Wrinkle Release Serum safety rating

Wrinkle Release Serum 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 2704 cleaner options, safest first We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.

Every rater, every axis

Ingredient safety

52 pts apart

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 →
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 →

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

Environmental

A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →

Labor

Run by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. This rates Dr. Brandt Skincare as a company and applies to everything they make, not this product alone. Checked this week. about this rater →

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

7 ratings · 4 of 4 axes

Some ratings rest on an automatic match that has not been human-reviewed.

Weighted by what you care about

Tune your weights

composite recomputes live

+

Ingredient safety1.0×

Environmental1.0×

Labor1.0×

Packaging1.0×

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

Robust41 of 42 characterized

Our sources have reference data on 41 of 42 listed ingredients; 1 is uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.

Where this came from

Cruelty-free status recorded from drbrandtskincare.com ↗

Researched facts on Greenlens always carry the page that stated them — nothing is inferred from a model's memory.

Worth a look (5)

Fragranceundeclared fragrance blendperfumingraters disagree
Undisclosed fragrance blendflagged by 2 of 9 lists →
Polymethyl Methacrylatefilm formingraters disagree
EU microplastics-restrictedflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
Methyl Methacrylate Crosspolymerfilm formingraters disagree
EU microplastics-restrictedflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
Sodium Hydroxidebuffering · denaturantraters disagree
EU-restricted (with limits)flagged by 2 of 9 lists →
Citric Acidfragrance · chelating · bufferingraters disagree
Health Canada Hotlist — restrictedflagged by 1 of 9 lists →

No flags in our sources (36)

No data in our sources (1)

Hydrolyzed Rhodophyceae Extract

Not a verdict — our authorities simply have no reference for these.

What these ingredient tags mean (3)

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 Palmitate
- Isopropyl Palmitate: A light emollient named among the pore-clogging materials in the rabbit-ear assay. 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.
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".