BeautyGTIN 3600531544652
Cleaner pick · Safest face we have rated
Tarte
maracuja juicy blush & bronzer multi-stick+28 on ingredient safety
$38
Ingredient safetyRaters agree
Ranked by safety only. Greenlens earns from qualifying purchases. Payout never affects a rating, a ranking, or the cleaner pick.
Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 29-point gap between the two loudest voices.
65ANSES Endocrine DisruptorsGovernment
vs94Greenlens Tolerance ScreenIndependent
050100
See why, ingredient by ingredientAll 8128 cleaner options, safest first We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.
Every rater, every axis
Ingredient safety
29 pts apartA government authority. Low-confidence auto-match — it may describe a different size or variant. Checked Aug 2026. 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 →
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: Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist · California Proposition 65 · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI)
Environmental
A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →
Labor
Run by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. This rates Maybelline 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. We started showing this score on Sep 11, 2026. about this rater →
Coverage & match quality
10 ratings · 4 of 4 axes
- At least one rating was auto-linked to this product on a low-confidence match, so it may describe a different size or variant.
Weighted by what you care about
Tune your weights
composite recomputes live
+
1.0×
1.0×
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
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
Good15 of 19 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 15 of 19 listed ingredients; 4 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.
Worth a look (4)
ANSES CMR-listedflagged by 5 of 9 lists →
Persistent / bioaccumulativeflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
EU microplastics-restrictedflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
Mild sensitizer for someflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
No flags in our sources (11)
No data in our sources (4)
Not a verdict — our authorities simply have no reference for these.