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/Uriage/1st Bath Milk
U
Uriage

1st Bath Milk

lait de toilette500mlGTIN 3661434000195
FL

Cleaner pick · Safest lait de toilette we have rated

Frank LeBlond

Aloe Vera Face and Body Toilet Milk

+24 on ingredient safety

Ingredient safety1 rater
Find on Amazon ↗See the one cleaner option →

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

Your composite

52OUT OF 100Poor

range 44–73

58▲▼ split
Safety
—
Eco
—
Labor
46
Pkg

Why this score

58-point split

62

Scan

42

Precautionary

100

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

1 found

See better →

Flagged

4 ingredients

What's flagged →

Raters split

Ingredient safety

A 58-point gap between the two loudest voices.

42Greenlens Precautionary ScreenIndependent
vs
100Greenlens Tolerance ScreenIndependent
050100
See why, ingredient by ingredient→

All 1 cleaner option, safest first → Never ordered by affiliate payout.

Every rater, every axis

Ingredient safety

58 pts apart
  • 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 →

  • 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: EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist · California Proposition 65 · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · ECHA SVHC Candidate List

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

    6 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 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·21 of 25 characterized

    Our sources have reference data on 21 of 25 listed ingredients; 4 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.

    Worth a look (4)

    • parfum6/10undeclared fragrance blendperfuming · fragranceraters disagree

      Undisclosed fragrance blend · flagged by 2 of 9 lists →

    • sorbitanoleate6/10surfactant - emulsifyingraters disagree

      ANSES endocrine candidate · flagged by 1 of 9 lists →

    • fragance6/10perfuming · maskingraters disagree

      Undisclosed fragrance blend · flagged by 2 of 9 lists →

    • aloe barbadensis leaf extract4/10humectant · emollient · oral careraters disagree

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

    ✓No flags in our sources (17)

    • Aqua
    • hydrogenated polyisobutene
    • cetearyl ethylhexanoate
    • dicaprylyl carbonate
    • butyrospermum parkii
    • glycerinhumectant
    • polysorbate 60
    • tromethaminefragrance material
    • chlorphenesin
    • sodium acrylate
    • isohexadecane
    • piroctone olamine
    • polysorbate 80
    • o-cymen5-ol
    • butylene glycol
    • centaurea cyanus flower water
    • shea butter

    No data in our sources (4)

    • Uriage thermal spring water
    • acrylates
    • C10-30 alkyl acrylates crosspolymer
    • acryloyldimethyl taurate copolymer

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

    What these ingredient tags mean (2)

    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.
    • 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".