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/La Provençale/Gentle Shampoo
LP
La Provençale

Gentle Shampoo

shampoos250mlGTIN 3600551069449
Bio Therapy Shampoo

Cleaner pick · Safest cleansing we have rated

Africology Skincare & Spa

Bio Therapy Shampoo

+42 on ingredient safety, gives up 14 on packaging

250ml · 47.50 ZAR · 19 ZAR/100 ml

Ingredient safetyRaters agree
Find on Amazon ↗See all 1920 cleaner options →

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

Your composite

58OUT OF 100Fair

range 53–70

58▲▼ split
Safety
70
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

1920 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 1920 cleaner options, safest first → We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.

Every rater, every axis

Ingredient safety

52 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. 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: ANSES Endocrine Disruptors · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · California Proposition 65

✓Recognized on a safer-ingredients list: US EPA Safer Choice recognizes 50% of ingredients as safer choices — a marker, never a score.

Environmental

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

Good·14 of 18 characterized

Our sources have reference data on 14 of 18 listed ingredients; 4 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.

Worth a look (5)

  • Parfum6/10undeclared fragrance blendperfuming · fragranceraters disagree

    Undisclosed fragrance blend · flagged by 2 of 9 lists →

  • Fragrance6/10undeclared fragrance blendperfumingraters disagree

    Undisclosed fragrance blend · flagged by 2 of 9 lists →

  • Aloe Barbadensis Leaf Juice Powder4/10skin conditioningraters disagree

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

  • Sodium Hydroxide4/10buffering · denaturantraters disagree

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

  • Citric Acid4/10fragrance · chelating · bufferingraters disagree

    Health Canada Hotlist — restricted · flagged by 1 of 9 lists →

✓No flags in our sources (9)

  • water
  • Ammonium Lauryl Sulfate
  • Olive Fruit Oil
  • Prunus Amygdalus Dulcis Fruit Extract
  • Triethyl Citrate
  • Sodium Benzoate
  • Guar Hydroxypropyltrimonium Chloride
  • Capric Triglyceride
  • Benzoic Acid

No data in our sources (4)

  • Sodium Chlorid
  • Cocoamidopropyl Betaine
  • Olea Europea Fruit Oil
  • Sweet Almond Fruit Extract

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

What these ingredient tags mean (1)

These describe what an ingredient is, not whether it is a problem. The stance marks above are the ratings; these are not.

  • 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.