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/Pouce/Shaving Gel
Shaving Gel
Pouce

Shaving Gel

Shaving Gel0.3lGTIN 3596710549856
Unscented Shaving Soap (Vegan)

Cleaner pick · Safest shave we have rated

Barrister and Mann

Unscented Shaving Soap (Vegan)

+71 on ingredient safety, gives up 18 on packaging

$22.99

Ingredient safetyRaters agree
Find on Amazon ↗See all 1083 cleaner options →

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

Your composite

47OUT OF 100Poor

range 35–73

29▲▼ split
Safety
—
Eco
—
Labor
64
Pkg

Why this score

40-point split

46

Scan

42

Precautionary

82

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

1083 found

See better →

Flagged

10 ingredients

What's flagged →

Raters split

Ingredient safety

A 77-point gap between the two loudest voices.

5ANSES Endocrine DisruptorsGovernment
vs
82IARC MonographsGovernment
050100
See why, ingredient by ingredient→

All 1083 cleaner options, safest first → We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.

Every rater, every axis

Ingredient safety

77 pts apart
  • 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. This score changed Sep 1, 2026: source data updated. 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. This score changed Sep 1, 2026: source data updated. 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: Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · California Proposition 65 · US NTP Report on Carcinogens

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

    7 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 2 identified

    None of the 2 packaging components is identified beyond its broad material, so the packaging score is a stand-in — 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

    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

    Robust·20 of 20 characterized

    Our sources have reference data on all 20 listed ingredients.

    Worth a look (10)

    • triethanolamine8/10fragrance · buffering · surfactant - cleansingraters disagree

      ANSES CMR-listed · flagged by 3 of 9 lists →

    • isobutane8/10propellantraters disagree

      EU harmonised CMR (cat. 1) · flagged by 3 of 9 lists →

    • parfum6/10undeclared fragrance blendperfuming · fragranceraters disagree

      Undisclosed fragrance blend · flagged by 2 of 9 lists →

    • linalyl acetate6/10fragrance materialfragranceraters disagree

      ANSES endocrine candidate · flagged by 2 of 9 lists →

    • coumarin6/10fragrance materialperfumingraters disagree

      ANSES endocrine candidate · flagged by 2 of 9 lists →

    • linalool6/10fragrance materialperfuming · deodorantraters disagree

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

    • hexyl cinnamal6/10fragrance materialperfumingraters disagree

      ANSES endocrine candidate · flagged by 2 of 9 lists →

    • phenoxyethanol4/10preservative · antimicrobialraters disagree

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

    • aloe barbadensis leaf juice powder4/10skin conditioningraters disagree

      IARC possible carcinogen (Group 2B) · flagged by 1 of 9 lists →

    • ci 420514/10colorantraters disagree

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

    ✓No flags in our sources (10)

    • Aqua
    • palmitic acid
    • oleth-20
    • isopentane
    • sorbitol
    • laureth-23
    • cocamide mipa
    • hydroxyethylcellulose
    • isopropyl palmitatecomedogenic in testing
    • sodium sulfate
    What these ingredient tags mean (3)

    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 palmitate

      • isopropyl palmitate: A light emollient named among the pore-clogging materials in the rabbit-ear assay. 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.
    • fragrance materialcoumarin, linalool, hexyl cinnamal

      • coumarin: A sweet hay-scented fragrance component named separately on the label. EU Regulation (EC) 1223/2009, Annex III entry 77: a fragrance substance whose presence must be indicated in the list of ingredients above 0,001% in leave-on and 0,01% in rinse-off products, because of established contact-allergy risk.
      • linalool: A floral fragrance component named separately on the label. EU Regulation (EC) 1223/2009, Annex III entry 84: a fragrance substance whose presence must be indicated in the list of ingredients above 0,001% in leave-on and 0,01% in rinse-off products, because of established contact-allergy risk.
      • hexyl cinnamal: A jasmine-like fragrance component named separately on the label. EU Regulation (EC) 1223/2009, Annex III entry 87: a fragrance substance whose presence must be indicated in the list of ingredients above 0,001% in leave-on and 0,01% in rinse-off products, because of established contact-allergy risk.
    • 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.