
Cleaner pick · Safest cleansing we have rated
Africology Skincare & Spa
Bio Therapy Shampoo+43 on ingredient safety, gives up 14 on packaging
250ml · 47.50 ZAR · 19 ZAR/100 ml
Ranked by safety only. Greenlens earns from qualifying purchases. Payout never affects a rating, a ranking, or the cleaner pick.
Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 58-point gap between the two loudest voices.
All 2772 cleaner options, safest first We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.
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 →
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 →
A government authority. 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: California Proposition 65 · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · IARC Monographs
Recognized on a safer-ingredients list: US EPA Safer Choice recognizes 60% of ingredients as safer choices — a marker, never a score.
Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction
Run by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. This rates Schauma as a company and applies to everything they make, not this product alone. 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 →
Coverage & match quality
8 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.
What we know about the packaging
Unidentified0 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.
This says how precisely the packaging is described, not how good it is — a fully identified material can still be a bad one.
Data availability
Robust25 of 25 characterized
Our sources have reference data on all 25 listed ingredients.
Worth a look (6)
ANSES endocrine candidateflagged by 3 of 9 lists →
Strong contact sensitizerflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
Undisclosed fragrance blendflagged by 2 of 9 lists →
ANSES endocrine candidateflagged by 2 of 9 lists →
EU harmonised skin sensitizerflagged by 2 of 9 lists →
Health Canada Hotlist — restrictedflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
No flags in our sources (19)
These describe what an ingredient is, not whether it is a problem. The stance marks above are the ratings; these are not.
common irritantCocamidopropyl Betaine, Propylene Glycol
fragrance materialHexyl Cinnamal, Limonene, Geraniol
undeclared fragrance blendParfum
humectantPanthenol, Glycerin
soothingPanthenol
Where this came from
Product identity (name, brand, category) verified against chemiazniemiec.pl ↗
Cruelty-free status recorded from crueltyfree.peta.org ↗
Researched facts on Greenlens always carry the page that stated them — nothing is inferred from a model's memory.