Undisclosed ingredients
Not a chemical. The absence of one, where a brand will not say 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 3,681 products and found undisclosed ingredients reported or likely in 270 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waterproof Mascara | 28 | 47 | 60% |
| BB Cream | 9 | 15 | 60% |
| Beauty Primers & Setting Sprays | 8 | 15 | 53% |
| Cosmetics | 4 | 8 | 50% |
| Fishing Line | 7 | 15 | 47% |
| Lip Gloss | 7 | 15 | 47% |
| Shampoo | 82 | 191 | 43% |
| Lip Balm | 22 | 55 | 40% |
| Blush | 6 | 15 | 40% |
| Concealer | 6 | 15 | 40% |
| Crepe Pans | 6 | 15 | 40% |
| Eyeliner | 6 | 15 | 40% |
| Griddle Pans | 6 | 15 | 40% |
| Non-Stick Kitchen Gadgets | 6 | 15 | 40% |
Where we found real evidence
Reported or likely, lowest scoring first. Not plausibility.
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.
Most commercial non-stick cookware bakeware still uses PTFE-based chemistry, and USA Pan does not publicly disclose whether their formulation includes PFOA, PFOS, or GenX alternatives. Graded separately at 5/100 per context.
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
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
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.
Marketing uses terms like 'nontoxic' and 'clean cooking' without disclosed test data, third-party certification, or material specifications. This practice complicates consumer risk assessment and prevents informed comparison.
Consumer reports and independent reviewers repeatedly note that T-Fal does not disclose whether Stone Force Platinum is PTFE-based or alternative chemistry, making informed comparison impossible and preventing users from aligning purchase with personal risk to
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 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
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
What to buy instead
Highest scoring products with no flag for it, in the categories where it is worst.
Common questions
What is undisclosed ingredients?
Not a chemical. The absence of one, where a brand will not say 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 3,681 products we have graded, 792 are flagged for it and 270 on reported or likely evidence rather than plausibility. Waterproof Mascara is the worst category at 60% of what we scored there.
Is undisclosed ingredients in waterproof mascara?
More than in anything else we grade. 28 of the 47 waterproof mascara we scored carry a flag for it, which is 60%. 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 bareMinerals bareMinerals Mineral Makeup at 100, Ilia Beauty Ilia Beauty Clean Makeup at 100, Clinique Clinique Dramatically Different Moisturizing BB-Gel 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.
22% of everything we grade carries a flag for undisclosed ingredients. See every hazard we track or browse the full products list.