Salon Opus
Treatment
uncategorizedGTIN 7896010170436
Every rater, every axis
Ingredient safety
raters agreeA 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: ANSES Endocrine Disruptors · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist
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. We started showing this score on Sep 11, 2026. 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.
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
Not enough to score6 of 14 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 6 of 14 listed ingredients; 8 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 (1)
Prop 65-listedflagged by 2 of 9 lists →
No flags in our sources (5)
No data in our sources (8)
- omposic�o
- DISODIUM cocOAMPHODIACE OCAMIDOPROPYL BETAINE
- AMMON CHLORIDE
- GUAR DROXYPROPYLTRIMONIUM CHLORIDE
- PHENOXYETH NOL BUTYROSPERMUM PARKII
- SHEA BUTTER.CO NUIFERA OIL
- CITRICACD METHYLCHLOROISOTHIAZOLINONE
- METHYLISOTHIAZOLINONE Sem adic�o de cloreto de sodio
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.
undeclared fragrance blendPARFUM
- PARFUM: A blend the label does not itemize, so what is in it cannot be read from the ingredient list. EU Regulation (EC) 1223/2009 permits the collective term "parfum"; the SCCS Opinion on Fragrance Allergens (SCCS/1459/11) reviews the contact-allergy evidence for the substances it can contain.