HumanSafe™ verification is not a rubber stamp. It's a comprehensive evaluation of ingredient safety, environmental impact, company transparency, and real-world performance. We assess what you make—not who you know, how much you pay, or what story you tell.
This page describes the operational steps of evaluation. For the scientific principles, exposure modeling, and scoring logic that inform this process, see the HumanSafe™ Methodology →
These aren't marketing slogans. They're operational commitments that shape every assessment.
Your payment purchases evaluation time—not favorable scores. Our methodology determines ratings. Brands cannot review or approve their assessments before publication. We document conflicts of interest transparently. If we compromise independence, we lose our only real value.
No "proprietary formulas" excuse. We need every ingredient, with concentrations and functional roles. If you can't disclose, we can't verify. Transparency isn't optional—it's the prerequisite for meaningful assessment. Hidden ingredients make honest evaluation impossible.
A preservative at 0.1% in rinse-off shampoo gets different analysis than 1% in leave-on cream. We evaluate concentration, exposure duration, application site, and product type. Risk assessment without context is fortune-telling, not science.
Your products have undergone independent, science-based assessment and meet our standards for ingredient safety, transparency, and documented claims. It does not mean perfection, endorsement, or freedom from all concerns. It means honest evaluation by consistent methodology.
Typically takes 5-7 weeks from submission to publication. We don't rush science to meet marketing deadlines.
Brand submits complete product information under mutual NDA. We need: full ingredient list with INCI names, concentrations (exact or ranges), functional roles, pH, intended use, target demographics, and any claims made in marketing. Incomplete submissions are rejected—no exceptions.
We verify submission completeness and identify any red flags requiring immediate discussion. This is not evaluation—just confirmation that we have what we need.
Each ingredient undergoes individual assessment using peer-reviewed literature, regulatory databases, toxicology reports, and clinical studies.
We apply real-world context: concentration, exposure duration, application site, and target user.
We generate four independent scores with documented reasoning, data sources, and uncertainty.
Completed assessment is published without brand review or approval.
Single scores oversimplify. Four independent dimensions provide complete picture.
Letter Grade (A+ to F)
Risk-based assessment considering toxicology, concentration, exposure route, and usage context. Not "is this ingredient on a scary list"—but "what is the actual risk in this specific formulation for this specific use?"
Letter grades represent relative risk bands, not absolute safety guarantees.
Numerical (1.0–10.0)
Lifecycle impact from raw material sourcing through disposal. We evaluate biodegradability, aquatic toxicity, bioaccumulation, and manufacturing footprint.
Numerical (1.0–10.0)
How openly you share information beyond regulatory minimums. Full disclosure builds trust. Hiding behind "proprietary" claims reduces this score.
Numerical (1.0–10.0)
Real-world performance based on verified customer feedback. Does it actually work as claimed? Safety without efficacy is useless.
Transparent pricing for transparent evaluation. No hidden fees, no ongoing charges, no pay-to-play schemes.
We offer three verification tiers to accommodate brands of all sizes—from single flagship products to complete product catalogs. Each tier includes comprehensive assessment across all four scores (HSS, ESS, CTS, CES), detailed ingredient analysis, and public database listing. Pricing ranges from $2,500 for a single product to custom quotes for large catalogs.
If your products are as safe as you claim, verification should be straightforward. If you're uncertain, that's honest—and we'll help you understand why scores came out as they did. If you're looking for a rubber stamp or favorable treatment, we're not the right evaluator.
Questions before applying?
Email: [email protected]
We respond to inquiries within 2 business days.
We explain why in detail. Lower scores don't mean "bad product"—they mean concerns exist relative to our methodology. You can choose not to publish, reformulate and resubmit, or publish with scores as-is and let consumers decide. We don't judge—we assess.
No. Informal opinions without full analysis are irresponsible. We can answer methodology questions, clarify our process, or discuss general ingredient concerns—but we won't estimate scores without complete evaluation.
Eventually, yes—but with limitations. Without concentration data, we can only assess based on assumed ranges. Without transparency cooperation, CTS scores suffer. Brand-submitted verification is always more complete. Such assessments are clearly labeled as non-verified and based on publicly available information only.
If we cannot complete assessment due to incomplete submissions or non-responsive communication, 50% refund. If assessment completes and you simply don't like the scores, no refund—you paid for evaluation, not for specific results.
Payment purchases our time, not our conclusions. Methodology is published and consistent. All potential conflicts are documented publicly. Brands cannot review or alter assessments. If we compromise independence, we become worthless—so maintaining it is existential, not optional. Learn more on our Governance page.
Learn more about HumanSafe™ before applying for verification.
Understand our mission, approach, and why we built HumanSafe™ differently from existing systems.
Learn About UsDeep dive into our technical scoring system, formulas, data sources, and scientific approach.
See The ScienceHow we ensure independence, manage conflicts of interest, and maintain integrity.
View GovernanceVersion: v1.1 · Last Updated: January 2026