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/Shaklee/YOUTH Restoring Eye Treatment
YOUTH Restoring Eye Treatment
Shaklee

YOUTH Restoring Eye Treatment

Eye Cream

Shaklee

YOUTH Restoring Eye Treatment

Eye Cream

hover a pillar to set the scene →

Your composite

47OUT OF 100Poor

range 36–70

—
Eco
—
Labor

Why this score

69-point split

90

Scan

25

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

319 found

See better →

Flags

No ingredient flags.

Raters split

Ingredient safety

A 69-point gap between the two loudest voices.

25Greenlens Precautionary ScreenIndependent
vs
94Greenlens Tolerance ScreenIndependent
050100
See why, ingredient by ingredient→

Cleaner options

See 319 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

69 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 →

  • 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 · ANSES Endocrine Disruptors · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · 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·40 of 41 characterized

    Our sources have reference data on 40 of 41 listed ingredients; 1 is uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.

    Worth a look (2)

    • Retinyl Palmitate9/10skin conditioningraters disagree

      Carcinogen-linked · flagged by 5 of 9 lists

    • Phenoxyethanol4/10preservative · antimicrobialraters disagree

      Mild sensitizer for some · flagged by 1 of 9 lists

    ✓No flags in our sources (38)

    • Water
    • Glycerin
    • Dunaliella Salina Extract
    • Panthenol
    • Tocopheryl Acetate
    • Magnesium Ascorbyl Phosphate
    • Schisandra Chinensis Fruit Extract
    • Vitis Rotundifolia Fruit Extract
    • Mangifera Indica Seed Butter
    • Propanediol
    • Hydroxyethyl Acrylate/Sodium Acryloyldimethyl Taurate Copolymer
    • Lactobacillus Ferment
    • Squalane
    • Pentaerythrityl Tetraethylhexanoate
    • Methyl Gluceth-20
    • Betaine
    • Palmitoyl Tripeptide-5
    • Glycyrrhiza Glabra Root Extract
    • Enteromorpha Compressa Extract
    • Isononyl Isononanoate
    • Laminaria Digitata Extract
    • Inulin Lauryl Carbamate
    • Sodium Phytate
    • Polysorbate 60
    • Sodium Hyaluronate
    • Caprylyl Glycol
    • Vitis Vinifera Seed Extract
    • Beta-Glucan
    • Sorbitan Isostearate
    • Isoamyl Laurate
    • Cetearyl Glucoside
    • Cetearyl Alcohol
    • 1,2-Hexanediol
    • Urea
    • Glucosamine HCl
    • Superoxide Dismutase
    • Caesalpinia Spinosa Gum
    • Saccharomyces Cerevisiae Extract

    No data in our sources (1)

    • Lotus Japonicus Extract

    Not a verdict — our authorities simply have no reference for these.