Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 39-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 →
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 →
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: Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · California Proposition 65 · IARC Monographs
Recognized on a safer-ingredients list: US EPA Safer Choice recognizes 64% of ingredients as safer choices — a marker, never a score.
A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →
Coverage & match quality
5 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
Robust14 of 14 characterized
Our sources have reference data on all 14 listed ingredients.
Worth a look (4)
Endocrine-activeflagged by 3 of 9 lists →
Mild sensitizer for someflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
EU microplastics-restrictedflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
EU-restricted (with limits)flagged by 2 of 9 lists →
No flags in our sources (10)
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