Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 25-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 →
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 →
Also screened, nothing found: California Proposition 65 · IARC Monographs · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · ECHA SVHC Candidate List
A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →
Coverage & match quality
4 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
Not enough to score21 of 58 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 21 of 58 listed ingredients; 37 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill. That is not enough of the label for a safety score to be honest, so we do not publish one.
Worth a look (6)
ANSES CMR-listedflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
ANSES endocrine candidateflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
EU harmonised CMR (cat. 2)flagged by 2 of 9 lists →
EU harmonised skin sensitizerflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
EU microplastics-restrictedflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
Health Canada Hotlist — restrictedflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
No flags in our sources (15)
No data in our sources (37)
Not a verdict — our authorities simply have no reference for these.