Undisclosed ingredients
Not a chemical. The absence of one, where we found no statement from the brand about what it uses. A product cannot be assessed on what nobody will publish, and silence is the single most common finding in this database. It is the reason a product with nothing wrong with it can still score badly.
Definition and health context from FTC.
We checked 11,795 products and found undisclosed ingredients reported or likely in 522 of them.
Where undisclosed ingredients turns up
Categories we grade, worst first, as a share of what we scored in each.
| Category | Flagged | Scored | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| fabric-protectant-sprays | 1 | 1 | 100% |
| incontinence-pads | 1 | 1 | 100% |
| Waterproof Mascara | 50 | 82 | 61% |
| BB Cream | 9 | 15 | 60% |
| Panty Liners | 8 | 15 | 53% |
| Setting Spray | 8 | 16 | 50% |
| Cosmetics | 4 | 8 | 50% |
| Lipstick | 30 | 65 | 46% |
| Panini Presses | 6 | 14 | 43% |
| All-Purpose Cleaner | 3 | 7 | 43% |
| Shampoo | 79 | 194 | 41% |
| Makeup | 44 | 108 | 41% |
| Lip Gloss | 7 | 17 | 41% |
| Coffee Cups | 6 | 15 | 40% |
Where we found real evidence
Reported or likely, lowest scoring first. Not plausibility.
PFOA and similar long-chain fluorinated compounds have been phased out, but T-fal has not published which replacement fluoropolymers are in use (e.g., GenX, PTFE alternatives). Industry practice suggests short-chain or non-fluorinated coatings exist; lack of d
T-fal does not publicly identify whether this pan uses PTFE, PFOA alternatives (PTFE-free but potentially still fluorinated), or true non-fluorinated ceramic/silicone coatings. Lack of transparency limits informed choice; competing brands offer clearer chemica
Calphalon does not voluntarily disclose whether coatings contain PFAS, PFOA, or other legacy fluorochemicals. This opacity prevents informed comparison with brands that certify PFOA-free status.
All-Clad's silence on PFAS content or alternatives is standard for cookware brands still using traditional PTFE but represents a gap in consumer choice transparency. Competing brands (e.g., Caraway, GreenPan) market PFAE-free options; All-Clad's absence from t
Traditional PTFE nonstick almost always requires PFAS (perfluorinated chemicals) in manufacturing; PTFE itself is a PFAS. All-Clad's silence on whether this line uses PFOA-free or newer PFAS alternatives is a documented transparency failure compared to competi
T-fal has not publicly committed to phasing PTFE or adopting alternative non-stick coatings in consumer lines, contrasting with some competitors' public pledges. This silence limits informed choice for consumers concerned about long-term PFAS exposure from coo
All-Clad's silence on PFAS content, phase-out plans, or testing reflects broader industry lack of transparency; PTFE itself contains or may contain PFAS precursors, and the brand offers no reassurance or alternative products.
Glad has not adopted voluntary PFAS disclosure standards or pursued GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) certification for its nonstick coatings, which is increasingly expected in the cookware market and raises questions about formulation choices.
Glad's silence on whether this sheet contains PTFE, GenX, PFOA alternatives, or is truly PFAS-free is the core issue. Competitors openly disclose; absence of disclosure suggests either older formulations or unwillingness to market on safety grounds.
The brand's silence on coating composition and absence of PFAS commitment is notable given industry-wide disclosure of this issue. Unlabeled ceramic coatings may still contain fluorinated compounds or other regulated substances not visible to consumers.
The brand's silent stance on material composition and PFAS status limits your ability to make an informed decision and creates friction if safety concerns arise after purchase. This is a process hazard, not a chemical one, but it increases overall risk for the
The nonstick coating is a food-contact surface, yet Emerald does not publish FDA food additive clearance, BPA/BPS content, or phthalate absence statements. This is a regulatory transparency failure common among low-cost imports and makes it impossible to asses
What to buy instead
Highest scoring products with no flag for it, in the categories where it is worst.
The other chemicals we screen for
Every product here is checked against all of these, so a product that clears undisclosed ingredients may still be flagged for one of them.
Common questions
What is undisclosed ingredients?
Not a chemical. The absence of one, where we found no statement from the brand about what it uses. A product cannot be assessed on what nobody will publish, and silence is the single most common finding in this database. It is the reason a product with nothing wrong with it can still score badly.
Which products contain undisclosed ingredients?
Of the 11,795 products we have graded, 1,825 are flagged for it and 522 on reported or likely evidence rather than plausibility. fabric-protectant-sprays is the worst category at 100% of what we scored there.
Is undisclosed ingredients in fabric-protectant-sprays?
More than in anything else we grade. 1 of the 1 fabric-protectant-sprays we scored carry a flag for it, which is 100%. The full breakdown per product is on each product page.
What can I buy instead?
In the categories where it turns up most, the highest scoring products with no flag for it are Bare Minerals bareMinerals Complexion Rescue Luminous Skin Tint Stick at 100, Clinique Dramatically Different Moisturizing BB-Gel at 75, MAC Prep + Prime BB Beauty Balm at 75. Every one of those was graded on the same rubric as the products above.
How do you know?
We do not lab test. Every grade here is built from published ingredient lists, materials, certifications, brand disclosures, recalls and third party lab results where those already exist. Where a product has been independently tested we use that result and say so, and where a brand publishes nothing we score the silence rather than guessing.
15% of everything we grade carries a flag for undisclosed ingredients. See every hazard we track or browse the full products list.