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/Tom's of Maine/Kid's Natural Silly Strawberry Fluoride Anticavity Toothpaste
Kid's Natural Silly Strawberry Fluoride Anticavity Toothpaste
Tom's of Maine

Kid's Natural Silly Strawberry Fluoride Anticavity Toothpaste

Toothpastetypically under $12GTIN 0035000971234
R

Cleaner pick · Safest toothpaste we have rated

RiseWell

Mineral Toothpaste Flavorless

+10 on ingredient safety

$12

Ingredient safetyRaters agree
Find on Amazon ↗See all 22 cleaner options →1 in this price band or under

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

Your composite

64OUT OF 100Fair
90
Safety
—
Eco
55
Labor
46
Pkg
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

22 found

See better →

Flagged

3 ingredients

What's flagged →

All 22 cleaner options, safest first → We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.

Every rater, every axis

Ingredient safety

  • A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →

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

Environmental

    ✓Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction

    Labor

    • Run by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. This rates Tom's of Maine as a company and applies to everything they make, not this product alone. Checked this week. about this rater →

    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

    3 ratings · 3 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.

    1.0×
    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

    Read from the product photo, not declared by the maker — treat this score as weaker.

    The container looks like this, rather than the maker saying so. 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

    Not enough to score·10 of 18 characterized

    Our sources have reference data on 10 of 18 listed ingredients; 8 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill. That is not enough of the label for a safety score to be honest, so we do not publish one.

    Worth a look (1)

    • benzyl alcohol6/10fragrance materialpreservative · perfuming · solventraters disagree

      EU harmonised skin sensitizer · flagged by 1 of 9 lists →

    ✓No flags in our sources (9)

    • water
    • calcium carbonate
    • silica
    • sodium lauryl sulfatecommon irritant
    • carrageenan
    • natural flavor
    • citrus limon juice
    • mangifera indica juice
    • citrus aurantium dulcis juice

    No data in our sources (8)

    • least twice a day
    • children 2 to 6ars children under 2 ears
    • ananas sativus
    • fruit juice
    • fragaria ananassa
    • sweeteners
    • flavors preservatives
    • and animal testing

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

    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.

    • common irritantsodium lauryl sulfate

      • sodium lauryl sulfate: A strong cleansing agent used as the reference irritant in skin-irritation testing. OECD Test Guideline 439 (in vitro skin irritation, reconstructed human epidermis), paragraph 24: "The suggested PC is 5% aqueous SDS", sodium dodecyl sulphate, the same substance as sodium lauryl sulfate, CAS 151-21-3.
    • fragrance materialbenzyl alcohol

      • benzyl alcohol: Used both as a fragrance component and as a preservative; the EU names it either way. EU Regulation (EC) 1223/2009, Annex III entry 45: 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. That entry carries transition footnote (38), which is footnote (37) plus a condition: stock that does not comply may still be made available until 31 July 2028 only "provided that they comply with the restrictions applicable on 15 August 2023", and only if it was lawfully placed on the Union market before the 31 July 2026 cut-off. Entry 45 covers its non-preservative use; it is separately an allowed preservative at Annex V entry 34.

    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.