Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 75-point gap between the two loudest voices.
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 →
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 →
Also screened, nothing found: ANSES Endocrine Disruptors · Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist · California Proposition 65 · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · ECHA SVHC Candidate List
Recognized on a safer-ingredients list: US EPA Safer Choice recognizes 71% of ingredients as safer choices — a marker, never a score.
Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction
Run by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →
Coverage & match quality
6 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
Robust13 of 14 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 13 of 14 listed ingredients; 1 is uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.
Worth a look (3)
Carcinogen-linkedflagged by 2 of 9 lists →
IARC possible carcinogen (Group 2B)flagged by 1 of 9 lists →
Mild sensitizer for someflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
No flags in our sources (10)
No data in our sources (1)
Not a verdict — our authorities simply have no reference for these.