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/Colgate/MaxClean SmartFoam with Whitening Anticavity FluorideToothpaste, Effervescent Mint
MaxClean SmartFoam with Whitening Anticavity FluorideToothpaste, Effervescent Mint
Colgate

MaxClean SmartFoam with Whitening Anticavity FluorideToothpaste, Effervescent Mint

Oral Care
Natural Tooth Powder, Cinnamon

Cleaner pick · Safest oral care we have rated

BEE-OCH Organics

Natural Tooth Powder, Cinnamon

+45 on ingredient safety

Ingredient safetyRaters agree
Find on Amazon ↗See all 863 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 50–84

55▲▼ split
Safety
78
Eco
59▲▼ split
Labor
—
Pkg

Why this score

40-point split

46

Scan

42

Precautionary

82

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

863 found

See better →

Flagged

7 ingredients

What's flagged →

Raters split

Labor

A 58-point gap between the two loudest voices.

30Cruelty-Free CertificationNonprofit
vs
88Open Beauty Facts CertificationsNonprofit
050100

All 863 cleaner options, safest first → We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.

Every rater, every axis

Ingredient safety

43 pts apart
  • 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 →

  • Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. 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 →

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

✓Also screened, nothing found: US NTP Report on Carcinogens · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · California Proposition 65 · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI)

✓Recognized on a safer-ingredients list: US EPA Safer Choice recognizes 53% 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 →

Labor

58 pts apart
  • Run by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. This rates Colgate as a company and applies to everything they make, not this product alone. Checked this week. about this rater →

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

Coverage & match quality

9 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×
1.0×
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

Robust·18 of 19 characterized

Our sources have reference data on 18 of 19 listed ingredients; 1 is uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.

Worth a look (7)

  • Titanium Dioxide8/10uv filter · uv absorber · colorantraters disagree

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

  • Flavor6/10flavouring agent · fragrance ingredientraters disagree

    Undisclosed fragrance blend · flagged by 2 of 9 lists →

  • Cocamidopropyl Betaine6/10common irritantantistatic · cleansing · hair conditioningraters disagree

    Strong contact sensitizer · flagged by 1 of 9 lists →

  • Sodium Fluoride )4/10antiplaque · oral careraters disagree

    EU-restricted (with limits) · flagged by 3 of 9 lists →

  • Sodium Lauryl Sulfate4/10common irritantcleansing · denaturant · foamingraters disagree

    Transparency concern · flagged by 1 of 9 lists →

  • Polyethylene4/10film forming · abrasive · viscosity controllingraters disagree

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

  • FD&C Blue 14/10raters disagree

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

✓No flags in our sources (11)

  • Water
  • Sorbitol
  • Hydrated Silica
  • PEG 12
  • Xanthan Gum
  • Tetrasodium Pyrophosphate
  • Sodium Saccharin
  • Mica
  • Iron Oxides
  • Methylcellulose
  • D&C Yellow 10

No data in our sources (1)

  • Poloxomer 407

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

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.

  • common irritantSodium Lauryl Sulfate, Cocamidopropyl Betaine

    • Sodium Lauryl Sulfate: A strong cleansing agent used as the reference irritant in skin-irritation testing. OECD Test Guideline 439 (in vitro skin irritation, reconstructed human epidermis), paragraph 24: "The suggested PC is 5% aqueous SDS", sodium dodecyl sulphate, the same substance as sodium lauryl sulfate, CAS 151-21-3.
    • Cocamidopropyl Betaine: A mild cleansing agent, but a recurring patch-test finding, usually traced to leftovers from how it is made. American Contact Dermatitis Society, Allergen of the Year 2004 (Fowler JF Jr, Dermatitis 2004;15(1):3-4).