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. 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: California Proposition 65 · IARC Monographs · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · ANSES Endocrine Disruptors · ECHA SVHC Candidate List
Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction
Run by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. This rates Swiffer as a company and applies to everything they make, not this product alone. Checked this week. about this rater →
Coverage & match quality
3 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
Not enough to score7 of 18 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 7 of 18 listed ingredients; 11 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill. That is not enough of the label for a safety score to be honest, so we do not publish one.
Worth a look (2)
EU harmonised skin sensitizerflagged by 2 of 9 lists →
Health Canada Hotlist — restrictedflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
No flags in our sources (5)
No data in our sources (11)
Not a verdict — our authorities simply have no reference for these.
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.