Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 94-point gap between the two loudest voices.
0ANSES Endocrine DisruptorsGovernment
vs94Greenlens Tolerance ScreenIndependent
050100
See why, ingredient by ingredientEvery rater, every axis
Ingredient safety
94 pts apartA 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 →
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 →
Also screened, nothing found: California Proposition 65 · IARC Monographs · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · ECHA SVHC Candidate List
Environmental
Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction
Labor
Run by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. This rates Studio as a company and applies to everything they make, not this product alone. Checked this week. about this rater →
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
8 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×
Environmentalno rating
No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.
1.0×
1.0×
0 means ignored. Higher = more weight in your composite.
What we know about the packaging
Unidentified0 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
Robust24 of 24 characterized
Our sources have reference data on all 24 listed ingredients.
Worth a look (12)
ANSES CMR-listedflagged by 3 of 9 lists
ANSES endocrine candidateflagged by 3 of 9 lists
ANSES endocrine candidateflagged by 3 of 9 lists
Endocrine-activeflagged by 3 of 9 lists
ANSES endocrine candidateflagged by 1 of 9 lists
EU harmonised skin sensitizerflagged by 2 of 9 lists
ANSES endocrine candidateflagged by 2 of 9 lists
ANSES endocrine candidateflagged by 2 of 9 lists
Undisclosed fragrance blendflagged by 2 of 9 lists
Mild sensitizer for someflagged by 1 of 9 lists
Health Canada Hotlist — restrictedflagged by 1 of 9 lists
EU-regulated fragrance allergenflagged by 1 of 9 lists
No flags in our sources (12)