hover a pillar to set the scene →
Also screened, nothing found: Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · IARC Monographs · ANSES Endocrine Disruptors · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · California Proposition 65 · US NTP Report on Carcinogens
US EPA Safer Choice (SCIL) recognizes 71% of ingredients as safer choices — a marker, never a score.
Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction
Run by a nonprofit. 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 →
Coverage & match quality
2 ratings · 2 of 4 axes
Tune your weights
composite recomputes live
+No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.
No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.
What we know about the packaging
Unidentified0 of 1 identified
Nobody recorded what this pack is actually made of beyond “plastic”, so the packaging score is a stand-in for the middle of that range — not a reading of this container.
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.
Data availability
Robust7 of 7 characterized
Our sources have reference data on all 7 listed ingredients.
Where this came from
Cruelty-free status recorded from leapingbunny.org ↗
Researched facts on Greenlens always carry the page that stated them — nothing is inferred from a model's memory.