Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 25-point gap between the two loudest voices.
Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →
A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →
A government authority. Low-confidence auto-match — it may describe a different size or variant. about this rater →
Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →
Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →
Also screened, nothing found: ECHA SVHC Candidate List · ANSES Endocrine Disruptors · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · IARC Monographs · Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist · California Proposition 65
US EPA Safer Choice (SCIL) recognizes 61% of ingredients as safer choices — a marker, never a score.
A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. 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
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 (4)
EU harmonised skin sensitizerflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
EU harmonised skin sensitizerflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
Transparency concernflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
EU microplastics-restrictedflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
No flags in our sources (11)
No data in our sources (3)
Not a verdict — our authorities simply have no reference for these.