Living Proof
Style Lab Blowout
uncategorized$34 MSRP
Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 20-point gap between the two loudest voices.
80ANSES Endocrine DisruptorsGovernment
vs100Greenlens Tolerance ScreenIndependent
050100
See why, ingredient by ingredientEvery rater, every axis
Ingredient safety
20 pts apartIndependent — 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: EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · California Proposition 65 · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · IARC Monographs · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist
Environmental
Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction
Labor
Run by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. This rates Living Proof 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
6 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
+
1.0×
Environmentalno rating
No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.
1.0×
1.0×
0 means ignored. Higher = more weight in your composite.
What we know about the packaging
Unidentified0 of 2 identified
None of the 2 packaging components is identified beyond its broad material, so the packaging score is a stand-in — 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
Robust9 of 9 characterized
Our sources have reference data on all 9 listed ingredients.
Worth a look (3)
ANSES endocrine candidateflagged by 2 of 9 lists →
EU-regulated fragrance allergenflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
EU-regulated fragrance allergenflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
No flags in our sources (6)
What these ingredient tags mean (1)
These describe what an ingredient is, not whether it is a problem. The stance marks above are the ratings; these are not.
fragrance materialCitronellol
- Citronellol: A rose-and-citrus fragrance component named separately on the label. EU Regulation (EC) 1223/2009, Annex III entry 86: 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, because of established contact-allergy risk.
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.