O7 active
Oxygen Mondspoelmiddel
Mouthwash5lGTIN 8718347280000
Cleaner pick · Safest mouthwash we have rated
Oracoat
Xylimelts Dry Mouth Melts, Mint Free (2020 formulation)+47 on ingredient safety
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 46-point gap between the two loudest voices.
42Greenlens Precautionary ScreenIndependent
vs88Greenlens Tolerance ScreenIndependent
050100
See why, ingredient by ingredientAll 581 cleaner options, safest first We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.
Every rater, every axis
Ingredient safety
46 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 →
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 →
Also screened, nothing found: ECHA SVHC Candidate List · ANSES Endocrine Disruptors · California Proposition 65 · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · IARC Monographs
Recognized on a safer-ingredients list: US EPA Safer Choice recognizes 56% 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. We started showing this score on Sep 11, 2026. about this rater →
Coverage & match quality
5 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.
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
Good15 of 18 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 15 of 18 listed ingredients; 3 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.
Worth a look (5)
Undisclosed fragrance blendflagged by 2 of 9 lists →
Transparency concernflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
EU-restricted (with limits)flagged by 2 of 9 lists →
Health Canada Hotlist — restrictedflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
EU-restricted (with limits)flagged by 3 of 9 lists →
No flags in our sources (10)
No data in our sources (3)
Not a verdict — our authorities simply have no reference for these.
What these ingredient tags mean (3)
These describe what an ingredient is, not whether it is a problem. The stance marks above are the ratings; these are not.
common irritantSodium Lauryl Sulfate
- Sodium Lauryl Sulfate: A strong cleansing agent used as the reference irritant in skin-irritation testing. OECD Test Guideline 439 (in vitro skin irritation, reconstructed human epidermis), paragraph 24: "The suggested PC is 5% aqueous SDS", sodium dodecyl sulphate, the same substance as sodium lauryl sulfate, CAS 151-21-3.
undeclared fragrance blendAroma
- Aroma: 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.
humectantGlycerin
- Glycerin: A humectant, and one of the two ingredients a comparison of moisturiser components found made a significant difference to skin hydration. FDA OTC skin protectant monograph, 21 CFR 347.10(h), lists glycerin as a skin protectant at 20 to 45%. On the humectant half: Jeong CB, Han JY, Cho JC, Suh KD, Nam GW, "Analysis of electrical property changes of skin by oil-in-water emulsion components", Int J Cosmet Sci 2013;35(4):402-410, DOI 10.1111/ics.12059, PMID 23621673, found that "glycerine and urea showed significant skin hydration effects compared with other humectants".
Where this came from
Product identity (name, brand, category) verified against kruidvat.nl ↗
Researched facts on Greenlens always carry the page that stated them — nothing is inferred from a model's memory.