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/Parent's Choice/Night Time Baby Lotion, Calming Lavender (2019 formulation)
Night Time Baby Lotion, Calming Lavender (2019 formulation)
Parent's Choice

Night Time Baby Lotion, Calming Lavender (2019 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

63OUT OF 100Fair

range 59–77

54▲▼ split
Safety
90
Eco
—
Labor
46
Pkg

Why this score

52-point split

62

Scan

42

Precautionary

94

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 52-point gap between the two loudest voices.

42Greenlens Precautionary ScreenIndependent
vs
94Greenlens 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

52 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: California Proposition 65 · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist · IARC Monographs · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · ANSES Endocrine Disruptors

✓US EPA Safer Choice (SCIL) recognizes 73% 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 →

Packaging

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

Coverage & match quality

5 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×
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·11 of 11 characterized

Our sources have reference data on all 11 listed ingredients.

Worth a look (4)

  • FRAGRANCE6/10perfumingraters disagree

    Undisclosed fragrance blend · flagged by 2 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 (7)

  • WATER
  • MINERAL OIL
  • GLYCERIN
  • CETEARETH-6
  • SODIUM CITRATE
  • STEARYL ALCOHOL
  • ETHYLHEXYLGLYCERIN