Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 46-point gap between the two loudest voices.
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 →
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: US NTP Report on Carcinogens · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · California Proposition 65 · ANSES Endocrine Disruptors · IARC Monographs
Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction
Coverage & match quality
4 ratings · 1 of 4 axes
Tune your weights
composite recomputes live
+No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.
No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.
No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.
Data availability
Robust15 of 15 characterized
Our sources have reference data on all 15 listed ingredients.
Worth a look (5)
Undisclosed fragrance blendflagged by 2 of 9 lists →
EU-restricted (with limits)flagged by 2 of 9 lists →
EU-restricted (with limits)flagged by 2 of 9 lists →
Health Canada Hotlist — restrictedflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
Mild sensitizer for someflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
No flags in our sources (10)
These describe what an ingredient is, not whether it is a problem. The stance marks above are the ratings; these are not.
undeclared fragrance blendFragrance/Parfum
humectantGlycerin
Where this came from
Product identity (name, brand, category) verified against ebay.com ↗
Researched facts on Greenlens always carry the page that stated them — nothing is inferred from a model's memory.