Greenlens

Navigate

  • Browse
  • In your home
  • Ask Sonion
  • Methodology
  • Criteria
  • Extension
  • How scoring works
  • Account
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/acure/Seriously Soothing Cleansing Cream
Seriously Soothing Cleansing Cream
acure

Seriously Soothing Cleansing Cream

uncategorizedGTIN 0854049002453
CLAY CLEANSER WITH LAVENDER Travel Size

Cleaner pick · Safest cleansers & exfoliants we have rated

Sodashi

CLAY CLEANSER WITH LAVENDER Travel Size

+12 on ingredient safety

16 AUD

Ingredient safetyRaters agree
Find on Amazon ↗See all 1301 cleaner options →

Ranked by safety only. Greenlens earns from qualifying purchases. Payout never affects a rating, a ranking, or the cleaner pick.

Your composite

73OUT OF 100Good

range 70–77

88▲▼ split
Safety
—
Eco
85
Labor
46
Pkg

Why this score

lenses agree

100

Scan

100

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

Cleaner options

1301 found

See better →

Flagged

1 ingredient

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→

All 1301 cleaner options, safest first → We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.

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 →

  • 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: ECHA SVHC Candidate List · Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · California Proposition 65 · IARC Monographs

Environmental

    ✓Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction

    Labor

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

    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

    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

    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.

    Ingredients, decoded

    Data availability

    Good·31 of 45 characterized

    Our sources have reference data on 31 of 45 listed ingredients; 14 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.

    Worth a look (1)

    • Phenethylalcohol6/10fragrance materialfragranceraters disagree

      ANSES endocrine candidate · flagged by 1 of 9 lists →

    ✓No flags in our sources (30)

    • Water
    • Sodium Cocoyl Isethionate
    • Glyceryl Stearate Se
    • Hydroxypropyl Starch Phosphate
    • Cocos Nucifera Oil
    • Glyceryl Oleate
    • Glycerinhumectant
    • Disodium Coco-Glucoside Citrate
    • Sodium Lauroyl Lactylate
    • Glyceryl Caprylate
    • Sclerotium Gum
    • Ethylhexylglycerin
    • Jojoba Esters
    • Sodium Levulinate
    • Sodium Anisate
    • Glycerophosphoinositol Choline
    • Isomalt
    • Phospholipids
    • Sodium Benzoate
    • Euterpe Oleracea Fruit Extract
    • Rubus Fruticosus Fruit Extract
    • Punica Granatum Extract
    • Rosa Canina Fruit Extract
    • Calendula Officinalis Flower Extract
    • Chamomilla Recutita Flower Extract
    • Aspalathus Linearis Leaf Extract
    • Aqua
    • Coconut
    • Chamomile
    • Calendula

    No data in our sources (14)

    • Hyrdolyzed Jojoba Esters
    • Athemis Nobilis Flower Oil
    • Argania Spinosa
    • Sprout Cell Extract
    • Paeonia Lactiflora
    • Cell Culture Extract
    • Argan
    • Peony
    • Acai
    • Blackberry
    • Pomegranate
    • Rosehip
    • Matricaria
    • Rooibos

    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.

    • humectantGlycerin

      • Glycerin: A humectant, and one of the two ingredients a comparison of moisturiser components found made a significant difference to skin hydration. FDA OTC skin protectant monograph, 21 CFR 347.10(h), lists glycerin as a skin protectant at 20 to 45%. On the humectant half: Jeong CB, Han JY, Cho JC, Suh KD, Nam GW, "Analysis of electrical property changes of skin by oil-in-water emulsion components", Int J Cosmet Sci 2013;35(4):402-410, DOI 10.1111/ics.12059, PMID 23621673, found that "glycerine and urea showed significant skin hydration effects compared with other humectants".

    Where this came from

    Cruelty-free status recorded from leapingbunny.org ↗

    Researched facts on Greenlens always carry the page that stated them — nothing is inferred from a model's memory.