Max White Ultra Active Foam Whitening Toothpaste safety rating

Max White Ultra Active Foam Whitening Toothpaste safety rating | Greenlens

Raters split

Ingredient safety

A 52-point gap between the two loudest voices.

42Greenlens Precautionary ScreenIndependent

94Greenlens Tolerance ScreenIndependent

050100

All 218 cleaner options, safest first We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.

Every rater, every axis

52 pts apart

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 →
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: EU Microplastics Restriction

Run by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. This rates Colgate as a company and applies to everything they make, not this product alone. Checked this week. about this rater →

Coverage & match quality

6 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.

Tune your weights

composite recomputes live

Ingredient safety1.0×

Environmentalno rating

No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.

Labor1.0×

Packagingno rating

No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.

0 means ignored. Higher = more weight in your composite.

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)

aromaundeclared fragrance blendflavouringraters disagree
Undisclosed fragrance blendflagged by 2 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, cocamidopropyl betaine
- 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.
- cocamidopropyl betaine: A mild cleansing agent, but a recurring patch-test finding, usually traced to leftovers from how it is made. American Contact Dermatitis Society, Allergen of the Year 2004 (Fowler JF Jr, Dermatitis 2004;15(1):3-4).
fragrance materialeugenol
- eugenol: A clove-scented fragrance component named separately on the label. EU Regulation (EC) 1223/2009, Annex III entry 71: a fragrance substance whose presence must be indicated in the list of ingredients above 0,001% in leave-on and 0,01% in rinse-off products, because of established contact-allergy risk.
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.

Where this came from

Product identity (name, brand, category) verified against beautyshop.fr ↗

Researched facts on Greenlens always carry the page that stated them — nothing is inferred from a model's memory.