Soft Launch Lip TInt safety rating

Soft Launch Lip TInt safety rating | Greenlens

All 569 cleaner options, safest first We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.

Every rater, every axis

Ingredient safety

raters agree

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 →
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 · US NTP Report on Carcinogens

Recognized on a safer-ingredients list: US EPA Safer Choice recognizes 57% of ingredients as safer choices — a marker, never a score.

Environmental

Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction

Labor

Run by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. This rates Frank Body | AU & NZ 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 · 3 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.

Labor1.0×

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

Robust14 of 14 characterized

Our sources have reference data on all 14 listed ingredients.

Worth a look (4)

Where this came from

Cruelty-free status recorded from crueltyfree.peta.org ↗

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