Mango & Tulsi Nourishing Conditioner safety rating

Mango & Tulsi Nourishing Conditioner safety rating | Greenlens

Raters split

Ingredient safety

A 52-point gap between the two loudest voices.

42Greenlens Precautionary ScreenIndependent

vs

94Greenlens Tolerance ScreenIndependent

050100

See why, ingredient by ingredient

All 1930 cleaner options, safest first We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.

Every rater, every axis

Ingredient safety

52 pts apart

A government authority. 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 →
A government authority. 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 →

Also screened, nothing found: California Proposition 65 · ANSES Endocrine Disruptors · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI)

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

6 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

+

Ingredient safety1.0×

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.

Packaging1.0×

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

Robust29 of 32 characterized

Our sources have reference data on 29 of 32 listed ingredients; 3 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.

What these ingredient tags mean (4)

These describe what an ingredient is, not whether it is a problem. The stance marks above are the ratings; these are not.

comedogenic in testingIsopropyl Myristate
- Isopropyl Myristate: A light emollient, and the ester the rabbit-ear literature names first. Fulton JE Jr, Pay SR, Fulton JE 3rd, "Comedogenicity of current therapeutic products, cosmetics, and ingredients in the rabbit ear", J Am Acad Dermatol 1984;10(1):96-105, PMID 6229554. The openly readable abstract names this ingredient among its "ingredient offenders", in prose and without a numeric rating: "Ingredient offenders include isopropyl myristate and its analogs, such as isopropyl palmitate, isopropyl isostearate, butyl stearate, isostearyl neopentanoate, myristyl myristate..." The rabbit-ear assay rates raw ingredients and does not predict how a finished formula behaves on human skin.
fragrance materialLavandula Angustifolia Oil
- Lavandula Angustifolia Oil: An essential oil the EU names on its own account as a fragrance substance to be declared on the label, under a shared name covering several lavender species. EU Regulation (EC) 1223/2009, Annex III entry 360, inserted by Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/1545: a fragrance substance whose presence must be indicated in the list of ingredients above 0,001% in leave-on and 0,01% in rinse-off products. It is declarable in its OWN right, not by way of any component it carries. The entry is a GROUPED one covering the oils and extracts of Lavandula angustifolia, Lavandula intermedia and Lavandula hybrida, about eight glossary names in all, all declared under the single common name "Lavandula Oil/ Extract", so that name on a label does not identify which of them is present. The duty applies now. Transition footnote (40) lets stock that does not comply, lawfully placed on the Union market before the 31 July 2026 cut-off, be made available until 31 July 2028.
undeclared fragrance blendFragrance
- Fragrance: 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.
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".