Fruit of the Earth
Fruit of earth
skin
Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 20-point gap between the two loudest voices.
65California Proposition 65Government
vs85Health Canada Ingredient HotlistGovernment
050100
Every rater, every axis
Ingredient safety
20 pts apartA government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →
A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →
A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →
Also screened, nothing found: ECHA SVHC Candidate List · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · ANSES Endocrine Disruptors
Environmental
Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction
Labor
raters agreeRun by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. This rates Fruit of the Earth as a company and applies to everything they make, not this product alone. Checked this week. about this rater →
Run by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →
Packaging
Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →
Coverage & match quality
6 ratings · 3 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.
1.0×
1.0×
0 means ignored. Higher = more weight in your composite.
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.
- 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
Not enough to score9 of 26 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 9 of 26 listed ingredients; 17 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill. That is not enough of the label for a safety score to be honest, so we do not publish one.
Worth a look (2)
Prop 65-listedflagged by 2 of 9 lists →
IARC possible carcinogen (Group 2B)flagged by 1 of 9 lists →
No flags in our sources (7)
No data in our sources (17)
- ngredients
- mineral on
- clyceryl stearate
- propylene cycol
- hydrohzed elastin
- tocopheryl acetate oil
- retiny
- mtamin a
- cocon nuciera
- oi
- cabomer
- tiethanckamine
- propydene clycol
- ylparaben
- diazolidingl urea
- methy propolparaben
- no animal testing ww fote com w 1139eo
Not a verdict — our authorities simply have no reference for these.
Where this came from
Cruelty-free status recorded from crueltyfree.peta.org ↗
Researched facts on Greenlens always carry the page that stated them — nothing is inferred from a model's memory.