Moor Spa
Eye Zone Cream (2020 formulation)
Eye Cream
hover a pillar to set the scene →
Every rater, every axis
Ingredient safety
raters agreeIndependent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →
Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →
Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →
Also screened, nothing found: IARC Monographs · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · ANSES Endocrine Disruptors · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · California Proposition 65 · Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist
US EPA Safer Choice (SCIL) recognizes 54% of ingredients as safer choices — a marker, never a score.
Environmental
Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction
Packaging
Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →
Coverage & match quality
4 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.
Weighted by what you care about
Tune your weights
composite recomputes live
+
1.0×
Environmentalno rating
No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.
Laborno rating
No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.
1.0×
0 means ignored. Higher = more weight in your composite.
What we know about the packaging
Partly identified1 of 2 identified
1 of 2 packaging components is a named material; Plastic (unspecified) is recorded only in general terms, so that part of the score is a stand-in.
- Recorded only as “plastic” — no resin code. It could be PET (#1) (widely recyclable) or PVC (#3) (hard to recycle); nothing on record says which, so it counts as 46 out of 100, the middle of that range.
This says how precisely the packaging is described, not how good it is — a fully identified material can still be a bad one.
How we know the packaging
Nobody published the material for this product, so it was read from the product photo — the container looks like this, rather than the maker saying so. Treat the packaging score as weaker here than on a product with a declared material.
A photo also cannot show the resin code moulded into the base, so every plastic container reads as “plastic, unspecified” — the cautious end of the plastics range, not a finding about this particular pack.
Ingredients, decoded
Data availability
Good22 of 26 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 22 of 26 listed ingredients; 4 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.
No flags in our sources (22)
- Aqua
- Olea Europaea Fruit Oil
- Stearic Acid
- Propanediol
- Glycerin
- Stearyl Alcohol
- Heilmoor Clay
- Caprylic/Capric Triglycerides
- Ricinus Communis Seed Oil
- Hydrogenated Castor Oil
- Cetearyl Alcohol
- Cetearyl Glucoside
- Sodium Magnesium Silicate
- Caprylyl Glycol
- Natamycin
- Xanthan Gum
- Tilia Cordata Oil
- Ipomoea Batatas Extract
- Rosmarinus Officinalis Leaf Extract
- Rosa Canina Fruit Oil
- Soybean Glycerides
- Acacia Senegal Gum
No data in our sources (4)
- Butyrospermum Parkii Nut Butter
- Oryza Sativa Oil
- Butyrospermum Parkii Unsaponifiables
- Sodium Guiazulene Sulfonate
Not a verdict — our authorities simply have no reference for these.