Tea Tree Special Conditioner safety rating

Tea Tree Special Conditioner 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 6338 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 →
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 →

Also screened, nothing found: ANSES Endocrine Disruptors · California Proposition 65 · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · US NTP Report on Carcinogens

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 Paul Mitchell 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

Robust30 of 30 characterized

Our sources have reference data on all 30 listed ingredients.

Worth a look (13)

Methylisothiazolinonecommon irritant

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.

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 irritantMelaleuca Alternifolia Leaf Oil, Methylisothiazolinone, Methylchloroisothiazolinone
- Melaleuca Alternifolia Leaf Oil: An essential oil whose oxidation products carry its sensitising potential; the EU assesses it as a moderate skin sensitiser. SCCS Scientific Opinion on Tea Tree Oil (CAS/EC 68647-73-4 / 285-377-1), SCCS/1681/25, adopted 30 October 2025, which concludes it is a moderate skin sensitiser. It does not set maximum levels of its own: it assesses the concentrations the applicant defended, and finds no concern at 2,0% in shampoo, 1,0% in shower gel, 1,0% in face wash and 0,1% in face cream, for oil conforming to ISO 4730:2017, in adults, in non-sprayable formats. It draws on the earlier SCCP opinions SCCP/1155/08 and SCCP/0843/04 and incorporates their data by reference; it says nothing about their status.
- 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".
fragrance materialMenthol
- Menthol: The cooling component of mint oils, named by the EU as a fragrance substance to be declared on the label. EU Regulation (EC) 1223/2009, Annex III entry 338, inserted by Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/1545: a fragrance substance whose presence must be indicated in the list of ingredients above 0,001% in leave-on and 0,01% in rinse-off products. It is declarable in its OWN right, not by way of any component it carries. The name to look for on a label is "Menthol". The duty applies now. Transition footnote (40) lets stock that does not comply, lawfully placed on the Union market before the 31 July 2026 cut-off, be made available until 31 July 2028.
undeclared fragrance blendParfum
- Parfum: 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.