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 Rosée/Nourishing Tinted Lip Stick
Nourishing Tinted Lip Stick
La Rosée

Nourishing Tinted Lip Stick

Stickers à lèvres teinté5gGTIN 3770000717297

Cleaner pick · Safest lips we have rated

VMV Hypoallergenics

Velvet Matte Lipstick

+25 on ingredient safety

$14

Ingredient safetyRaters agree
Find on Amazon ↗See all 925 cleaner options →

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

Your composite

61OUT OF 100Fair

range 56–71

75▲▼ split
Safety
—
Eco
—
Labor
46
Pkg

Why this score

5-point split

90

Scan

95

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

925 found

See better →

Flagged

1 ingredient

What's flagged →

Raters split

Ingredient safety

A 30-point gap between the two loudest voices.

65ANSES Endocrine DisruptorsGovernment
vs
95Greenlens Precautionary ScreenIndependent
050100
See why, ingredient by ingredient→

All 925 cleaner options, safest first → We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.

Every rater, every axis

Ingredient safety

30 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 →

  • 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 →

✓Also screened, nothing found: Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · California Proposition 65 · US NTP Report on Carcinogens

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.

    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

    Good·9 of 12 characterized

    Our sources have reference data on 9 of 12 listed ingredients; 3 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.

    Worth a look (1)

    • CI 778918/10colorantraters disagree

      ANSES CMR-listed · flagged by 5 of 9 lists →

    ✓No flags in our sources (8)

    • RICINUS COMMUNIS SEED OIL
    • COCO-CAPRYLATE/CAPRATE
    • OCTYLDODECANOL
    • COPERNICIA CERIFERA WAX
    • BUTYROSPERMUM PARKI BUTTER
    • TOCOPHEROL
    • CI 77491
    • CI 77499

    No data in our sources (3)

    • EUPHORBIA CERIFERA WAX C10-18 TRIGLYCERIDES
    • C175470
    • HELIANTHUS ANNUUS SEED OL

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