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/Walmart/Cupcake Bath Fizz, Hello Bath (2020 formulation)
Cupcake Bath Fizz, Hello Bath (2020 formulation)
Walmart

Cupcake Bath Fizz, Hello Bath (2020 formulation)

Bath Oil Salts Soak
Vagus Nerve Bath Oil

Cleaner pick · Safest bath we have rated

OSEA Malibu

Vagus Nerve Bath Oil

+46 on ingredient safety

$48

Ingredient safetyRaters agree
Find on Amazon ↗See all 1583 cleaner options →

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

Your composite

59OUT OF 100Fair

range 55–70

54▲▼ split
Safety
78
Eco
—
Labor
46
Pkg

Why this score

34-point split

48

Scan

42

Precautionary

76

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

1583 found

See better →

Flags

No ingredient flags.

Raters split

Ingredient safety

A 43-point gap between the two loudest voices.

42Greenlens Precautionary ScreenIndependent
vs
85Health Canada Ingredient HotlistGovernment
050100
See why, ingredient by ingredient→

All 1583 cleaner options, safest first → We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.

Every rater, every axis

Ingredient safety

43 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 →

  • 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 · IARC Monographs · ECHA SVHC Candidate List

✓US EPA Safer Choice (SCIL) recognizes 75% 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

7 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·12 of 12 characterized

Our sources have reference data on all 12 listed ingredients.

Worth a look (8)

  • ALCOHOL6/10fragrance · antimicrobial · antifoamingraters disagree

    ANSES endocrine candidate · flagged by 1 of 9 lists

  • FRAGRANCE6/10perfumingraters disagree

    Undisclosed fragrance blend · flagged by 2 of 9 lists

  • CITRIC ACID4/10fragrance · chelating · bufferingraters disagree

    Health Canada Hotlist — restricted · flagged by 1 of 9 lists

  • POLYETHYLENE TEREPHTHALATE4/10film formingraters disagree

    EU microplastics-restricted · flagged by 1 of 9 lists

  • FD&C RED NO. 404/10raters disagree

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

  • FD&C YELLOW NO. 54/10raters disagree

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

  • D&C RED NO. 334/10raters disagree

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

  • FD&C BLUE NO. 14/10raters disagree

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

✓No flags in our sources (4)

  • SODIUM SULFATE
  • SODIUM BICARBONATE
  • PEG-90
  • PEG-8