Sugar Souffle, Flower Power safety rating

Sugar Souffle, Flower Power safety rating | Greenlens

Raters split

Ingredient safety

A 52-point gap between the two loudest voices.

42Greenlens Precautionary ScreenIndependent

94Greenlens Tolerance ScreenIndependent

050100

Every rater, every axis

52 pts apart

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 →
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 →

Recognized on a safer-ingredients list: US EPA Safer Choice recognizes 54% of ingredients as safer choices — a marker, never a score.

Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction

Run by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. This rates Basin as a company and applies to everything they make, not this product alone. 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.

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

Robust23 of 26 characterized

Our sources have reference data on 23 of 26 listed ingredients; 3 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.

Worth a look (4)

No flags in our sources (19)

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 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).
undeclared fragrance blendFragrance
- Fragrance: 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

Cruelty-free status recorded from crueltyfree.peta.org ↗

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