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 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/Johnson & Johnson/Johnson's Baby Creamy Oil (2018 formulation)
Johnson's Baby Creamy Oil (2018 formulation)
Johnson & Johnson

Johnson's Baby Creamy Oil (2018 formulation)

Baby
BioCare Baby All Weather Cream *

Cleaner pick · Safest skin & diaper we have rated

Estelle & Thild

BioCare Baby All Weather Cream *

+46 on ingredient safety

75ml · 149 SEK · 198.67 SEK/100 ml

Ingredient safetyRaters agree
Find on Amazon ↗See all 1252 cleaner options →

Ranked by safety only. We may earn a commission on the link; it never changes the order.

Your composite

55OUT OF 100Fair

range 52–64

54▲▼ split
Safety
90
Eco
30
Labor
46
Pkg

Why this score

46-point split

62

Scan

42

Precautionary

88

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

1252 found

See better →

Flags

No ingredient flags.

Raters split

Ingredient safety

A 46-point gap between the two loudest voices.

42Greenlens Precautionary ScreenIndependent
vs
88Greenlens Tolerance ScreenIndependent
050100
See why, ingredient by ingredient→

All 1252 cleaner options, safest first → We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.

Every rater, every axis

Ingredient safety

46 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 →

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

  • A government authority. Low-confidence auto-match — it may describe a different size or variant. 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 →

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

✓US EPA Safer Choice (SCIL) recognizes 52% of ingredients as safer choices — a marker, never a score.

Environmental

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

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

9 ratings · 4 of 4 axes

  • At least one rating was auto-linked to this product on a low-confidence match, so it may describe a different size or variant.

Weighted by what you care about

Tune your weights

composite recomputes live

+
1.0×
1.0×
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 (6)

  • TITANIUM DIOXIDE8/10uv filter · uv absorber · colorantraters disagree

    ANSES CMR-listed · flagged by 5 of 9 lists

  • FRAGRANCE6/10perfumingraters disagree

    Undisclosed fragrance blend · flagged by 2 of 9 lists

  • ALOE BARBADENSIS LEAF EXTRACT4/10humectant · emollient · oral careraters disagree

    IARC possible carcinogen (Group 2B) · flagged by 1 of 9 lists

  • CARBOMER4/10emulsion stabilising · gel forming · viscosity controllingraters disagree

    EU microplastics-restricted · flagged by 1 of 9 lists

  • SODIUM HYDROXIDE4/10buffering · denaturantraters disagree

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

  • PHENOXYETHANOL4/10preservative · antimicrobialraters disagree

    Mild sensitizer for some · flagged by 1 of 9 lists

✓No flags in our sources (19)

  • WATER
  • GLYCERIN
  • CETYL ALCOHOL
  • COCOGLYCERIDES
  • GLYCINE SOJA OIL
  • TOCOPHERYL ACETATE
  • BUTYROSPERMUM PARKII BUTTER
  • THEOBROMA CACAO SEED BUTTER
  • DIMETHICONE
  • MINERAL OIL
  • ZEA MAYS STARCH
  • HYDROGENATED PALM GLYCERIDES
  • POTASSIUM CETYL PHOSPHATE
  • HYDROGENATED COTTONSEED OIL
  • GLYCERYL OLEATE
  • P-ANISIC ACID
  • DISODIUM EDTA
  • ETHYLHEXYLGLYCERIN
  • MICA