for Men Deodorant Cedar Peak safety rating

for Men Deodorant Cedar Peak safety rating | Greenlens

Raters split

Ingredient safety

A 58-point gap between the two loudest voices.

42Greenlens Precautionary ScreenIndependent

vs

100Greenlens Tolerance ScreenIndependent

050100

See why, ingredient by ingredient

All 265 cleaner options, safest first We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.

Every rater, every axis

Ingredient safety

58 pts apart

Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →
Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →
Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →

Also screened, nothing found: ANSES Endocrine Disruptors · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · California Proposition 65 · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist · IARC Monographs

Recognized on a safer-ingredients list: US EPA Safer Choice recognizes 50% of ingredients as safer choices — a marker, never a score.

Environmental

Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction

Labor

33 pts apart

Run by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. This rates Tom's of Maine as a company and applies to everything they make, not this product alone. Checked this week. about this rater →
Run by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →

Coverage & match quality

5 ratings · 2 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

+

Ingredient safety1.0×

Environmentalno rating

No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.

Labor1.0×

Packagingno rating

No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.

0 means ignored. Higher = more weight in your composite.

Ingredients, decoded

Data availability

Robust9 of 10 characterized

Our sources have reference data on 9 of 10 listed ingredients; 1 is uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.

Worth a look (1)

FRAGRANCEundeclared fragrance blendperfumingraters disagree
Undisclosed fragrance blendflagged by 2 of 9 lists →

No flags in our sources (8)

No data in our sources (1)

NATURAL

Not a verdict — our authorities simply have no reference for these.

What these ingredient tags mean (2)

These describe what an ingredient is, not whether it is a problem. The stance marks above are the ratings; these are not.

undeclared fragrance blendFRAGRANCE
- FRAGRANCE: A blend the label does not itemize, so what is in it cannot be read from the ingredient list. EU Regulation (EC) 1223/2009 permits the collective term "parfum"; the SCCS Opinion on Fragrance Allergens (SCCS/1459/11) reviews the contact-allergy evidence for the substances it can contain.
soothingZINC OXIDE
- ZINC OXIDE: A mineral UV filter that the FDA also recognises as a skin protectant. FDA OTC skin protectant monograph, 21 CFR 347.10(u), lists zinc oxide as a skin-protectant active at 1 to 25%. Its labelled indication is 21 CFR 347.50(b)(3), "dries the oozing and weeping of poison: ivy, oak, sumac". The monograph does not give it the "minor skin irritation and itching" wording.

Where this came from

Cruelty-free status recorded from crueltyfree.peta.org ↗

Researched facts on Greenlens always carry the page that stated them — nothing is inferred from a model's memory.