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/Truffoire/Black Truffle Fine Line Filler Syringe
T
Truffoire

Black Truffle Fine Line Filler Syringe

Anti-Aging
Transparen-C Pro Brightening Moisturizer

Cleaner pick · Safest treatments we have rated

Peach & Lily

Transparen-C Pro Brightening Moisturizer

+52 on ingredient safety

50ml · $52 · $104/100 ml

Ingredient safetyRaters agree
Find on Amazon ↗See all 821 cleaner options →

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

Your composite

47OUT OF 100Poor

range 36–67

48▲▼ split
Safety
—
Eco
—
Labor
46
Pkg

Why this score

63-point split

80

Scan

25

Precautionary

88

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

821 found

See better →

Flags

No ingredient flags.

Raters split

Ingredient safety

A 63-point gap between the two loudest voices.

25Greenlens Precautionary ScreenIndependent
vs
88Greenlens Tolerance ScreenIndependent
050100
See why, ingredient by ingredient→

All 821 cleaner options, safest first → We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.

Every rater, every axis

Ingredient safety

63 pts apart
  • 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 →

  • 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: EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · ECHA SVHC Candidate List

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

    8 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·19 of 19 characterized

    Our sources have reference data on all 19 listed ingredients.

    Worth a look (3)

    • Retinyl Palmitate9/10skin conditioningraters disagree

      Carcinogen-linked · flagged by 5 of 9 lists

    • Titanium Dioxide8/10uv filter · uv absorber · colorantraters disagree

      ANSES CMR-listed · 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 (16)

    • Aqua
    • Sodium Silicate
    • Magnesium Aluminum Silicate
    • Sodium Polystyrene Sulfonate
    • Cucumis Sativus Fruit Extract
    • Acetyl Hexapeptide-8
    • Caprylic/Capric Triglyceride
    • Sodium Hyaluronate
    • Persea Gratissima Oil
    • Tuber Melanosporum Extract
    • Ethylhexylglycerin
    • Iron Oxide
    • Mica
    • Xanthan Gum
    • Dimethylaminoethanol Tartrate
    • Tocopheryl Acetate