Greenlens

Every public rating on one cosmetic, the places they disagree kept visible, and a single score whose weighting you control.

Navigate

  • Browse
  • In your home
  • Ask Sonion
  • Methodology
  • Criteria
  • Extension
  • How scoring works
  • Account

The one rule

We never blend a score that hides who disagrees. Funding model travels with every rating. Weights are computed at read time and never stored.

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/NIVEA/Nourishing Milk Cream
Nourishing Milk Cream
NIVEA

Nourishing Milk Cream

body milks400mlGTIN 4005808236923
Bio Therapy Body Lotion

Cleaner pick · Safest moisturize we have rated

Africology Skincare & Spa

Bio Therapy Body Lotion

+74 on ingredient safety

250ml · 78 ZAR · 31.20 ZAR/100 ml

Ingredient safetyRaters agree
Find on Amazon ↗See all 3895 cleaner options →

Ranked by safety only. We may earn a commission on the link; it never changes the order.

Your composite

29OUT OF 100Horrible

range 26–49

26▲▼ split
Safety
—
Eco
30
Labor
32
Pkg

Why this score

17-point split

15

Scan

32

Precautionary

25

Tolerance

See why →
Find on Amazon↗

Affiliate link. We may earn a commission. It never changes a rating.

In your home

Sort this into a room

Cleaner options

3895 found

See better →

Flagged

8 ingredients

What's flagged →

Raters split

Ingredient safety

A 70-point gap between the two loudest voices.

15Greenlens Ingredient ScanIndependent
vs
85Health Canada Ingredient HotlistGovernment
050100
See why, ingredient by ingredient→

All 3895 cleaner options, safest first → We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.

Every rater, every axis

Ingredient safety

70 pts apart
  • Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →

  • A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →

  • Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →

  • A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →

  • A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →

  • Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →

✓Also screened, nothing found: ECHA SVHC Candidate List · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · IARC Monographs · California Proposition 65

Environmental

    ✓Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction

    Labor

    • Run by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →

    Packaging

    • Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →

    Coverage & match quality

    8 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×
    Environmentalno rating

    No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.

    1.0×
    1.0×
    0 means ignored. Higher = more weight in your composite.

    What we know about the packaging

    Partly identified·1 of 2 identified

    1 of 2 packaging components is a named material; Plastic (unspecified) is recorded only in general terms, so that part of the score is a stand-in.

    • 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

    Robust·20 of 21 characterized

    Our sources have reference data on 20 of 21 listed ingredients; 1 is uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.

    Worth a look (8)

    • Butylphenyl Methylpropional10/10perfuming · fragranceraters disagree

      Reproductive-toxicant concern · flagged by 5 of 9 lists →

    • Limonene7/10perfuming · deodorant · solventraters disagree

      ANSES endocrine candidate · flagged by 3 of 9 lists →

    • Linalool6/10perfuming · deodorantraters disagree

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

    • Benzyl Alcohol6/10preservative · perfuming · solventraters disagree

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

    • Geraniol6/10perfuming · tonicraters disagree

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

    • Citronellol6/10perfumingraters disagree

      ANSES endocrine candidate · flagged by 2 of 9 lists →

    • Parfum6/10perfuming · fragranceraters disagree

      Undisclosed fragrance blend · 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 (12)

    • Aqua
    • Paraffinum Liquidum
    • Isohexadecane
    • Glycerin
    • Isopropyl Palmitate
    • Cera Microcristallina
    • PEG-40 Sorbitan Perisostearate
    • Polyglyceryl-3 Diisostearate
    • Prunus Amygdalus Dulcis Oil
    • Magnesium Sulfate
    • Sodium Citrate
    • Potassium Sorbate

    No data in our sources (1)

    • Alpha-lsomethyl lonone

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