Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 20-point gap between the two loudest voices.
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: ECHA SVHC Candidate List · California Proposition 65 · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · IARC Monographs · Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist
Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction
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
3 ratings · 2 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.
No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.
Data availability
Not enough to score9 of 23 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 9 of 23 listed ingredients; 14 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill. That is not enough of the label for a safety score to be honest, so we do not publish one.
Worth a look (3)
ANSES endocrine candidateflagged by 2 of 9 lists →
EU harmonised skin sensitizerflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
ANSES endocrine candidateflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
No flags in our sources (6)
No data in our sources (14)
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.
fragrance materialbenzyl alcohol, limonene, Citronellol
Where this came from
Product identity (name, brand, category) verified against paraselection.com ↗
Researched facts on Greenlens always carry the page that stated them — nothing is inferred from a model's memory.