Dr. Bronner's
Orange Ginger Lip Balm
Lip Balm$3.99 MSRPGTIN 0018787920015
Every rater, every axis
Ingredient safety
raters agreeIndependent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →
Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →
Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →
Environmental
Run by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →
Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction
Labor
raters agreeRun by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →
Run by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. This rates Dr. Bronner's as a company and applies to everything they make, not this product alone. 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
7 ratings · 4 of 4 axes
- Some ratings rest on an automatic match that has not been human-reviewed.
Weighted by what you care about
Tune your weights
composite recomputes live
+
1.0×
1.0×
1.0×
1.0×
0 means ignored. Higher = more weight in your composite.
Printed on the pack
Marks read from a photo of the packaging. Some feed a pillar; some deliberately feed nothing.
- EWG VERIFIED — not scored — that's EWG's own safety opinion, and we don't restate a rating we didn't get from them
- Leaping Bunny — audited cruelty-free — counts toward labor
- PETA cruelty-free — audited cruelty-free — counts toward labor
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
Read from the product photo, not declared by the maker — treat this score as weaker.
The container looks like this, rather than the maker saying so. 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
Good6 of 8 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 6 of 8 listed ingredients; 2 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.
No flags in our sources (6)
No data in our sources (2)
Not a verdict — our authorities simply have no reference for these.