Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 58-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 · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · California Proposition 65
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
Robust31 of 32 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 31 of 32 listed ingredients; 1 is uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.
Worth a look (3)
EU harmonised CMR (cat. 2)flagged by 1 of 9 lists →
Undisclosed fragrance blendflagged by 2 of 9 lists →
IARC possible carcinogen (Group 2B)flagged by 1 of 9 lists →
No flags in our sources (28)
No data in our sources (1)
Not a verdict — our authorities simply have no reference for these.
These describe what an ingredient is, not whether it is a problem. The stance marks above are the ratings; these are not.
undeclared fragrance blendFRAGRANCE