely recyclable) or PVC (#3) (hard to recycle); nothing on record says which, so it counts as 46 out of 100, the middle of that range.
This says how precisely the packaging is described, not how good it is — a fully identified material can still be a bad one.
How we know the packaging
Nobody published the material for this product, so it was read from the product photo — the container looks like this, rather than the maker saying so. Treat the packaging score as weaker here than on a product with a declared material.
A photo also cannot show the resin code moulded into the base, so every plastic container reads as “plastic, unspecified” — the cautious end of the plastics range, not a finding about this particular pack.
Ingredients, decoded
Data availability
Good9 of 11 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 9 of 11 listed ingredients; 2 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.
Worth a look (3)
EU-restricted (with limits)flagged by 2 of 9 lists
Health Canada Hotlist — restrictedflagged by 1 of 9 lists
IARC possible carcinogen (Group 2B)flagged by 1 of 9 lists
No flags in our sources (6)
No data in our sources (2)
Not a verdict — our authorities simply have no reference for these.
Where this came from
Cruelty-free status recorded from leapingbunny.org ↗
Researched facts on Greenlens always carry the page that stated them — nothing is inferred from a model's memory.