e.l.f.
eyeliner pen (coffee)
eyeliners1.4g
Cleaner pick · Safest eyes we have rated
Revolution
Just Chillin' Cooling Shadow Stick+16 on ingredient safety, gives up 5 on labor practices
Ingredient safetyRaters agree
Ranked by safety only. Greenlens earns from qualifying purchases. Payout never affects a rating, a ranking, or the cleaner pick.
Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 20-point gap between the two loudest voices.
80Greenlens Ingredient ScanIndependent
vs100Greenlens Precautionary ScreenIndependent
050100
See why, ingredient by ingredientAll 2238 cleaner options, safest first We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.
Every rater, every axis
Ingredient safety
20 pts apartIndependent — 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 →
Also screened, nothing found: Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · California Proposition 65 · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · ANSES Endocrine Disruptors
US EPA Safer Choice (SCIL) recognizes 50% 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
raters agreeRun by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. This rates e.l.f. as a company and applies to everything they make, not this product alone. Checked this week. about this rater →
Run by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. 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
8 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
Unidentified0 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
Good11 of 14 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 11 of 14 listed ingredients; 3 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.
Worth a look (4)
EU microplastics-restrictedflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
IARC possible carcinogen (Group 2B)flagged by 1 of 9 lists
EU-restricted (with limits)flagged by 2 of 9 lists
EU-restricted (with limits)flagged by 2 of 9 lists
No flags in our sources (7)
No data in our sources (3)
Not a verdict — our authorities simply have no reference for these.