Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 55-point gap between the two loudest voices.
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 →
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 →
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 →
A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →
Also screened, nothing found: US NTP Report on Carcinogens · IARC Monographs · ECHA SVHC Candidate List
Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction
Coverage & match quality
7 ratings · 1 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.
No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.
Data availability
Good18 of 23 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 18 of 23 listed ingredients; 5 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.
Worth a look (6)
Carcinogen-linkedflagged by 5 of 9 lists
Endocrine-activeflagged by 5 of 9 lists
EU harmonised CMR (cat. 2)flagged by 4 of 9 lists
ANSES endocrine candidateflagged by 1 of 9 lists
EU-restricted (with limits)flagged by 2 of 9 lists
Health Canada Hotlist — restrictedflagged by 1 of 9 lists
No flags in our sources (12)
No data in our sources (5)
Not a verdict — our authorities simply have no reference for these.