Cleaner pick · Safest cleansing we have rated
Africology Skincare & Spa
Bio Therapy Shampoo+43 on ingredient safety, gives up 14 on packaging
250ml · 47.50 ZAR · 19 ZAR/100 ml
Ranked by safety only. Greenlens earns from qualifying purchases. Payout never affects a rating, a ranking, or the cleaner pick.
Cleaner options
2786 found
Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 58-point gap between the two loudest voices.
All 2786 cleaner options, safest first We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.
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 →
Also screened, nothing found: California Proposition 65 · IARC Monographs · ANSES Endocrine Disruptors · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI)
Recognized on a safer-ingredients list: US EPA Safer Choice recognizes 64% of ingredients as safer choices — a marker, never a score.
Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction
Run by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. This rates Labo Biologie Vegetale Yves Rocher 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
6 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.
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.
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.
Data availability
Robust20 of 22 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 20 of 22 listed ingredients; 2 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.
Worth a look (3)
Where this came from
Cruelty-free status recorded from features.peta.org ↗
Researched facts on Greenlens always carry the page that stated them — nothing is inferred from a model's memory.
Strong contact sensitizerflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
Undisclosed fragrance blendflagged by 2 of 9 lists →
Health Canada Hotlist — restrictedflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
No flags in our sources (17)
No data in our sources (2)
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.
common irritantCOCAMIDOPROPYL BETAINE
undeclared fragrance blendPARFUM/FRAGRANCE
humectantGLYCERIN
