Greenlens

Navigate

  • Browse
  • In your home
  • Ask Sonion
  • Methodology
  • Criteria
  • Extension
  • How scoring works
  • Account
Cosmetics only · lead with safetyProduct data from public sources incl. Open Beauty Facts & EWG Skin Deep · their ratings never scraped or shown
As an Amazon Associate, Greenlens earns from qualifying purchases. Affiliate income never changes a rating or ranking.PrivacyTerms
Catalog/Vanicream/Gentle Facial Cleanser
Gentle Facial Cleanser
Vanicream

Gentle Facial Cleanser

Cleanser
CLAY CLEANSER WITH LAVENDER Travel Size

Cleaner pick · Safest cleansers & exfoliants we have rated

Sodashi

CLAY CLEANSER WITH LAVENDER Travel Size

+26 on ingredient safety

16 AUD

Ingredient safetyRaters agree
Find on Amazon ↗See all 2134 cleaner options →

Ranked by safety only. Greenlens earns from qualifying purchases. Payout never affects a rating, a ranking, or the cleaner pick.

Your composite

64OUT OF 100Fair

range 61–71

74▲▼ split
Safety
86
Eco
—
Labor
32
Pkg

Why this score

15-point split

80

Scan

95

Precautionary

88

Tolerance

See why →
Find on Amazon↗

Greenlens earns from qualifying purchases. Payout never affects a rating, a ranking, or the cleaner pick.

In your home

Sort this into a room

Cleaner options

2134 found

See better →

Flagged

3 ingredients

What's flagged →

Raters split

Ingredient safety

A 30-point gap between the two loudest voices.

65ANSES Endocrine DisruptorsGovernment
vs
95Greenlens Precautionary ScreenIndependent
050100
See why, ingredient by ingredient→

All 2134 cleaner options, safest first → We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.

Every rater, every axis

Ingredient safety

30 pts apart
  • 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 →

  • 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 · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist

✓Recognized on a safer-ingredients list: US EPA Safer Choice recognizes 75% of ingredients as safer choices — a marker, never a score.

Environmental

  • A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. 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

+
1.0×
1.0×
Laborno rating

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

1.0×
0 means ignored. Higher = more weight in your composite.

What we know about the packaging

Partly identified·1 of 2 identified

1 of 2 packaging components is a named material; Plastic (unspecified) is recorded only in general terms, so that part of the score is a stand-in.

  • 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

Robust·12 of 12 characterized

Our sources have reference data on all 12 listed ingredients.

Worth a look (3)

  • titanium dioxide8/10uv filter · uv absorber · colorantraters disagree

    ANSES CMR-listed · flagged by 5 of 9 lists →

  • acrylates copolymer4/10film forming · antistatic · bindingraters disagree

    EU microplastics-restricted · flagged by 1 of 9 lists →

  • sodium hydroxide4/10buffering · denaturantraters disagree

    EU-restricted (with limits) · flagged by 2 of 9 lists →

✓No flags in our sources (9)

  • water
  • glycerinhumectant
  • coco-glucoside
  • sodium cocoyl glycinate
  • caprylyl glycol
  • mica
  • sodium chloride
  • 1,2-hexanediol
  • disodium EDTA
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.

  • humectantglycerin

    • glycerin: A humectant, and one of the two ingredients a comparison of moisturiser components found made a significant difference to skin hydration. FDA OTC skin protectant monograph, 21 CFR 347.10(h), lists glycerin as a skin protectant at 20 to 45%. On the humectant half: Jeong CB, Han JY, Cho JC, Suh KD, Nam GW, "Analysis of electrical property changes of skin by oil-in-water emulsion components", Int J Cosmet Sci 2013;35(4):402-410, DOI 10.1111/ics.12059, PMID 23621673, found that "glycerine and urea showed significant skin hydration effects compared with other humectants".