Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 58-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 →
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 →
Also screened, nothing found: California Proposition 65 · IARC Monographs · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist
Run by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →
Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction
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.
Data availability
Good22 of 30 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 22 of 30 listed ingredients; 8 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.
Worth a look (2)
ANSES endocrine candidateflagged by 3 of 9 lists →
Undisclosed fragrance blendflagged by 2 of 9 lists →
No flags in our sources (20)
No data in our sources (8)
Not a verdict — our authorities simply have no reference for these.