Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 60-point gap between the two loudest voices.
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 · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · IARC Monographs · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist
Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction
Run by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. This rates R+Co as a company and applies to everything they make, not this product alone. 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. We started showing this score on Sep 11, 2026. about this rater →
Coverage & match quality
7 ratings · 3 of 4 axes
Tune your weights
composite recomputes live
+No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.
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.
Data availability
Good25 of 30 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 25 of 30 listed ingredients; 5 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.
Worth a look (5)
ANSES endocrine candidateflagged by 3 of 9 lists →
ANSES endocrine candidateflagged by 3 of 9 lists →
ANSES endocrine candidateflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
Undisclosed fragrance blendflagged by 2 of 9 lists →
Mild sensitizer for someflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
No flags in our sources (20)
No data in our sources (5)
Not a verdict — our authorities simply have no reference for these.
These describe what an ingredient is, not whether it is a problem. The stance marks above are the ratings; these are not.
commonly dryingAlcohol Denat
common irritantPropylene Glycol
fragrance materialLimonene, Citral
undeclared fragrance blendFragrance
humectantGlycerin, Panthenol
soothingPanthenol
Where this came from
Cruelty-free status recorded from leapingbunny.org ↗
Researched facts on Greenlens always carry the page that stated them — nothing is inferred from a model's memory.