Beaphar
Shampoo for Irritated Scalp
shampoings pour animaux250mlGTIN 8711231103485
Cleaner pick · Safest cleansing we have rated
Africology Skincare & Spa
Bio Therapy Conditioner+52 on ingredient safety, gives up 14 on packaging
250ml · 47.50 ZAR · 19 ZAR/100 ml
Ingredient safetyRaters agree
Ranked by safety only. Greenlens earns from qualifying purchases. Payout never affects a rating, a ranking, or the cleaner pick.
Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 69-point gap between the two loudest voices.
25Greenlens Precautionary ScreenIndependent
vs94Greenlens Tolerance ScreenIndependent
050100
See why, ingredient by ingredientAll 8108 cleaner options, safest first We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.
Every rater, every axis
Ingredient safety
69 pts apartIndependent — 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 →
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 →
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 · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · ANSES Endocrine Disruptors
US EPA Safer Choice (SCIL) recognizes 50% of ingredients as safer choices — a marker, never a score.
Environmental
Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction
Packaging
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
7 ratings · 2 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
+
1.0×
Environmentalno rating
No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.
Laborno rating
No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.
1.0×
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.
Ingredients, decoded
Data availability
Robust19 of 20 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 19 of 20 listed ingredients; 1 is uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.
Worth a look (5)
Carcinogen-linkedflagged by 5 of 9 lists →
Strong contact sensitizerflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
IARC possible carcinogen (Group 2B)flagged 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 (14)
No data in our sources (1)
Not a verdict — our authorities simply have no reference for these.