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
  • Ask Sonion
  • 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/ATTITUDE/Super Leaves Hand Cream, Olive Leaves (2020 Formulation)
Super Leaves Hand Cream, Olive Leaves (2020 Formulation)
ATTITUDE

Super Leaves Hand Cream, Olive Leaves (2020 Formulation)

Body

ATTITUDE

Super Leaves Hand Cream, Olive Leaves (2020 Formulation)

Body

hover a pillar to set the scene →

Your composite

68OUT OF 100Fair

range 64–77

—
Eco

Why this score

3-point split

97

Scan

100

Precautionary

100

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

757 found

See better →

Flags

No ingredient flags.

Raters split

Ingredient safety

A 40-point gap between the two loudest voices.

60ANSES Endocrine DisruptorsGovernment
vs
100Greenlens Precautionary ScreenIndependent
050100
See why, ingredient by ingredient→

Cleaner options

See 757 cleaner alternatives

Same category, all safer. We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.

See better →

Every rater, every axis

Ingredient safety

40 pts apart
  • A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →

  • Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →

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

  • Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →

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

  • Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →

✓Also screened, nothing found: IARC Monographs · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · California Proposition 65 · US NTP Report on Carcinogens

Environmental

    ✓Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction

    Labor

    • Run by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →

    Packaging

    • Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →

    Coverage & match quality

    8 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

    Unidentified·0 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

    Nobody published the material for this product, so it was read from the product photo — the container looks like this, rather than the maker saying so. Treat the packaging score as weaker here than on a product with a declared material.

    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·25 of 25 characterized

    Our sources have reference data on all 25 listed ingredients.

    Worth a look (3)

    • hexyl salicylate7/10perfuming · fragranceraters disagree

      ANSES endocrine candidate · flagged by 2 of 9 lists

    • geranyl acetate6/10perfuming · tonicraters disagree

      ANSES endocrine candidate · flagged by 2 of 9 lists

    • citric acid4/10fragrance · chelating · bufferingraters disagree

      Health Canada Hotlist — restricted · flagged by 1 of 9 lists

    ✓No flags in our sources (22)

    • Aqua/water/eau
    • butyrospermum parkii butter
    • vegetable glycerin
    • caprylic/capric triglyceride
    • tapioca starch
    • dicaprylyl ether
    • olea europaea oil
    • vitis vinifera seed oil
    • glyceryl stearate
    • cetearyl olivate
    • octyldodecanol
    • cetearyl alcohol
    • sorbitan olivate
    • caprylyl glycol
    • magnolol
    • honokiol
    • nasturtium officinale extract
    • tropaeolum majus extract
    • moringa oleifera seed extract
    • maltodextrin
    • olea europaea leaf extract
    • hexyl acetate

    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.