hover a pillar to set the scene →
Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 20-point gap between the two loudest voices.
A government authority. 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 →
A government authority. 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 →
A government authority. 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 · California Proposition 65 · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · IARC Monographs
Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction
Coverage & match quality
6 ratings · 1 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.
No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.
Data availability
Good20 of 28 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 20 of 28 listed ingredients; 8 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.
Worth a look (7)
ANSES endocrine candidateflagged by 3 of 9 lists →
EU harmonised skin sensitizerflagged by 2 of 9 lists →
EU-regulated fragrance allergenflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
EU-regulated fragrance allergenflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
EU-regulated fragrance allergenflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
EU-regulated fragrance allergenflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
Health Canada Hotlist — restrictedflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
No flags in our sources (13)
No data in our sources (8)
Not a verdict — our authorities simply have no reference for these.