Cleaner pick · Safest moisturize we have rated
Africology Skincare & Spa
Bio Therapy Body Lotion+72 on ingredient safety
250ml · 78 ZAR · 31.20 ZAR/100 ml
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 88-point gap between the two loudest voices.
All 4843 cleaner options, safest first We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.
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 →
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 →
Also screened, nothing found: California Proposition 65 · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · IARC Monographs · Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist
Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction
Run by a nonprofit. 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 →
Coverage & match quality
7 ratings · 3 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.
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.
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.
Data availability
Good27 of 34 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 27 of 34 listed ingredients; 7 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.
Worth a look (7)
ANSES CMR-listedflagged by 3 of 9 lists →
Carcinogen-linkedflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
Endocrine-activeflagged by 3 of 9 lists →
ANSES endocrine candidateflagged by 3 of 9 lists →
Undisclosed fragrance blendflagged by 2 of 9 lists →
EU harmonised skin sensitizerflagged by 2 of 9 lists →
Undisclosed fragrance blendflagged by 2 of 9 lists →
No flags in our sources (20)
No data in our sources (7)
Not a verdict — our authorities simply have no reference for these.
These describe what an ingredient is, not whether it is a problem. The stance marks above are the ratings; these are not.
common irritantDIAZOLIDINYL UREA
fragrance materialLINALOOL, CITRAL
undeclared fragrance blendFRAGRANCE
rich occlusiveDIMETHICONE, PETROLATUM, THEOBROMA CACAO SEED BUTTER
humectantSODIUM HYALURONATE
Where this came from
Product identity (name, brand, category) verified against bathandbodyworks.com ↗
Researched facts on Greenlens always carry the page that stated them — nothing is inferred from a model's memory.