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: EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · California Proposition 65 · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · ANSES Endocrine Disruptors · ECHA SVHC Candidate List
A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. 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 score10 of 21 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 10 of 21 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 That is not enough of the label for a safety score to be honest, so we do not publish one.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)
IARC probable carcinogen (Group 2A)flagged by 2 of 9 lists →
EU microplastics-restrictedflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
No flags in our sources (8)
No data in our sources (11)
Not a verdict — our authorities simply have no reference for these.