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/Agellum/Arabica Coffee Lip Scrub
Arabica Coffee Lip Scrub
Agellum

Arabica Coffee Lip Scrub

Body

Agellum

Arabica Coffee Lip Scrub

Body

hover a pillar to set the scene →

Your composite

55OUT OF 100Fair

Ingredient safety only

range 42–100

—
Eco
—
Labor
—
Pkg

Why this score

12-point split

88

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

908 found

See better →

Flags

No ingredient flags.

Raters split

Ingredient safety

A 58-point gap between the two loudest voices.

42Greenlens Precautionary ScreenIndependent
vs
100Greenlens Tolerance ScreenIndependent
050100
See why, ingredient by ingredient→

Cleaner options

See 908 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

58 pts apart
  • 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 →

  • 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 · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · California Proposition 65 · ANSES Endocrine Disruptors · Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist · US NTP Report on Carcinogens

✓US EPA Safer Choice (SCIL) recognizes 54% of ingredients as safer choices — a marker, never a score.

Environmental

    ✓Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction

    Coverage & match quality

    3 ratings · 1 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.

    Laborno rating

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

    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·11 of 13 characterized

    Our sources have reference data on 11 of 13 listed ingredients; 2 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.

    Worth a look (1)

    • Flavor4/10flavouring agent · fragrance ingredientraters disagree

      Transparency concern · flagged by 1 of 9 lists

    ✓No flags in our sources (10)

    • Carthamus Tinctorius Seed Oil
    • Ethylene/Propylene/Styrene Copolymer
    • Butylene/Ethylene/Styrene Copolymer
    • Pentaerythrityl Tetra-di-t-butyl Hydroxyhydrocinnamate
    • Cera Alba
    • Silica
    • Coffea Arabica Seed Powder
    • Butyrospermum Parkii Butter
    • Theobroma Cacao Seed Butter
    • Caramel

    No data in our sources (2)

    • Sugar
    • Hydrogenated Poly

    Not a verdict — our authorities simply have no reference for these.