hover a pillar to set the scene →
Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 32-point gap between the two loudest voices.
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 →
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: California Proposition 65 · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist · IARC Monographs · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · ANSES Endocrine Disruptors
A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →
Run by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →
Coverage & match quality
6 ratings · 3 of 4 axes
Tune your weights
composite recomputes live
+No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.
Data availability
Robust25 of 27 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 25 of 27 listed ingredients; 2 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.
Worth a look (4)
EU microplastics-restrictedflagged by 1 of 9 lists
Persistent / bioaccumulativeflagged by 2 of 9 lists
Persistent / bioaccumulativeflagged by 1 of 9 lists
Mild sensitizer for someflagged by 1 of 9 lists
No flags in our sources (21)
No data in our sources (2)
Not a verdict — our authorities simply have no reference for these.
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.