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/inell/Face and Body Care Cream
I
inell

Face and Body Care Cream

dairies200mlGTIN 3564700750223
Radiance Melasma Cream

Cleaner pick · Safest dairies we have rated

Verobene

Radiance Melasma Cream

+28 on ingredient safety

50ml

Ingredient safety1 rater
Find on Amazon ↗See all 2 cleaner options →

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

Your composite

55OUT OF 100Fair

range 50–67

57▲▼ split
Safety
62
Eco
—
Labor
46
Pkg

Why this score

52-point split

62

Scan

42

Precautionary

94

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

2 found

See better →

Flagged

5 ingredients

What's flagged →

Raters split

Ingredient safety

A 52-point gap between the two loudest voices.

42Greenlens Precautionary ScreenIndependent
vs
94Greenlens Tolerance ScreenIndependent
050100
See why, ingredient by ingredient→

All 2 cleaner options, safest first → Never ordered by affiliate payout.

Every rater, every axis

Ingredient safety

52 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 →

  • 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: California Proposition 65 · IARC Monographs · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist

Environmental

  • Run by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked Jul 2026. 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

7 ratings · 3 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×
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

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.

Ingredients, decoded

Data availability

Fair·10 of 16 characterized

Our sources have reference data on 10 of 16 listed ingredients; 6 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.

Worth a look (5)

  • LIMONENE7/10perfuming · deodorant · solventraters disagree

    ANSES endocrine candidate · flagged by 3 of 9 lists →

  • PARFUM6/10perfuming · fragranceraters disagree

    Undisclosed fragrance blend · flagged by 2 of 9 lists →

  • GERANIOL6/10perfuming · tonicraters disagree

    EU harmonised skin sensitizer · flagged by 2 of 9 lists →

  • PHENOXYETHANOL4/10preservative · antimicrobialraters disagree

    Mild sensitizer for some · flagged by 1 of 9 lists →

  • POTASSIUM HYDROXIDE4/10bufferingraters disagree

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

✓No flags in our sources (5)

  • GLYCERIN
  • CETEARYL ALCOHOL
  • DIMETHICONE
  • CETYL ALCOHOL
  • OLUS OIL

No data in our sources (6)

  • UA PARAFFINUM LIQUIDUM
  • STEARATE
  • PEG20 STEARE GDALUS DULCIS OIL
  • CAPRYLYL GG SOUMCTRATE ALPHA
  • ISOMETHYL IONONE
  • CITRAL CTR PRECAUTIONS D'EMPLOI epas avaler

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