Gifrer
Talc de Venise
uncategorized125g
Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 20-point gap between the two loudest voices.
65IARC MonographsGovernment
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 →
Also screened, nothing found: California Proposition 65 · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · ANSES Endocrine Disruptors · ECHA SVHC Candidate List
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. Checked this week. about this rater →
Coverage & match quality
3 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
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.
Ingredients, decoded
Data availability
Not enough to score1 of 1 characterized
Our sources have reference data on all 1 listed ingredients. That is still too few ingredients to score from, and a list this short is more often part of a label than a whole one, so we do not publish a safety score for this product.
Worth a look (1)
IARC probable carcinogen (Group 2A)flagged by 2 of 9 lists →
Where this came from
Product identity (name, brand, category) verified against gifrer.fr ↗
Researched facts on Greenlens always carry the page that stated them — nothing is inferred from a model's memory.