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/Saltair/Curl Control Defining Shampoo
Curl Control Defining Shampoo
Saltair

Curl Control Defining Shampoo

ShampooGTIN 0810083680637
Bio Therapy Conditioner

Cleaner pick · Safest cleansing we have rated

Africology Skincare & Spa

Bio Therapy Conditioner

+44 on ingredient safety

250ml · 47.50 ZAR · 19 ZAR/100 ml

Ingredient safetyRaters agree
Find on Amazon ↗See all 3983 cleaner options →

Ranked by safety only. We may earn a commission on the link; it never changes the order.

Your composite

59OUT OF 100Fair

range 54–71

56▲▼ split
Safety
—
Eco
88
Labor
32
Pkg

Why this score

52-point split

62

Scan

42

Precautionary

94

Tolerance

See why →
Find on Amazon↗

Affiliate link. We may earn a commission. It never changes a rating.

In your home

Sort this into a room

Cleaner options

3983 found

See better →

Flags

No ingredient flags.

Raters split

Ingredient safety

A 52-point gap between the two loudest voices.

42Greenlens Precautionary ScreenIndependent
vs
94Greenlens Tolerance ScreenIndependent
050100
See why, ingredient by ingredient→

All 3983 cleaner options, safest first → We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.

Every rater, every axis

Ingredient safety

52 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: IARC Monographs · California Proposition 65 · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · ANSES Endocrine Disruptors · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI)

✓US EPA Safer Choice (SCIL) recognizes 55% of ingredients as safer choices — a marker, never a score.

Environmental

    ✓Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction

    Labor

    • 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

    6 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

    Partly identified·1 of 2 identified

    1 of 2 packaging components is a named material; Plastic (unspecified) is recorded only in general terms, so that part of the score is a stand-in.

    • 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

    Robust·20 of 20 characterized

    Our sources have reference data on all 20 listed ingredients.

    Worth a look (5)

    • Cocamidopropyl Betaine6/10antistatic · cleansing · hair conditioningraters disagree

      Strong contact sensitizer · flagged by 1 of 9 lists

    • Fragrance (Parfum)6/10perfumingraters disagree

      Undisclosed fragrance blend · flagged by 2 of 9 lists

    • Phenoxyethanol4/10preservative · antimicrobialraters disagree

      Mild sensitizer for some · flagged by 1 of 9 lists

    • Polyquaternium-74/10film forming · antistaticraters disagree

      EU-restricted (with limits) · flagged by 2 of 9 lists

    • Citric Acid4/10fragrance · chelating · bufferingraters disagree

      Health Canada Hotlist — restricted · flagged by 1 of 9 lists

    ✓No flags in our sources (15)

    • Water (Aqua)
    • Sodium Cocoyl Isethionate
    • Cocamidopropyl Hydroxysultaine
    • Decyl Glucoside
    • Orbignya Speciosa Kernel Oil
    • Astrocaryum Murumuru Seed Butter
    • Salvia Hispanica Seed Extract
    • Linum Usitatissimum (Linseed) Seed Extract
    • Cocos Nucifera (Coconut) Water
    • Panthenyl Hydroxypropyl Steardimonium Chloride
    • Polyquaternium-10
    • PEG-150 Distearate
    • Cocamide MIPA
    • Ethylhexylglycerin
    • Tetrasodium Glutamate Diacetate