Shampoo Anti-caspa safety rating

Shampoo Anti-caspa safety rating | Greenlens

Raters split

Ingredient safety

A 88-point gap between the two loudest voices.

0Greenlens Precautionary ScreenIndependent

88Greenlens Tolerance ScreenIndependent

050100

See why, ingredient by ingredient

All 10090 cleaner options, safest first We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.

Every rater, every axis

Ingredient safety

88 pts apart

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 →
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 →

Also screened, nothing found: ECHA SVHC Candidate List · ANSES Endocrine Disruptors · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · US NTP Report on Carcinogens

Environmental

Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction

Labor

Run by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. This rates Capilatis as a company and applies to everything they make, not this product alone. Checked this week. about this rater →

Packaging

Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. We started showing this score on Sep 11, 2026. about this rater →

Coverage & match quality

8 ratings · 3 of 4 axes

Some ratings rest on an automatic match that has not been human-reviewed.
Fewer raters reach smaller-brand products, so a missing rating is not a clean bill of health, only a gap.

Weighted by what you care about

Tune your weights

composite recomputes live

Ingredient safety1.0×

Environmentalno rating

No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.

Labor1.0×

Packaging1.0×

0 means ignored. Higher = more weight in your composite.

What we know about the packaging

Unidentified0 of 1 identified

Nobody recorded what this pack is actually made of beyond “plastic”, so the packaging score is a stand-in for the middle of that range — not a reading of this container.

Recorded only as “plastic” — no resin code. It could be PET (#1) (widely recyclable) or PVC (#3) (hard to recycle); nothing on record says which, so it counts as 46 out of 100, the middle of that range.

This says how precisely the packaging is described, not how good it is — a fully identified material can still be a bad one.

How we know the packaging

Read from the product photo, not declared by the maker — treat this score as weaker.

The container looks like this, rather than the maker saying so. A photo also cannot show the resin code moulded into the base, so every plastic container reads as “plastic, unspecified” — the cautious end of the plastics range, not a finding about this particular pack.

Ingredients, decoded

Data availability

Good10 of 13 characterized

Our sources have reference data on 10 of 13 listed ingredients; 3 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.

Worth a look (6)

Where this came from

Cruelty-free status recorded from crueltyfree.peta.org ↗

Researched facts on Greenlens always carry the page that stated them — nothing is inferred from a model's memory.

What these ingredient tags mean (2)

These describe what an ingredient is, not whether it is a problem. The stance marks above are the ratings; these are not.

common irritantCOCAMIDOPROPYL BETAINE, PROPYLENE GLYCOL, DMDM HYDANTOIN
- COCAMIDOPROPYL BETAINE: A mild cleansing agent, but a recurring patch-test finding, usually traced to leftovers from how it is made. American Contact Dermatitis Society, Allergen of the Year 2004 (Fowler JF Jr, Dermatitis 2004;15(1):3-4).
- PROPYLENE GLYCOL: A solvent that shows up in patch-test clinics, more often as irritation than as allergy. American Contact Dermatitis Society, Allergen of the Year 2018 (Jacob SE, Scheman A, McGowan MA, Dermatitis 2018;29(1):3-5).
- DMDM HYDANTOIN: A preservative the FDA lists as a formaldehyde releaser, which is why formaldehyde-reactive skin can notice it. How much reaches the skin depends on the whole formula, not on this name alone. EU Regulation (EC) 1223/2009, Annex V entry 33, permits DMDM hydantoin as a preservative up to 0,6%. The FDA names it among the "formaldehyde and formaldehyde releasing ingredients" on its Allergens in Cosmetics page (content current 25 February 2022). SCCS Scientific Advice SCCS/1632/21, on the threshold for the "contains formaldehyde" warning, describes a study in which a moisturiser spiked to the 0,6% Annex V maximum released at least 40 ppm formaldehyde. Annex V preamble point 2, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) 2022/1181, requires the warning "releases formaldehyde" on any product whose total released formaldehyde exceeds 0,001% (10 ppm). That Regulation states the sensitisation ground itself, so the chain is drawn by the regulator and not by us: recital (2) names the class, "Certain of those preservatives are gradually releasing formaldehyde in order to fulfil a preserving function in the final cosmetic product (so called formaldehyde releasers)", and recital (3) gives the purpose of the warning, "In order to inform consumers sensitised to formaldehyde about the presence of formaldehyde that may trigger an allergic reaction". Recital (1) records that formaldehyde is classified a skin sensitizer (Category 1) in Part 3 of Annex VI to Regulation (EC) 1272/2008.
undeclared fragrance blendPARFUM
- PARFUM: A blend the label does not itemize, so what is in it cannot be read from the ingredient list. EU Regulation (EC) 1223/2009 permits the collective term "parfum"; the SCCS Opinion on Fragrance Allergens (SCCS/1459/11) reviews the contact-allergy evidence for the substances it can contain.