Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 58-point gap between the two loudest voices.
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 →
Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →
Coverage & match quality
5 ratings · 3 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.
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.
This says how precisely the packaging is described, not how good it is — a fully identified material can still be a bad one.
Data availability
Robust25 of 26 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 25 of 26 listed ingredients; 1 is uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.
Worth a look (3)
Undisclosed fragrance blendflagged by 2 of 9 lists →
EU microplastics-restrictedflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
Mild sensitizer for someflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
No flags in our sources (22)
No data in our sources (1)
Not a verdict — our authorities simply have no reference for these.