Eugène Perma
Force Shampoo
fortifying shampoos400mlGTIN 3140100261318
Cleaner pick · Safest cleansing we have rated
Africology Skincare & Spa
Bio Therapy Conditioner+59 on ingredient safety, gives up 14 on packaging
250ml · 47.50 ZAR · 19 ZAR/100 ml
Ingredient safetyRaters agree
Ranked by safety only. We may earn a commission on the link; it never changes the order.
Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 60-point gap between the two loudest voices.
25Greenlens Precautionary ScreenIndependent
vs85Health Canada Ingredient HotlistGovernment
050100
See why, ingredient by ingredientAll 8685 cleaner options, safest first We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.
Every rater, every axis
Ingredient safety
60 pts apartA government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →
Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →
A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →
A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →
Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →
Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →
Also screened, nothing found: ECHA SVHC Candidate List · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · IARC Monographs · California Proposition 65
Environmental
Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction
Labor
Run by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →
Packaging
Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →
Coverage & match quality
8 ratings · 3 of 4 axes
- Some ratings rest on an automatic match that has not been human-reviewed.
- Fewer raters reach smaller-brand products, so a missing rating is not a clean bill of health, only a gap.
Weighted by what you care about
Tune your weights
composite recomputes live
+
1.0×
Environmentalno rating
No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.
1.0×
1.0×
0 means ignored. Higher = more weight in your composite.
What we know about the packaging
Unidentified0 of 1 identified
Nobody recorded what this pack is actually made of beyond “plastic”, so the packaging score is a stand-in for the middle of that range — not a reading of this container.
- 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
Robust21 of 23 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 21 of 23 listed ingredients; 2 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.
Worth a look (13)
Carcinogen-linkedflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
ANSES endocrine candidateflagged by 3 of 9 lists →
ANSES endocrine candidateflagged by 3 of 9 lists →
Strong contact sensitizerflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
Undisclosed fragrance blendflagged by 2 of 9 lists →
EU harmonised skin sensitizerflagged by 2 of 9 lists →
ANSES endocrine candidateflagged by 2 of 9 lists →
EU harmonised skin sensitizerflagged by 2 of 9 lists →
EU-regulated fragrance allergenflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
Health Canada Hotlist — restrictedflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
EU-restricted (with limits)flagged 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 →
No flags in our sources (8)
No data in our sources (2)
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.