Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 52-point gap between the two loudest voices.
Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. 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 →
Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →
Also screened, nothing found: ANSES Endocrine Disruptors · California Proposition 65 · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · IARC Monographs · Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist · ECHA SVHC Candidate List
US EPA Safer Choice (SCIL) recognizes 64% of ingredients as safer choices — a marker, never a score.
A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →
Run by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. about this rater →
Coverage & match quality
5 ratings · 3 of 4 axes
Tune your weights
composite recomputes live
+No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.
Data availability
Robust20 of 22 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 20 of 22 listed ingredients; 2 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.
Worth a look (4)
Undisclosed fragrance blendflagged by 2 of 9 lists →
EU microplastics-restrictedflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
EU-restricted (with limits)flagged by 2 of 9 lists →
Mild sensitizer for someflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
No flags in our sources (16)
No data in our sources (2)
Not a verdict — our authorities simply have no reference for these.
Where this came from
Product identity (name, brand, category) verified against caretobeauty.com ↗
Researched facts on Greenlens always carry the page that stated them — nothing is inferred from a model's memory.