Label Transparency Index

The numbers

Publish an osmolality figure

3 of 25

Water-borne products only. The one number that cannot be worked out from a label.

Claim iso-osmotic, publish no figure

3 of 25

The claim cannot be checked, compared to a reference range, or found wrong by a reader.

Publish a pH figure

4 of 25

Cheap to measure, cheap to print. Absence is a choice, not a limit.

Publish no full ingredient list

2 of 35

Kept in the catalog and scored as unanswered, never as a pass.

Label readable on the maker's own site

12 of 35

The rest had to be read from a shop listing or an aggregator the maker does not control.

What the set shows

• 3 of 25 water-borne products publish an osmolality figure.

  Osmolality is the number most often cited in guidance about lubricant and tissue irritation, and it is the one number that cannot be worked out from an ingredient list — it is measured. Where a maker does not publish it, nobody outside that company can check it, including us. This count is a measure of what is publicly checkable, not of what is safe.

• 3 more products call themselves iso-osmotic or body-matched without publishing a figure.

  Of the 6 water-borne products that raise osmolality at all, 3 back it with a number anyone can check. The same pattern runs through pH: 4 products say “pH balanced” or similar and publishes no figure. A claim of this kind cannot be compared to a reference range and cannot be found wrong by a reader, so it is counted here as its own state — neither as disclosure nor as silence.

• 4 of 25 publish a pH figure.

  pH is cheap to measure and cheap to print. Its absence from a label is a choice about disclosure rather than a limit of the science, which is what makes it worth counting separately from osmolality.

• 2 of 35 products publish no full ingredient list at all.

  These records are kept rather than dropped. Removing them would quietly flatter the catalog; filling them in would be invention. Every lane scores them as unanswered, and unanswered is never rendered as a pass.

• 12 of 35 labels were readable on the maker's own site.

  The rest had to be read from a shop listing or an ingredient aggregator — pages the maker does not control and does not update when a formula changes. That is the mechanism behind most of the contradictions below.

• 7 products have two current sources that disagree about what is in them.

  Both versions are shown on the product page rather than averaged or silently preferred. If the disagreement covers the exact ingredient you are avoiding, no page on the internet can settle it for you — the bottle in your hand can.

• 5 of 33 published labels are fully recognised by the ingredient engine.

  The rest contain at least one item outside the engine's 40-ingredient reference set — usually a botanical extract or a proprietary blend name. Those products are scored more cautiously rather than being given the benefit of the doubt: a lane that passes on the absence of bad ingredients first has to prove it could read the label.

• Of the 3 published figures, 3 sit above the 380 mOsm/kg WHO reference point.

  Ranges are read at their ceiling, because a formula published as reaching a number can reach it. The 1200 mOsm/kg upper tolerance from the same advisory is recorded separately. This compares published figures to a published reference point and nothing else — it is not a verdict on any product, and a maker who publishes a high figure has still told you more than one who publishes nothing.

Every product, row by row

“Discloses” counts only the facts that apply to that formula. A silicone lubricant is anhydrous, so pH and osmolality are not asked of it and not held against it.

How this was counted

• Every product in the catalog is included. Nothing is excluded for scoring badly, and nothing is added without a source URL and a capture date — the build fails on a record that cannot prove where its label came from.
• A pH figure and an osmolality figure are only counted for water-borne formulas. Silicone and oil lubricants are anhydrous, so neither figure means anything for them and neither is held against them.
• Published figures are quoted, never computed. Osmolality in particular is measured in a lab and cannot be derived from an ingredient list at any level of effort.
• Ranges are read at their ceiling. A product published as 250–400 mOsm/kg is counted at 400.
• Where two current sources disagree, both are recorded and the product is counted as contested rather than resolved in either direction.
• Where nothing published settles whether a formula even has an aqueous phase, the row reads undetermined and is left out of the pH and osmolality counts entirely. Calling it “not applicable” would be a claim made from an absence of evidence.
• A claim is not a figure. “Iso-osmotic” and “pH balanced” are recorded as claims and counted separately; neither adds to a product’s disclosure count, because a reader cannot check either one.
• Disclosure is not quality. A maker can publish everything about a harsh formula and nothing about a gentle one. These counts describe what you are allowed to check.

Sources are re-fetched on a schedule and compared against the label we published. A source that has changed is reported and re-read by hand — nothing on this site re-dates its own provenance automatically.

Reuse it

These counts and the per-product rows below may be reused with attribution to SexpertAI and a link to this page. The underlying labels belong to their makers and are quoted here as published.