Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 100-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 →
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 →
Also screened, nothing found: California Proposition 65 · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist · IARC Monographs
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
6 ratings · 2 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.
What we know about the packaging
Unidentified0 of 2 identified
None of the 2 packaging components is identified beyond its broad material, so the packaging score is a stand-in — not a reading of this container.
This says how precisely the packaging is described, not how good it is — a fully identified material can still be a bad one.
How we know the packaging
Nobody published the material for this product, so it was read from the product photo — the container looks like this, rather than the maker saying so. Treat the packaging score as weaker here than on a product with a declared material.
A photo also cannot show the resin code moulded into the base, so every plastic container reads as “plastic, unspecified” — the cautious end of the plastics range, not a finding about this particular pack.
Data availability
Robust44 of 48 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 44 of 48 listed ingredients; 4 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.
Worth a look (18)
ANSES endocrine candidateflagged by 3 of 9 lists →
ANSES endocrine candidateflagged by 3 of 9 lists →
ANSES endocrine candidateflagged by 3 of 9 lists →
ANSES endocrine candidateflagged by 3 of 9 lists →
EU harmonised skin sensitizerflagged by 2 of 9 lists →
EU harmonised skin sensitizerflagged by 2 of 9 lists →
ANSES endocrine candidateflagged by 2 of 9 lists →
ANSES endocrine candidateflagged by 2 of 9 lists →
ANSES endocrine candidateflagged by 2 of 9 lists →
EU harmonised skin sensitizerflagged by 2 of 9 lists →
ANSES endocrine candidateflagged by 2 of 9 lists →
EU-regulated fragrance allergenflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
EU-regulated fragrance allergenflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
EU-regulated fragrance allergenflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
EU-regulated fragrance allergenflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
EU-regulated fragrance allergenflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
EU-regulated fragrance allergenflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
EU-regulated fragrance allergenflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
No flags in our sources (26)
No data in our sources (4)
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.
fragrance materialLIMONENE, CITRUS LIMON PEEL OIL, LINALOOL, CITRAL, GERANIOL, BENZYL BENZOATE, CITRONELLOL, CINNAMAL, BENZYL SALICYLATE, FARNESOL, EUGENOL, ISOEUGENOL, BENZYL ALCOHOL, CINNAMYL ALCOHOL