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 · IARC Monographs · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist
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
Run by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. This rates Léa Nature as a company and applies to everything they make, not this product alone. Checked this week. about this rater →
Coverage & match quality
4 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.
Data availability
Not enough to score6 of 20 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 6 of 20 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 That is not enough of the label for a safety score to be honest, so we do not publish one.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 →
ANSES endocrine candidateflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
EU harmonised skin sensitizerflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
No flags in our sources (3)
No data in our sources (14)
Not a verdict — our authorities simply have no reference for these.
Where this came from
Cruelty-free status recorded from en.sobio-etic.com ↗
Researched facts on Greenlens always carry the page that stated them — nothing is inferred from a model's memory.