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/Maybelline/Tattoo Studio Liquid Ink Liner, Rustic Brown
Tattoo Studio Liquid Ink Liner, Rustic Brown
Maybelline · owned by L'Oréal

Tattoo Studio Liquid Ink Liner, Rustic Brown

cosmetic products2.5mlGTIN 0041554578805

Your composite

62OUT OF 100Fair

range 61–66

87▲▼ split
Safety
86
Eco
30
Labor
46
Pkg

Why this score

2-point split

100

Scan

98

Precautionary

100

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

Alternatives

No fair cohort on file, so no comparison.

Flagged

3 ingredients

What's flagged →

Raters split

Ingredient safety

A 20-point gap between the two loudest voices.

80ANSES Endocrine DisruptorsGovernment
vs
100Greenlens Tolerance ScreenIndependent
050100
See why, ingredient by ingredient→

Every rater, every axis

Ingredient safety

20 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 →

  • 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 →

✓Also screened, nothing found: California Proposition 65 · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist · IARC Monographs

✓Recognized on a safer-ingredients list: US EPA Safer Choice recognizes 54% of ingredients as safer choices — a marker, never a score.

Environmental

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

Labor

  • Run by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. This rates Maybelline 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

7 ratings · 4 of 4 axes

  • Some ratings rest on an automatic match that has not been human-reviewed.

Weighted by what you care about

Tune your weights

composite recomputes live

+
1.0×
1.0×
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

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

Good·10 of 13 characterized

Our sources have reference data on 10 of 13 listed ingredients; 3 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.

Worth a look (3)

  • alcohol6/10commonly dryingfragrance · antimicrobial · antifoamingraters disagree

    ANSES endocrine candidate · flagged by 1 of 9 lists →

  • acrylates copolymer4/10film forming · antistatic · bindingraters disagree

    EU microplastics-restricted · flagged by 1 of 9 lists →

  • phenoxyethanol4/10preservative · antimicrobialraters disagree

    Mild sensitizer for some · flagged by 1 of 9 lists →

✓No flags in our sources (7)

  • Aqua
  • butylene glycol
  • pentylene glycol
  • caprylyl glycol
  • laureth 21
  • sodium dehydroacetate
  • peg12 dimethicone

No data in our sources (3)

  • g2p15553 aqua
  • acrylates
  • ethylhexyl acrylate copolymer

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

What these ingredient tags mean (1)

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

  • commonly dryingalcohol

    • alcohol: A fast-evaporating solvent that leaves a dry finish. International Chemical Safety Card ICSC 0044, Ethanol (anhydrous), prepared by an international group of experts for the ILO and WHO: "The substance defats the skin, which may cause dryness or cracking." Bommannan et al., as reported by Lachenmeier DW, "Safety evaluation of topical applications of ethanol on the skin and inside the oral cavity", J Occup Med Toxicol 2008;3:26, DOI 10.1186/1745-6673-3-26, open access, reference 82: "Bommannan et al. found in vivo in humans that ethanol enters the skin and removes measurable quantities of the lipid barrier material from the stratum corneum." Both describe stronger exposures than a cosmetic formula.