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/Dove/Men+care Shampoo, Conditioner, Body Wash, Endurance
Dove

Men+care Shampoo, Conditioner, Body Wash, Endurance

Conditioner
Bio Therapy Conditioner

Cleaner pick · Safest cleansing we have rated

Africology Skincare & Spa

Bio Therapy Conditioner

+45 on ingredient safety, gives up 14 on packaging

250ml · 47.50 ZAR · 19 ZAR/100 ml

Ingredient safetyRaters agree
Find on Amazon ↗See all 5181 cleaner options →

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

Your composite

62OUT OF 100Fair

range 58–71

55▲▼ split
Safety
90
Eco
55
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

5181 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 5181 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 →

  • 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 →

  • 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: US NTP Report on Carcinogens · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · IARC Monographs · California Proposition 65

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.

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·20 of 20 characterized

Our sources have reference data on all 20 listed ingredients.

Worth a look (9)

  • CITRAL7/10perfuming · flavouringraters disagree

    ANSES endocrine candidate · flagged by 3 of 9 lists

  • LIMONENE7/10perfuming · deodorant · solventraters disagree

    ANSES endocrine candidate · flagged by 3 of 9 lists

  • COCAMIDOPROPYL BETAINE6/10antistatic · cleansing · hair conditioningraters disagree

    Strong contact sensitizer · flagged by 1 of 9 lists

  • FRAGRANCE6/10perfumingraters disagree

    Undisclosed fragrance blend · flagged by 2 of 9 lists

  • GERANIOL6/10perfuming · tonicraters disagree

    EU harmonised skin sensitizer · flagged by 2 of 9 lists

  • LINALOOL6/10perfuming · deodorantraters disagree

    EU harmonised skin sensitizer · flagged by 2 of 9 lists

  • CITRIC ACID4/10fragrance · chelating · bufferingraters disagree

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

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

    EU microplastics-restricted · flagged by 1 of 9 lists

  • TEA-DODECYLBENZENESULFONATE4/10cleansing · foaming · surfactant - cleansingraters disagree

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

✓No flags in our sources (11)

  • WATER
  • SODIUM C12-13 PARETH SULFATE
  • SODIUM CHLORIDE
  • SODIUM BENZOATE
  • DIMETHICONOL
  • PPG-9
  • GUAR HYDROXYPROPYLTRIMONIUM CHLORIDE
  • DISODIUM EDTA
  • GLYCERIN
  • CITRUS AURANTIUM DULCIS PEEL EXTRACT
  • SODIUM BICARBONATE