Greenlens

Every public rating on one cosmetic, the places they disagree kept visible, and a single score whose weighting you control.

Navigate

  • Browse
  • In your home
  • Methodology
  • Criteria
  • Extension
  • How scoring works
  • Account

The one rule

We never blend a score that hides who disagrees. Funding model travels with every rating. Weights are computed at read time and never stored.

Cosmetics only · lead with safetyOpen data via Open Beauty Facts · no EWG/Yuka scraping
As an Amazon Associate, Greenlens earns from qualifying purchases. Affiliate income never changes a rating or ranking.PrivacyTerms
Catalog/Garnier/Fructis Curl Scrunch Controlling Hair Gel - Garnier
Fructis Curl Scrunch Controlling Hair Gel - Garnier
Garnier

Fructis Curl Scrunch Controlling Hair Gel - Garnier

hair

Your composite

63OUT OF 100Fair

range 57–81

44▲▼ split
Safety
90
Eco
55
Labor
—
Pkg

Why this score

39-point split

59

Scan

98

Precautionary

88

Tolerance

See why →
Find on Amazon↗

Affiliate link. We may earn a commission. It never changes a rating.

In your home

Sort this into a room

Cleaner options

12 found

See better →

Flags

No ingredient flags.

Raters split

Ingredient safety

A 73-point gap between the two loudest voices.

25ANSES Endocrine DisruptorsGovernment
vs
98Greenlens Precautionary ScreenIndependent
050100
See why, ingredient by ingredient→

Cleaner options

See 12 cleaner alternatives

Same category, ranked by ingredient safety, never by affiliate payout.

See better →

Every rater, every axis

Ingredient safety

Split · 73 pts apart
  • Greenlens Ingredient ScanIndependentunverified match
    59
  • Greenlens Tolerance ScreenIndependentunverified match
    88
  • Greenlens Precautionary ScreenIndependentunverified match
    98
  • ANSES Endocrine DisruptorsGovernmentunverified match
    25
  • EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI)Governmentunverified match
    45

Lowest 25 · highest 98 · gap 73

Also screened — no listing found

  • Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist
  • California Proposition 65
  • IARC Monographs
  • ECHA SVHC Candidate List
  • US NTP Report on Carcinogens

Environmental

  • EU Microplastics RestrictionGovernmentunverified match
    90

Labor

  • Cruelty-Free CertificationNonprofitunverified match
    55

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.

no black box

How this score is built

We don't rate products ourselves. We collect what each public rater already says, put every scale on common ground, and keep the disagreements visible instead of averaging them away.

  1. 1

    Collect each rater's own score

    Every source keeps its native verdict for this product. We never invent a score for an axis a source didn't measure.

  2. 2

    Normalize to 0–100, higher = better

    Raters can use different scales and directions: some where a low number means safe, some where a high one does. We map them all onto one 0–100 axis and flip the ones that run backwards so the numbers are finally comparable.

  3. 3

    Average per axis, but keep the spread

    Scores on the same axis become one representative number (their mean). When raters split by 20+ points we flag it and keep every rater's number. A disagreement is never blended into silence.

  4. 4

    Your weights make the overall

    The ring is the weighted average of the four pillars using your weights. It's computed fresh every time and never stored, so there's no hidden “objective” default.

worked example · Ingredient safety

  • Greenlens Ingredient Scan59 on 0–100→59
  • Greenlens Tolerance Screen88 on 0–100→88
  • Greenlens Precautionary Screen98 on 0–100→98
  • ANSES Endocrine Disruptors25 on 0–100→25
  • EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI)45 on 0–100→45
Average of 59 · 88 · 98 · 25 · 45pillar44

Raters split here, so this 44 is a midpoint, not a consensus. The spread stays on the “every rater” list above.

Why the safety score

Greenlens Ingredient Scan

Independent · EU regulatory reference

59/100

Flagged 7 of 19 ingredients: 2 restricted, 1 of concern, 3 regulated allergens.

  • N,N-BIS(2-HYDROXYETHYL)- P-PHENYLENEDIAMINE SULFATEEU Cosmetics Regulation Annex III (restricted)−10
  • Trialkylamines, trialkanolamines and their saltsEU Cosmetics Regulation Annex III (restricted)−10
  • Fragrance / Parfum (undisclosed)Common transparency/sensitization concern (not a regulatory ban)−12
  • LimoneneEU Cosmetics Regulation Annex III / Reg. (EU) 2023/1545 (labelled fragrance allergen)−3
  • LinaloolEU Cosmetics Regulation Annex III / Reg. (EU) 2023/1545 (labelled fragrance allergen)−3
  • Amyl CinnamalEU Cosmetics Regulation Annex III / Reg. (EU) 2023/1545 (labelled fragrance allergen)−3

Starts at 100; 13 other ingredients carried no recognized regulated hazard. Absence of a flag means no regulated hazard was recognized — not proof of safety. This is one lens; see where raters disagree above.

Why this score

Every ingredient, under all three lenses

The Scan is one opinion. The strict and lenient lenses read the same list and land 39 points apart. See what each one flags, and what it costs.

All three lenses →

Weighted by what you care about

Tune your weights

composite recomputes live

+
1.0×
1.0×
1.0×
Packagingno rating

No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.

0 means ignored. Higher = more weight in your composite.

Ingredients, decoded

Data availability

Good·16 of 19 characterized

Our sources have reference data on 16 of 19 listed ingredients; 3 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.

Every listed ingredient: its function, where our safety lists land, and whether our sources have data on it.
IngredientWhat it doesSafetyData
Coconut water 1031008 F5 Aqua/Water→—Not in our sourcesNo data
Pvp→film formingantistaticbindingfilm formingantistaticbindingNo flags in our sourcesWell-characterized
Propylene Glycon→—Not in our sourcesNo data
Alcohol Denat→fragranceantimicrobialantifoamingfragranceantimicrobialantifoaming6/10ANSES endocrine candidate· flagged by 3 of 9raters disagreeReferenced
Oleth-20→cleansingsurfactant - cleansingcleansingsurfactant - cleansingNo flags in our sourcesWell-characterized
Phenoxyethanol→preservativeantimicrobialpreservativeantimicrobial4/10Mild sensitizer for some· flagged by 1 of 9raters disagreeReferenced
Triethanolamine→fragrancebufferingsurfactant - cleansingfragrancebufferingsurfactant - cleansing8/10ANSES CMR-listed· flagged by 3 of 9raters disagreeReferenced
Carbomer→emulsion stabilisinggel formingviscosity controllingemulsion stabilisinggel formingviscosity controlling4/10EU microplastics-restricted· flagged by 1 of 9raters disagreeReferenced
Parfum / Fragrance→—4/10Transparency concern· flagged by 1 of 9raters disagreeReferenced
Polyquaternium-11→film formingantistaticfilm formingantistaticNo flags in our sourcesCosIng-catalogued
Peg/Ppg-22/24 Dimethicone→surfactant - emulsifyingsurfactant - emulsifyingNo flags in our sourcesCosIng-catalogued
Ethylhexylglycerin→deodorantskin conditioningdeodorantskin conditioningNo flags in our sourcesWell-characterized
Pentasodium Pentetate→chelatingchelating8/10EU harmonised CMR (cat. 1)· flagged by 1 of 9raters disagreeReferenced
Limonene→perfumingdeodorantsolventperfumingdeodorantsolvent7/10ANSES endocrine candidate· flagged by 3 of 9raters disagreeReferenced
Benzophenone-4 Hexyl Cinnamal→—Not in our sourcesNo data
Linalool→perfumingdeodorantperfumingdeodorant6/10EU harmonised skin sensitizer· flagged by 2 of 9raters disagreeReferenced
Peg-70 Mango Glycerides→surfactant - cleansingsurfactant - emulsifyingsurfactant - cleansingsurfactant - emulsifyingNo flags in our sourcesCosIng-catalogued
Butyrospermum Parkii Butter/Shea Butter→—No flags in our sourcesWell-characterized
Amyl Cinnamal→perfumingperfuming4/10EU-regulated fragrance allergen· flagged by 1 of 9raters disagreeReferenced