hover a pillar to set the scene →
Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 58-point gap between the two loudest voices.
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 →
Also screened, nothing found: California Proposition 65 · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · IARC Monographs · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · ANSES Endocrine Disruptors
US EPA Safer Choice (SCIL) recognizes 61% of ingredients as safer choices — a marker, never a score.
A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →
Run by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →
Coverage & match quality
6 ratings · 3 of 4 axes
Tune your weights
composite recomputes live
+No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.
Data availability
Robust31 of 31 characterized
Our sources have reference data on all 31 listed ingredients.
Worth a look (5)
Strong contact sensitizerflagged by 1 of 9 lists
Undisclosed fragrance blendflagged by 2 of 9 lists
EU microplastics-restrictedflagged by 1 of 9 lists
Mild sensitizer for someflagged by 1 of 9 lists
Health Canada Hotlist — restrictedflagged by 1 of 9 lists
No flags in our sources (26)
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.