Naturals Brilliant Color Shampoo — 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: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.

• Pore-clogging:Rates high on comedogenicity scales.

An emulsifier that scores relatively high for pore-clogging potential in classic comedogenicity testing.

• 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: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.

• Environmental impact:Toxic to coral; banned in Hawaii alongside oxybenzone.

A UVB filter under regulatory re-review for hormonal effects and banned in some reef regions; steadily being replaced by newer filters in modern sunscreens.

• Environmental impact:Synthetic polymer counted as a microplastic under the EU restriction when in particle form.

A common film-forming polymer scrutinized under the EU's microplastics restriction; skin safety itself is well established.

• 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.

• 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.