Greenlens

Navigate

  • Browse
  • In your home
  • Ask Sonion
  • Methodology
  • Criteria
  • Extension
  • How scoring works
  • Account
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/Maui Moisture/Shea butter hair mask
Shea butter hair mask
Maui Moisture

Shea butter hair mask

hair masks340gGTIN 0022796170156
Bio Therapy Conditioner

Cleaner pick · Safest treatment we have rated

Africology Skincare & Spa

Bio Therapy Conditioner

+81 on ingredient safety, gives up 14 on packaging

250ml · 47.50 ZAR · 19 ZAR/100 ml

Ingredient safetyRaters agree
Find on Amazon ↗See all 3752 cleaner options →

Ranked by safety only. Greenlens earns from qualifying purchases. Payout never affects a rating, a ranking, or the cleaner pick.

Your composite

33OUT OF 100Horrible

range 23–64

19▲▼ split
Safety
—
Eco
—
Labor
46
Pkg

Why this score

25-point split

12

Scan

0

Precautionary

25

Tolerance

See why →
Find on Amazon↗

Greenlens earns from qualifying purchases. Payout never affects a rating, a ranking, or the cleaner pick.

In your home

Sort this into a room

Cleaner options

3752 found

See better →

Flagged

8 ingredients

What's flagged →

Raters split

Ingredient safety

A 82-point gap between the two loudest voices.

0Greenlens Precautionary ScreenIndependent
vs
82IARC MonographsGovernment
050100
See why, ingredient by ingredient→

All 3752 cleaner options, safest first → We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.

Every rater, every axis

Ingredient safety

82 pts apart
  • 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 →

  • A government authority. 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 →

✓Also screened, nothing found: California Proposition 65 · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist

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. Checked this week. about this rater →

    Coverage & match quality

    7 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.

    Ingredients, decoded

    Data availability

    Good·32 of 39 characterized

    Our sources have reference data on 32 of 39 listed ingredients; 7 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.

    Worth a look (8)

    • Butylphenyl Methylpropional10/10fragrance materialperfuming · fragranceraters disagree

      Reproductive-toxicant concern · flagged by 5 of 9 lists →

    • DMDM Hydantoin8/10common irritantpreservativeraters disagree

      Carcinogen-linked · flagged by 1 of 9 lists →

    • Benzyl Salicylate7/10fragrance materialuv absorber · perfumingraters disagree

      ANSES endocrine candidate · flagged by 3 of 9 lists →

    • Parfum6/10undeclared fragrance blendperfuming · fragranceraters disagree

      Undisclosed fragrance blend · flagged by 2 of 9 lists →

    • Fragrance6/10undeclared fragrance blendperfumingraters disagree

      Undisclosed fragrance blend · flagged by 2 of 9 lists →

    • Linalool6/10fragrance materialperfuming · deodorantraters disagree

      EU harmonised skin sensitizer · flagged by 2 of 9 lists →

    • Aloe Barbadensis Leaf Juice4/10skin conditioningraters disagree

      IARC possible carcinogen (Group 2B) · flagged by 1 of 9 lists →

    • Hydroxycitronellal4/10fragrance materialperfumingraters disagree

      EU-regulated fragrance allergen · flagged by 1 of 9 lists →

    ✓No flags in our sources (24)

    • Aqua
    • Water
    • Cocos Nucifera Oil
    • Isopropyl Myristatecomedogenic in testing
    • Cetearyl Alcohol
    • Cetyl Alcohol
    • Glyceryl Stearate
    • PEG-40 Hydrogenated Castor Oil
    • Cocos Nucifera
    • Butyrospermum Parki Butter
    • Macadamia Ternifolia Seed Oil
    • Hydrogenated Soybean Oil
    • Polyquaternium-37
    • Microcrystalline Wax
    • Diheptyl Succinate
    • Propylene Glycol Dicaprylate
    • Ceteareth-20
    • PPG-1 Trideceth-6
    • Tapioca Starch
    • Stearic Acid
    • Propylene Glycolcommon irritant
    • Coconut
    • Shea
    • Cera Microcristallina

    No data in our sources (7)

    • Capryloyl Glycerin
    • Sebacic Acid Copolymer
    • Dicaprate
    • Diezolidinyl Urea
    • lodopropynyl Butylcarbanate
    • Noix de Coca
    • Noix de Coco

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

    What these ingredient tags mean (4)

    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.
    • common irritantPropylene Glycol, DMDM Hydantoin

      • Propylene Glycol: A solvent that shows up in patch-test clinics, more often as irritation than as allergy. American Contact Dermatitis Society, Allergen of the Year 2018 (Jacob SE, Scheman A, McGowan MA, Dermatitis 2018;29(1):3-5).
      • DMDM Hydantoin: A preservative the FDA lists as a formaldehyde releaser, which is why formaldehyde-reactive skin can notice it. How much reaches the skin depends on the whole formula, not on this name alone. EU Regulation (EC) 1223/2009, Annex V entry 33, permits DMDM hydantoin as a preservative up to 0,6%. The FDA names it among the "formaldehyde and formaldehyde releasing ingredients" on its Allergens in Cosmetics page (content current 25 February 2022). SCCS Scientific Advice SCCS/1632/21, on the threshold for the "contains formaldehyde" warning, describes a study in which a moisturiser spiked to the 0,6% Annex V maximum released at least 40 ppm formaldehyde. Annex V preamble point 2, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) 2022/1181, requires the warning "releases formaldehyde" on any product whose total released formaldehyde exceeds 0,001% (10 ppm). That Regulation states the sensitisation ground itself, so the chain is drawn by the regulator and not by us: recital (2) names the class, "Certain of those preservatives are gradually releasing formaldehyde in order to fulfil a preserving function in the final cosmetic product (so called formaldehyde releasers)", and recital (3) gives the purpose of the warning, "In order to inform consumers sensitised to formaldehyde about the presence of formaldehyde that may trigger an allergic reaction". Recital (1) records that formaldehyde is classified a skin sensitizer (Category 1) in Part 3 of Annex VI to Regulation (EC) 1272/2008.
    • fragrance materialLinalool, Butylphenyl Methylpropional, Benzyl Salicylate, Hydroxycitronellal

      • Linalool: A floral fragrance component named separately on the label. EU Regulation (EC) 1223/2009, Annex III entry 84: a fragrance substance whose presence must be indicated in the list of ingredients above 0,001% in leave-on and 0,01% in rinse-off products, because of established contact-allergy risk.
      • Butylphenyl Methylpropional: A lily-of-the-valley fragrance component the EU no longer permits in cosmetics. It was a declarable fragrance allergen at Annex III entry 83 of EU Regulation (EC) 1223/2009. Commission Regulation (EU) 2021/1902 deleted that entry and moved it to Annex II entry 1666 (2-(4-tert-butylbenzyl) propionaldehyde, CAS 80-54-6), prohibiting it in cosmetic products from 1 March 2022.
      • Benzyl Salicylate: A faintly floral fragrance component named separately on the label. EU Regulation (EC) 1223/2009, Annex III entry 75: a fragrance substance whose presence must be indicated in the list of ingredients above 0,001% in leave-on and 0,01% in rinse-off products, because of established contact-allergy risk. The entry was replaced by Commission Regulation (EU) 2026/909 of 27 April 2026, which caps it per product type from 0,004% in oral products to 4% in fragrance products; under its footnote (**), products not complying may not be placed on the Union market from 1 January 2027, nor made available from 1 July 2028.
      • Hydroxycitronellal: A lily-like fragrance component named separately on the label. EU Regulation (EC) 1223/2009, Annex III entry 72: a fragrance substance whose presence must be indicated in the list of ingredients above 0,001% in leave-on and 0,01% in rinse-off products, because of established contact-allergy risk.
    • undeclared fragrance blendParfum

      • Parfum: A blend the label does not itemize, so what is in it cannot be read from the ingredient list. EU Regulation (EC) 1223/2009 permits the collective term "parfum"; the SCCS Opinion on Fragrance Allergens (SCCS/1459/11) reviews the contact-allergy evidence for the substances it can contain.