Uriage
Anti-Blemish Cleansing Gel
Gel nettoyant500mlGTIN 3661434009990
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
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
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
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
Good12 of 18 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 12 of 18 listed ingredients; 6 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.
No flags in our sources (12)
No data in our sources (6)
- PPG-2 HYDROXYETHYL COCO
- ISOSTEARAMIDE
- SULFATE
- MAGNESIUM LAURETH-8 SULFATE MAGNESIUM OLETH SULFATE EPILOBIUM ANGUSTIFOLIUM FLOWER LEAF STEM EXTRACT
- MAGNESIUM LAURETH
- FRANCE
Not a verdict — our authorities simply have no reference for these.
What these ingredient tags mean (1)
These describe what an ingredient is, not whether it is a problem. The stance marks above are the ratings; these are not.
humectantGLYCERIN
- GLYCERIN: A humectant, and one of the two ingredients a comparison of moisturiser components found made a significant difference to skin hydration. FDA OTC skin protectant monograph, 21 CFR 347.10(h), lists glycerin as a skin protectant at 20 to 45%. On the humectant half: Jeong CB, Han JY, Cho JC, Suh KD, Nam GW, "Analysis of electrical property changes of skin by oil-in-water emulsion components", Int J Cosmet Sci 2013;35(4):402-410, DOI 10.1111/ics.12059, PMID 23621673, found that "glycerine and urea showed significant skin hydration effects compared with other humectants".