Man men's care Shampooing Douche 3 en 1 Ocean — ingredient safety report

• Hormone disruption:Classified as toxic to reproduction (CMR 1B); banned in the EU since March 2022.
• Allergy risk:Well-documented fragrance sensitizer.

The lily-of-the-valley scent 'Lilial', banned in EU cosmetics in 2022 after being classified as presumed toxic to human reproduction. Still legal in some other markets — check older or imported products.

• Allergy risk:Fragrance is the single most common cause of cosmetic contact allergy.
• Irritation:Frequent trigger of stinging and redness on reactive skin.

An umbrella term that can hide dozens of undisclosed scent chemicals. Fragrance is the leading cause of allergic contact dermatitis from cosmetics, and dermatologists routinely advise fragrance-free products for eczema, babies and sensitive skin.

• Allergy risk:The most common cause of sunscreen photoallergy.
• Environmental impact:Linked to coral bleaching; banned in Hawaii and other reef regions.

The most controversial chemical UV filter: a top cause of sunscreen allergy, a suspected endocrine disruptor found in blood and breast milk, and banned in several reef jurisdictions for coral toxicity.

• Allergy risk:Potent sensitizer, typically blended with MIT (Kathon CG).
• Irritation:Corrosive in concentrate; irritating at use levels.

The chlorinated partner of MIT, restricted in the EU to rinse-off products only. A leading cause of preservative contact dermatitis worldwide.

• Allergy risk:Caused an epidemic of contact allergy; banned in EU leave-on products.
• Irritation:Irritating even in people without allergy.

A preservative behind one of the largest contact-allergy epidemics in cosmetic history. The EU banned it from leave-on products and restricts it in rinse-off products to 15 ppm.

• Irritation:Milder than SLS but still drying for compromised skin.

The gentler cousin of SLS used in most mainstream shampoos and washes. Its manufacturing can leave trace 1,4-dioxane, which reputable makers strip out — an issue of quality control rather than the ingredient itself.

• Irritation:Sensory irritant; the cooling feeling signals nerve stimulation, not soothing.

The cooling molecule from mint. Refreshing on healthy skin but a genuine irritant for reactive, broken or infant skin.

• Allergy risk:EU-declarable allergen; oxidized linalool is a common patch-test positive.

A floral scent molecule found in lavender and many essential oils. It oxidizes on air exposure into strongly sensitizing compounds, which is why it must be declared on EU labels.

• Allergy risk:EU-declarable allergen; oxidation products are potent sensitizers.

The citrus-peel scent molecule. Like linalool, it becomes allergenic mainly after oxidizing in opened products.

• Allergy risk:Named Allergen of the Year 2004; impurities (amidoamine) drive most reactions.

A mild coconut-derived surfactant in countless 'gentle' cleansers. Most allergy is caused by manufacturing impurities, so quality varies by brand.

• Allergy risk:One of the 26 EU-declarable fragrance allergens.
• Irritation:Mild irritation possible at higher concentrations.

A preservative and fragrance component that must be declared on EU labels because it can trigger contact allergy in a small share of users.

• Allergy risk:EU-declarable fragrance allergen.

A floral fixative on the EU allergen list, with early-stage evidence of weak hormonal activity being evaluated by regulators.

• Environmental impact:Poorly biodegradable; can remobilize heavy metals in waterways.

A metal-binding stabilizer that is safe on skin at the tiny amounts used; its criticism is environmental persistence.

• Allergy risk:Rare hypersensitivity reactions, better documented in food than cosmetics.

Tartrazine yellow dye; approved for cosmetics with rare sensitivity reactions reported.

• Allergy risk:Occasional contact allergen (Allergen of the Year 2017 family).

A gentle sugar-based cleanser used in baby and sensitive-skin washes; allergy is uncommon but documented.

• Irritation:Can cause transient, non-allergic flushing/stinging on reactive skin.

A food-grade preservative generally regarded as one of the gentler options; occasional non-immune stinging is its main drawback.

• Allergy risk:Rare reports of sensitivity.

A widely approved blue dye with a benign cosmetic safety record.