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/Derma E/Anti-Wrinkle Vitamin A Glycolic Scrub (2019 formulation)
Anti-Wrinkle Vitamin A Glycolic Scrub (2019 formulation)
Derma E

Anti-Wrinkle Vitamin A Glycolic Scrub (2019 formulation)

Anti-Aging

Derma E

Anti-Wrinkle Vitamin A Glycolic Scrub (2019 formulation)

Anti-Aging

hover a pillar to set the scene →

Your composite

61OUT OF 100Fair

range 54–77

—
Eco

Why this score

69-point split

62

Scan

25

Precautionary

94

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

479 found

See better →

Flags

No ingredient flags.

Raters split

Ingredient safety

A 69-point gap between the two loudest voices.

25Greenlens Precautionary ScreenIndependent
vs
94Greenlens Tolerance ScreenIndependent
050100
See why, ingredient by ingredient→

Cleaner options

See 479 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

69 pts apart
  • 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 →

  • 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 →

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

✓Also screened, nothing found: ECHA SVHC Candidate List · IARC Monographs · ANSES Endocrine Disruptors · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · 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

    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×
    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·24 of 24 characterized

    Our sources have reference data on all 24 listed ingredients.

    Worth a look (5)

    • RETINYL PALMITATE9/10skin conditioningraters disagree

      Carcinogen-linked · flagged by 5 of 9 lists

    • NATURAL FRAGRANCE OILS6/10raters disagree

      Undisclosed fragrance blend · flagged by 2 of 9 lists

    • GLYCOLIC ACID4/10bufferingraters disagree

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

    • CYMBOPOGON SCHOENANTHUS EXTRACT4/10soothing · skin conditioningraters disagree

      EU-regulated fragrance allergen · flagged by 1 of 9 lists

    • PHENOXYETHANOL4/10preservative · antimicrobialraters disagree

      Mild sensitizer for some · flagged by 1 of 9 lists

    ✓No flags in our sources (19)

    • PURIFIED WATER
    • CETYL ALCOHOL
    • STEARIC ACID
    • HYDROXYPROPYL STARCH PHOSPHATE
    • PRUNUS ARMENIACA SEED POWDER
    • DECYL GLUCOSIDE
    • POLYSORBATE 60
    • GLYCERIN
    • GLYCERYL STEARATE SE
    • CETEARYL ALCOHOL
    • XANTHAN GUM
    • CARICA PAPAYA FRUIT EXTRACT
    • ASCORBYL PALMITATE
    • TOCOPHERYL ACETATE
    • PANTHENOL
    • EQUISETUM ARVENSE EXTRACT
    • MACROCYSTIS PYRIFERA EXTRACT
    • ORGANIC CALENDULA OFFICINALIS FLOWER EXTRACT
    • ETHYLHEXYLGLYCERIN

    Where this came from

    Cruelty-free status recorded from leapingbunny.org ↗

    Researched facts on Greenlens always carry the page that stated them — nothing is inferred from a model's memory.