
Cleaner pick · Safest styling we have rated
Catrice Cosmetics
Curl Freeze Lash Styling Gel+57 on ingredient safety
$7
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 58-point gap between the two loudest voices.
All 3742 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 →
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 →
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. Low-confidence auto-match — it may describe a different size or variant. Checked this week. about this rater →
Also screened, nothing found: Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · California Proposition 65 · IARC Monographs
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 →
Run by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. This rates göt2b as a company and applies to everything they make, not this product alone. 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
9 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
Partly identified1 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.
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.
Data availability
Good22 of 28 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 22 of 28 listed ingredients; 6 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.
Worth a look (8)
Endocrine-activeflagged by 3 of 9 lists →
Endocrine-activeflagged by 3 of 9 lists →
Undisclosed fragrance blendflagged by 2 of 9 lists →
EU harmonised skin sensitizerflagged by 2 of 9 lists →
EU harmonised skin sensitizerflagged by 2 of 9 lists →
Mild sensitizer for someflagged 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 (14)
No data in our sources (6)
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.
comedogenic in testingISOPROPYL MYRISTATE
common irritantPROPYLENE GLYCOL
fragrance materialBENZYL ALCOHOL, GERANIOL
undeclared fragrance blendPARFUM
rich occlusivePETROLATUM
Where this came from
Cruelty-free status recorded from crueltyfree.peta.org ↗
Researched facts on Greenlens always carry the page that stated them — nothing is inferred from a model's memory.