Wild Stone
Red Body Deodorant
Deodorant225mlGTIN 8904006307267
Cleaner pick · Safest deodorant we have rated
Primally Pure
Geranium Deodorant+57 on ingredient safety, gives up 18 on packaging
$16
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 50-point gap between the two loudest voices.
30EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI)Government
vs80ANSES Endocrine DisruptorsGovernment
050100
All 2630 cleaner options, safest first We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.
Every rater, every axis
Ingredient safety
50 pts apartA 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 →
Also screened, nothing found: US NTP Report on Carcinogens · IARC Monographs · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist · California Proposition 65
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
3 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 2 identified
None of the 2 packaging components is identified beyond its broad material, so the packaging score is a stand-in — 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
Not enough to score7 of 12 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 7 of 12 listed ingredients; 5 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill. That is not enough of the label for a safety score to be honest, so we do not publish one.
Worth a look (3)
EU harmonised CMR (cat. 1)flagged by 1 of 9 lists →
EU harmonised CMR (cat. 1)flagged by 1 of 9 lists →
ANSES endocrine candidateflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
No flags in our sources (4)
No data in our sources (5)
Not a verdict — our authorities simply have no reference for these.
What these ingredient tags mean (1)
These describe what an ingredient is, not whether it is a problem. The stance marks above are the ratings; these are not.
common irritantPROPYLENE GLYCOL
- PROPYLENE GLYCOL: A solvent that shows up in patch-test clinics, more often as irritation than as allergy. American Contact Dermatitis Society, Allergen of the Year 2018 (Jacob SE, Scheman A, McGowan MA, Dermatitis 2018;29(1):3-5).