Lip Care, Candy Cane (2018 formulation) safety rating

Lip Care, Candy Cane (2018 formulation) safety rating | Greenlens

Raters split

Ingredient safety

A 52-point gap between the two loudest voices.

42Greenlens Precautionary ScreenIndependent

vs

94Greenlens Tolerance ScreenIndependent

050100

All 1627 cleaner options, safest first We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.

Every rater, every axis

52 pts apart

Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →
A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →
Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →
Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →
A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →

Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction

Run by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. This rates ChapStick as a company and applies to everything they make, not this product alone. Checked this week. 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.

Tune your weights

composite recomputes live

+

Ingredient safety1.0×

Environmentalno rating

No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.

Labor1.0×

Packagingno rating

No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.

0 means ignored. Higher = more weight in your composite.

Data availability

Robust17 of 17 characterized

Our sources have reference data on all 17 listed ingredients.

Worth a look (2)

TITANIUM DIOXIDEuv filter · uv absorber · colorantraters disagree
ANSES CMR-listedflagged by 5 of 9 lists →
FLAVOR

No flags in our sources (15)

What these ingredient tags mean (2)

These describe what an ingredient is, not whether it is a problem. The stance marks above are the ratings; these are not.

comedogenic in testingISOPROPYL MYRISTATE
- ISOPROPYL MYRISTATE: A light emollient, and the ester the rabbit-ear literature names first. Fulton JE Jr, Pay SR, Fulton JE 3rd, "Comedogenicity of current therapeutic products, cosmetics, and ingredients in the rabbit ear", J Am Acad Dermatol 1984;10(1):96-105, PMID 6229554. The openly readable abstract names this ingredient among its "ingredient offenders", in prose and without a numeric rating: "Ingredient offenders include isopropyl myristate and its analogs, such as isopropyl palmitate, isopropyl isostearate, butyl stearate, isostearyl neopentanoate, myristyl myristate..." The rabbit-ear assay rates raw ingredients and does not predict how a finished formula behaves on human skin.
rich occlusivePETROLATUM, MINERAL OIL
- PETROLATUM: A barrier that sits on the surface of the skin, which is also why it feels heavy. FDA OTC skin protectant monograph, 21 CFR 347.10(m) and (r), lists petrolatum and white petrolatum as skin protectants at 30 to 100%.
- MINERAL OIL: A refined oil that sits on the surface of the skin; it has a heavy finish. FDA OTC skin protectant monograph, 21 CFR 347.10(l): "Mineral oil, 50 to 100 percent; 30 to 35 percent in combination with colloidal oatmeal in accordance with 347.20(a)(4)."

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.