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/Laino/Soin des Lèvres Vanille
Soin des Lèvres Vanille
Laino

Soin des Lèvres Vanille

Lip BalmGTIN 3518646028366
Grapefruit & Currant Thinkdaily Lip Balm

Cleaner pick · Safest lip care we have rated

Thinkbaby

Grapefruit & Currant Thinkdaily Lip Balm

+45 on ingredient safety

$3.49

Ingredient safetyRaters agree
Find on Amazon ↗See all 1770 cleaner options →

Ranked by safety only. Greenlens earns from qualifying purchases. Payout never affects a rating, a ranking, or the cleaner pick.

Your composite

51OUT OF 100Poor

range 44–67

55▲▼ split
Safety
—
Eco
—
Labor
46
Pkg

Why this score

46-point split

62

Scan

42

Precautionary

88

Tolerance

See why →
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

Cleaner options

1770 found

See better →

Flagged

3 ingredients

What's flagged →

Raters split

Ingredient safety

A 46-point gap between the two loudest voices.

42Greenlens Precautionary ScreenIndependent
vs
88Greenlens Tolerance ScreenIndependent
050100
See why, ingredient by ingredient→

All 1770 cleaner options, safest first → We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.

Every rater, every axis

Ingredient safety

46 pts apart
  • 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 →

  • 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 →

  • Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. 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 · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist

Environmental

    ✓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

    6 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

    +
    1.0×
    Environmentalno rating

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

    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.

    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.

    Ingredients, decoded

    Data availability

    Good·22 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 (3)

    • ci 778918/10colorantraters disagree

      ANSES CMR-listed · flagged by 5 of 9 lists →

    • fragrance6/10undeclared fragrance blendperfumingraters disagree

      Undisclosed fragrance blend · flagged by 2 of 9 lists →

    • ci 191404/10colorant · hair dyeingraters disagree

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

    ✓No flags in our sources (19)

    • ricinus communis
    • Caprylic
    • Capric Triglyceride
    • cetyl palmitate
    • cera alba
    • Butyrospermum Parkii butter
    • c10 18 triglycerides
    • isopropyl myristatecomedogenic in testing
    • Copernicia Cerifera Cera
    • Simmondsia Chinensis
    • helianthus annuus
    • Hydrogenated Castor Oil
    • calendula officinalis flower extract
    • Prunus Armeniaca Kernel Oil
    • tocopherol
    • polyhydroxystearic acid
    • ci 77491
    • ci 77492
    • ci 77499

    No data in our sources (6)

    • seed oils
    • Cire d'Abeille
    • Oleic
    • Linoleic
    • Linolenic Polyglycerides
    • Cire de Carnauba

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

    What these ingredient tags mean (2)

    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

      • isopropyl myristate: A light emollient, and the ester the rabbit-ear literature names first. Fulton JE Jr, Pay SR, Fulton JE 3rd, "Comedogenicity of current therapeutic products, cosmetics, and ingredients in the rabbit ear", J Am Acad Dermatol 1984;10(1):96-105, PMID 6229554. The openly readable abstract names this ingredient among its "ingredient offenders", in prose and without a numeric rating: "Ingredient offenders include isopropyl myristate and its analogs, such as isopropyl palmitate, isopropyl isostearate, butyl stearate, isostearyl neopentanoate, myristyl myristate..." The rabbit-ear assay rates raw ingredients and does not predict how a finished formula behaves on human skin.
    • undeclared fragrance blendfragrance

      • fragrance: 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.

    Where this came from

    Product identity (name, brand, category) verified against pharma360.fr ↗

    Researched facts on Greenlens always carry the page that stated them — nothing is inferred from a model's memory.