Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 55-point gap between the two loudest voices.
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 →
Also screened, nothing found: ECHA SVHC Candidate List · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · California Proposition 65 · ANSES Endocrine Disruptors · IARC Monographs
Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction
Run by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. This rates L'Oréal 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
4 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.
Data availability
Not enough to score6 of 7 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 6 of 7 listed ingredients; 1 is uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill. That is still too few ingredients to score from, and a list this short is more often part of a label than a whole one, so we do not publish a safety score for this product.
Worth a look (3)
EU harmonised CMR (cat. 1)flagged by 1 of 9 lists →
EU harmonised CMR (cat. 1)flagged by 1 of 9 lists →
Health Canada Hotlist — restrictedflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
No flags in our sources (3)
No data in our sources (1)
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.
common irritantpropylene glycol
exfoliating acidlactic acid