Juicy Pear Natural Derived Hand Wash (2019 formulation) safety rating

Juicy Pear Natural Derived Hand Wash (2019 formulation) safety rating | Greenlens

Raters split

Ingredient safety

A 48-point gap between the two loudest voices.

42Greenlens Precautionary ScreenIndependent

90EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI)Government

050100

See why, ingredient by ingredient

All 5243 cleaner options, safest first We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.

Every rater, every axis

Ingredient safety

48 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 →
A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →
A government authority. 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 →
A government authority. 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

Recognized on a safer-ingredients list: US EPA Safer Choice recognizes 71% of ingredients as safer choices — a marker, never a score.

Environmental

Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction

Labor

raters agree

Run by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. This rates Method 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

8 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

Robust16 of 17 characterized

Our sources have reference data on 16 of 17 listed ingredients; 1 is uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.

Worth a look (9)

METHYLISOTHIAZOLINONEcommon irritantpreservativeraters disagree

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.

What these ingredient tags mean (3)

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

common irritantSODIUM LAURYL SULFATE, COCAMIDOPROPYL BETAINE, METHYLISOTHIAZOLINONE, METHYLCHLOROISOTHIAZOLINONE
- SODIUM LAURYL SULFATE: A strong cleansing agent used as the reference irritant in skin-irritation testing. OECD Test Guideline 439 (in vitro skin irritation, reconstructed human epidermis), paragraph 24: "The suggested PC is 5% aqueous SDS", sodium dodecyl sulphate, the same substance as sodium lauryl sulfate, CAS 151-21-3.
- COCAMIDOPROPYL BETAINE: A mild cleansing agent, but a recurring patch-test finding, usually traced to leftovers from how it is made. American Contact Dermatitis Society, Allergen of the Year 2004 (Fowler JF Jr, Dermatitis 2004;15(1):3-4).
- METHYLISOTHIAZOLINONE: A preservative that patch-test clinics see reactions to often enough that the EU banned it from leave-on products. American Contact Dermatitis Society, Allergen of the Year 2013 (Castanedo-Tardana MP, Zug KA, Dermatitis 2013;24(1):2-6); SCCS Opinion on Methylisothiazolinone (P94), Submission II, SENSITISATION ONLY (SCCS/1521/13, revision of 27 March 2014); banned in leave-on cosmetics by Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/1198, which recites the need to address "the increased incidence of allergies induced by methylisothiazolinone".
- METHYLCHLOROISOTHIAZOLINONE: A preservative restricted to rinse-off products in the EU because of contact-allergy reports. EU Regulation (EC) 1223/2009, Annex V entry 39 (rinse-off only, 0,0015% of a 3:1 mixture with methylisothiazolinone). The reason is in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1003/2014, recital 3, quoted rather than summarised: "The SCCS concluded that the mixture of Methylchloroisothiazolinone (and) Methylisothiazolinone in a ratio of 3:1 does not pose a risk to the health of the consumer when used as a preservative up to a maximum authorised concentration of 0,0015 % in rinse-off cosmetic products, apart from its skin sensitising potential. The SCCS indicated that induction and elicitation would be less likely in a rinse-off product than when the same concentration is present in a leave-on product." SCCS/1238/09 concludes it "is well recognised as an important skin sensitiser at current conditions of use".
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.
humectantGLYCERIN
- GLYCERIN: A humectant, and one of the two ingredients a comparison of moisturiser components found made a significant difference to skin hydration. FDA OTC skin protectant monograph, 21 CFR 347.10(h), lists glycerin as a skin protectant at 20 to 45%. On the humectant half: Jeong CB, Han JY, Cho JC, Suh KD, Nam GW, "Analysis of electrical property changes of skin by oil-in-water emulsion components", Int J Cosmet Sci 2013;35(4):402-410, DOI 10.1111/ics.12059, PMID 23621673, found that "glycerine and urea showed significant skin hydration effects compared with other humectants".