Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 65-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 →
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 →
Also screened, nothing found: California Proposition 65 · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · IARC Monographs · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist
Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction
Coverage & match quality
4 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
Good13 of 19 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 13 of 19 listed ingredients; 6 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.
Worth a look (3)
EU-prohibitedflagged by 2 of 9 lists →
ANSES endocrine candidateflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
Undisclosed fragrance blendflagged by 2 of 9 lists →
No flags in our sources (10)
No data in our sources (6)
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.
soothingallantoin
Where this came from
Product identity (name, brand, category) verified against apothekeco.com ↗
Researched facts on Greenlens always carry the page that stated them — nothing is inferred from a model's memory.