Veet
Shower Hair Removal Cream
hair removal400mlGTIN 3059944024051
Cleaner pick · Safest hair removal we have rated
Parissa
Cold Wax Hair Sensitive Skin Formula+86 on ingredient safety
Ingredient safetyRaters agree
Ranked by safety only. Greenlens earns from qualifying purchases. Payout never affects a rating, a ranking, or the cleaner pick.
Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 64-point gap between the two loudest voices.
0Greenlens Ingredient ScanIndependent
vs64IARC MonographsGovernment
050100
See why, ingredient by ingredientAll 162 cleaner options, safest first We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.
Every rater, every axis
Ingredient safety
64 pts apartIndependent — 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 →
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 →
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: California Proposition 65 · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist
US EPA Safer Choice (SCIL) recognizes 50% of ingredients as safer choices — a marker, never a score.
Environmental
A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →
Labor
Run by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. This rates Veet as a company and applies to everything they make, not this product alone. Checked this week. about this rater →
Packaging
Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →
Coverage & match quality
9 ratings · 4 of 4 axes
- Some ratings rest on an automatic match that has not been human-reviewed.
Weighted by what you care about
Tune your weights
composite recomputes live
+
1.0×
1.0×
1.0×
1.0×
0 means ignored. Higher = more weight in your composite.
What we know about the packaging
Partly identified1 of 2 identified
1 of 2 packaging components is a named material; Plastic (unspecified) is recorded only in general terms, so that part of the score is a stand-in.
- Recorded only as “plastic” — no resin code. It could be PET (#1) (widely recyclable) or PVC (#3) (hard to recycle); nothing on record says which, so it counts as 46 out of 100, the middle of that range.
This says how precisely the packaging is described, not how good it is — a fully identified material can still be a bad one.
Ingredients, decoded
Data availability
Good22 of 26 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 22 of 26 listed ingredients; 4 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.
Worth a look (10)
Reproductive-toxicant concernflagged by 5 of 9 lists →
ANSES CMR-listedflagged by 5 of 9 lists →
Endocrine-activeflagged by 3 of 9 lists →
Undisclosed fragrance blendflagged by 2 of 9 lists →
ANSES endocrine candidateflagged by 2 of 9 lists →
EU harmonised skin sensitizerflagged by 2 of 9 lists →
EU-restricted (with limits)flagged by 2 of 9 lists →
EU-restricted (with limits)flagged by 2 of 9 lists →
IARC possible carcinogen (Group 2B)flagged by 1 of 9 lists →
EU microplastics-restrictedflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
No flags in our sources (12)
No data in our sources (4)
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.