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/L'arbre vert/Amande
Amande
L'arbre vert

Amande

non open products facts500mlGTIN 3450605071122

Your composite

58OUT OF 100Fair

No safety data

—
Safety
84
Eco
—
Labor
32
Pkg
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

Alternatives

No fair cohort on file, so no comparison.

Flagged

1 ingredient

What's flagged →

Every rater, every axis

Ingredient safety

    ✓Also screened, nothing found: EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · ANSES Endocrine Disruptors · IARC Monographs · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist · California Proposition 65

    Environmental

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

    Coverage & match quality

    2 ratings · 2 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

    +
    Ingredient safetyno rating

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

    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

    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

    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

    Not enough to score·1 of 3 characterized

    Our sources have reference data on 1 of 3 listed ingredients; 2 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.

    ✓No flags in our sources (1)

    • Parfumundeclared fragrance blend

    No data in our sources (2)

    • Agents de surface anioniques
    • Agents de surface non ioniques

    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.

    • undeclared fragrance blendParfum

      • Parfum: A blend the label does not itemize, so what is in it cannot be read from the ingredient list. EU Regulation (EC) 1223/2009 permits the collective term "parfum"; the SCCS Opinion on Fragrance Allergens (SCCS/1459/11) reviews the contact-allergy evidence for the substances it can contain.