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/odolmed3/Fresh Mint Complete Care
Fresh Mint Complete Care
odolmed3

Fresh Mint Complete Care

Mouthwash500mlGTIN 4026600101578
Xylimelts Dry Mouth Melts, Mint Free (2020 formulation)

Cleaner pick · Safest mouthwash we have rated

Oracoat

Xylimelts Dry Mouth Melts, Mint Free (2020 formulation)

+52 on ingredient safety

Ingredient safetyRaters agree
Find on Amazon ↗See all 675 cleaner options →

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

Your composite

47OUT OF 100Poor

range 41–66

48▲▼ split
Safety
—
Eco
—
Labor
46
Pkg

Why this score

40-point split

36

Scan

40

Precautionary

76

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

675 found

See better →

Flagged

6 ingredients

What's flagged →

Raters split

Ingredient safety

A 49-point gap between the two loudest voices.

36Greenlens Ingredient ScanIndependent
vs
85Health Canada Ingredient HotlistGovernment
050100
See why, ingredient by ingredient→

All 675 cleaner options, safest first → We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.

Every rater, every axis

Ingredient safety

49 pts apart
  • 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. This score changed Sep 1, 2026: source data updated. 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. This score changed Sep 1, 2026: source data updated. 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: ECHA SVHC Candidate List · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · California Proposition 65 · IARC Monographs

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

    Fair·11 of 17 characterized

    Our sources have reference data on 11 of 17 listed ingredients; 6 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.

    Worth a look (6)

    • Methylparaben7/10preservative · fragranceraters disagree

      Endocrine-active · flagged by 3 of 9 lists →

    • Propylparaben7/10preservative · perfumingraters disagree

      Endocrine-active · flagged by 4 of 9 lists →

    • Aroma6/10undeclared fragrance blendflavouringraters disagree

      Undisclosed fragrance blend · flagged by 2 of 9 lists →

    • Zinc Chloride4/10oral care · soothingraters disagree

      EU-restricted (with limits) · flagged by 2 of 9 lists →

    • Cl 420514/10raters disagree

      EU-restricted (with limits) · flagged by 2 of 9 lists →

    • sodium fluoride4/10antiplaque · oral careraters disagree

      EU-restricted (with limits) · flagged by 3 of 9 lists →

    ✓No flags in our sources (5)

    • water
    • Glycerinhumectant
    • PEG-60 Hydrogenated Castor Oil
    • sodium citrate
    • Cetylpyridinium Chloride

    No data in our sources (6)

    • Sodium Sacchann Sodium Fluoride
    • Enthält
    • Contiene
    • Contient
    • Fluoruro di sodio
    • 220 ppm F

    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 blendAroma

      • Aroma: 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".