Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 66-point gap between the two loudest voices.
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 →
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: IARC Monographs · California Proposition 65 · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI)
Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction
Coverage & match quality
4 ratings · 1 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.
No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.
Data availability
Fair16 of 32 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 16 of 32 listed ingredients; 16 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.
Worth a look (3)
Endocrine-activeflagged by 2 of 9 lists →
Endocrine-activeflagged by 2 of 9 lists →
Endocrine-activeflagged by 3 of 9 lists →
No flags in our sources (13)
No data in our sources (16)
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.
common irritantPROPYLENE GLYCOL
Where this came from
Product identity (name, brand, category) verified against world.openbeautyfacts.org ↗
Researched facts on Greenlens always carry the page that stated them — nothing is inferred from a model's memory.