Cleaner pick · Safest toothpaste we have rated
RiseWell
Mineral Toothpaste Flavorless+32 on ingredient safety
$12
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 34-point gap between the two loudest voices.
All 123 cleaner options, safest first We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.
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 →
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 →
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 · IARC Monographs · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · ECHA SVHC Candidate List
Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction
Run by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. This rates Parodontax as a company and applies to everything they make, not this product alone. 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 →
Coverage & match quality
8 ratings · 3 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.
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.
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
Good15 of 18 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 15 of 18 listed ingredients; 3 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.
Worth a look (6)
ANSES endocrine candidateflagged by 3 of 9 lists →
ANSES endocrine candidateflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
Strong contact sensitizerflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
EU harmonised skin sensitizerflagged by 2 of 9 lists →
EU-regulated fragrance allergenflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
EU-restricted (with limits)flagged by 3 of 9 lists →
No flags in our sources (9)
No data in our sources (3)
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.
commonly dryingAlcohol
common irritantCocamidopropyl Betaine
fragrance materialMentha Piperita Oil, Limonene, Linalool
humectantGlycerin
Where this came from
Cruelty-free status recorded from globalbankingandfinance.com ↗
Researched facts on Greenlens always carry the page that stated them — nothing is inferred from a model's memory.