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/dop/shampoing
shampoing
dop

shampoing

Cheveux1pcsGTIN 3600551102962
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

56OUT OF 100Fair

range 52–65

58▲▼ split
Safety
90
Eco
30
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: ECHA SVHC Candidate List · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · California Proposition 65 · ANSES Endocrine Disruptors · IARC Monographs

✓Recognized on a safer-ingredients list: US EPA Safer Choice recognizes 68% of ingredients as safer choices — a marker, never a score.

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 dop 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 · 4 of 4 axes

  • Some ratings rest on an automatic match that has not been human-reviewed.

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

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.

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·19 of 19 characterized

Our sources have reference data on all 19 listed ingredients.

Worth a look (5)

  • Benzyl Alcohol6/10fragrance materialpreservative · perfuming · solventraters disagree

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

  • Parfum / Fragrance6/10undeclared fragrance blendperfumingraters disagree

    Undisclosed fragrance blend · flagged by 2 of 9 lists →

  • Carbomer4/10emulsion stabilising · gel forming · viscosity controllingraters disagree

    EU microplastics-restricted · 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 (14)

  • Aqua / Water
  • Sodium Laureth Sulfate
  • Coco-Betainecommon irritant
  • Glycerinhumectant
  • Glycol Distearate
  • Sodium Chloride
  • PPG-5-Ceteth-20
  • Sorbic Acid
  • Sodium Benzoate
  • Argilla
  • Magnesium Aluminum Silicate
  • Prunus Amygdalus Dulcis Fruit Extract / Sweet Almond Fruit Extract
  • Xanthan Gum
  • Polyquaternium-10
What these ingredient tags mean (4)

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

  • common irritantCoco-Betaine

    • Coco-Betaine: A mild cleansing agent, but a recurring patch-test finding, usually traced to leftovers from how it is made. American Contact Dermatitis Society, Allergen of the Year 2004 (Fowler JF Jr, Dermatitis 2004;15(1):3-4).
  • fragrance materialBenzyl Alcohol

    • Benzyl Alcohol: Used both as a fragrance component and as a preservative; the EU names it either way. EU Regulation (EC) 1223/2009, Annex III entry 45: 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. That entry carries transition footnote (38), which is footnote (37) plus a condition: stock that does not comply may still be made available until 31 July 2028 only "provided that they comply with the restrictions applicable on 15 August 2023", and only if it was lawfully placed on the Union market before the 31 July 2026 cut-off. Entry 45 covers its non-preservative use; it is separately an allowed preservative at Annex V entry 34.
  • undeclared fragrance blendParfum / Fragrance

    • Parfum / Fragrance: 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.
  • humectantGlycerin

    • Glycerin: A humectant, and one of the two ingredients a comparison of moisturiser components found made a significant difference to skin hydration. FDA OTC skin protectant monograph, 21 CFR 347.10(h), lists glycerin as a skin protectant at 20 to 45%. On the humectant half: Jeong CB, Han JY, Cho JC, Suh KD, Nam GW, "Analysis of electrical property changes of skin by oil-in-water emulsion components", Int J Cosmet Sci 2013;35(4):402-410, DOI 10.1111/ics.12059, PMID 23621673, found that "glycerine and urea showed significant skin hydration effects compared with other humectants".

Where this came from

Cruelty-free status recorded from peta.org ↗

Researched facts on Greenlens always carry the page that stated them — nothing is inferred from a model's memory.