hover a pillar to set the scene →
Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 20-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 →
Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →
Also screened, nothing found: California Proposition 65 · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI)
US EPA Safer Choice (SCIL) recognizes 55% of ingredients as safer choices — a marker, never a score.
Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction
Coverage & match quality
5 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
Robust29 of 31 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 29 of 31 listed ingredients; 2 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.
Worth a look (4)
ANSES endocrine candidateflagged by 1 of 9 lists
IARC possible carcinogen (Group 2B)flagged by 1 of 9 lists
EU-regulated fragrance allergenflagged by 1 of 9 lists
EU-regulated fragrance allergenflagged by 1 of 9 lists
No flags in our sources (25)
No data in our sources (2)
Not a verdict — our authorities simply have no reference for these.