Red Fruits Hand Cleansing Foam safety rating

Red Fruits Hand Cleansing Foam safety rating | Greenlens

Raters split

Ingredient safety

A 69-point gap between the two loudest voices.

25Greenlens Precautionary ScreenIndependent

vs

94Greenlens Tolerance ScreenIndependent

050100

All 8764 cleaner options, safest first We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.

Every rater, every axis

69 pts apart

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 →
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 →

Recognized on a safer-ingredients list: US EPA Safer Choice recognizes 64% of ingredients as safer choices — a marker, never a score.

Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction

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

5 ratings · 2 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.

Tune your weights

composite recomputes live

+

Ingredient safety1.0×

Environmentalno rating

No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.

Laborno rating

No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.

Packaging1.0×

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.

Data availability

Robust11 of 11 characterized

Our sources have reference data on all 11 listed ingredients.

Worth a look (4)