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/As I Am/Hydration Elation Intensive Conditioner (2019 formulation)
Hydration Elation Intensive Conditioner (2019 formulation)
As I Am

Hydration Elation Intensive Conditioner (2019 formulation)

Conditioner

As I Am

Hydration Elation Intensive Conditioner (2019 formulation)

Conditioner

hover a pillar to set the scene →

Your composite

52OUT OF 100Poor

range 44–73

—
Eco
—
Labor

Why this score

58-point split

62

Scan

42

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

482 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 482 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 →

  • 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 →

✓Also screened, nothing found: ECHA SVHC Candidate List · IARC Monographs · California Proposition 65 · Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist · US NTP Report on Carcinogens

Environmental

    ✓Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction

    Packaging

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

    Coverage & match quality

    6 ratings · 2 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.

    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·29 of 29 characterized

    Our sources have reference data on all 29 listed ingredients.

    Worth a look (3)

    • LIMONENE7/10perfuming · deodorant · solventraters disagree

      ANSES endocrine candidate · flagged by 3 of 9 lists

    • FRAGRANCE/PARFUM6/10perfumingraters disagree

      Undisclosed fragrance blend · 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 (26)

    • AQUA/WATER/EAU
    • COCOS NUCIFERA OIL
    • BETAINE
    • CETYL ESTERS
    • CETYL ALCOHOL
    • GLYCERIN
    • QUATERNIUM-91
    • CETEARYL ALCOHOL
    • CETRIMONIUM METHOSULFATE
    • BUTYROSPERMUM PARKII BUTTER
    • PHYTOSTEROLS
    • MANGIFERA INDICA SEED BUTTER
    • COCOS NUCIFERA FRUIT POWDER
    • CITRUS RETICULATA FRUIT EXTRACT
    • CAMELLIA OLEIFERA LEAF EXTRACT
    • PYRUS MALUS FRUIT EXTRACT
    • CITRUS LIMON PEEL EXTRACT
    • SACCHARUM OFFICINARUM EXTRACT
    • TOCOPHERYL ACETATE
    • CAPRYLYL GLYCOL
    • POLYQUATERNIUM-37
    • PROPYLENE GLYCOL DICAPRYLATE/DICAPRATE
    • PPG-1 TRIDECETH-6
    • SODIUM BENZOATE
    • CAPRYLIC/CAPRIC TRIGLYCERIDE
    • ABIES BALSAMEA RESIN