Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 52-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 →
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 →
Also screened, nothing found: IARC Monographs · California Proposition 65 · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist
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.
Data availability
Fair24 of 46 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 24 of 46 listed ingredients; 22 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.
Worth a look (6)
ANSES endocrine candidateflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
Undisclosed fragrance blendflagged by 2 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 →
EU-restricted (with limits)flagged by 2 of 9 lists →
No flags in our sources (18)
No data in our sources (22)
Not a verdict — our authorities simply have no reference for these.