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/Monoprix/Bio Cleansing Milk
Bio Cleansing Milk
Monoprix

Bio Cleansing Milk

cleansing milks200mlGTIN 3350031898143
CLAY CLEANSER WITH LAVENDER Travel Size

Cleaner pick · Safest skincare we have rated

Sodashi Skincare

CLAY CLEANSER WITH LAVENDER Travel Size

+43 on ingredient safety

16 AUD

Ingredient safetyRaters agree
Find on Amazon ↗See all 1643 cleaner options →

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

Your composite

63OUT OF 100Fair

range 58–75

57▲▼ split
Safety
86
Eco
—
Labor
46
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

1643 found

See better →

Flagged

6 ingredients

What's flagged →

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 1643 cleaner options, safest first → We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.

Every rater, every axis

Ingredient safety

52 pts apart
  • A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →

  • Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →

  • A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →

  • Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →

  • A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →

  • Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →

✓Also screened, nothing found: ECHA SVHC Candidate List · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · IARC Monographs · California Proposition 65

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

Environmental

  • Run by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →

✓Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction

Packaging

  • Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →

Coverage & match quality

8 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×
1.0×
Laborno rating

No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.

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.

Ingredients, decoded

Data availability

Good·18 of 22 characterized

Our sources have reference data on 18 of 22 listed ingredients; 4 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.

Worth a look (7)

  • Limonene7/10perfuming · deodorant · solventraters disagree

    ANSES endocrine candidate · flagged by 3 of 9 lists →

  • Benzyl alcohol6/10preservative · perfuming · solventraters disagree

    EU harmonised skin sensitizer · flagged by 2 of 9 lists →

  • flavouring6/10raters disagree

    Undisclosed fragrance blend · flagged by 2 of 9 lists

  • Linalool6/10perfuming · deodorantraters disagree

    EU harmonised skin sensitizer · flagged by 2 of 9 lists →

  • Citrus Aurantium Amara Flower water4/10fragrance · tonic · skin conditioningraters disagree

    EU-regulated fragrance allergen · flagged by 1 of 9 lists →

  • Citric Acid4/10fragrance · chelating · bufferingraters disagree

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

  • Sodium hydroxide4/10buffering · denaturantraters disagree

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

✓No flags in our sources (11)

  • water
  • Caprylic
  • Capric Triglyceride
  • Polyglyceryl-3 dicitrate
  • Glycerin
  • Butyrospermum Parkii Butter
  • Sodium Benzoate
  • Xantham Gum
  • Argania Spinosa oil
  • Tetrasodium Glutamate Diacetate
  • Gluconolactone

No data in our sources (4)

  • Aloe barbadensis leaf juices
  • stearate
  • Glyceril Stearate
  • Ceraniol

Not a verdict — our authorities simply have no reference for these.