Kim Chi Chic
Halographic Toppers, 04 Color Shimmer Palette
Eye Shadow
Cleaner pick · Safest eyes we have rated
Mineral Fusion
Liquid Mineral Eyeliner+39 on ingredient safety, gives up 5 on labor practices
0.1oz · $17.99 · $179.90/oz
Ingredient safetyRaters agree
Ranked by safety only. We may earn a commission on the link; it never changes the order.
Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 41-point gap between the two loudest voices.
47IARC MonographsGovernment
vs88Greenlens Precautionary ScreenIndependent
050100
See why, ingredient by ingredientAll 7721 cleaner options, safest first We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.
Every rater, every axis
Ingredient safety
41 pts apartIndependent — 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 →
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 · ECHA SVHC Candidate List
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
- Some ratings rest on an automatic match that has not been human-reviewed.
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.
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
Robust18 of 20 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 18 of 20 listed ingredients; 2 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.
Worth a look (4)
ANSES CMR-listedflagged by 5 of 9 lists
IARC probable carcinogen (Group 2A)flagged by 5 of 9 lists
EU microplastics-restrictedflagged by 1 of 9 lists
Mild sensitizer for someflagged by 1 of 9 lists
No flags in our sources (14)
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.