Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 52-point gap between the two loudest voices.
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 →
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. 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. This score changed Sep 1, 2026: source data updated. about this rater →
Also screened, nothing found: ECHA SVHC Candidate List · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · California Proposition 65 · IARC Monographs
Recognized on a safer-ingredients list: US EPA Safer Choice recognizes 55% of ingredients as safer choices — a marker, never a score.
Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction
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
7 ratings · 2 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.
No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.
What we know about the packaging
Unidentified0 of 2 identified
None of the 2 packaging components is identified beyond its broad material, so the packaging score is a stand-in — 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
Robust18 of 20 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 18 of 20 listed ingredients; 2 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.
Worth a look (6)
EU harmonised CMR (cat. 1)flagged by 3 of 9 lists →
ANSES endocrine candidateflagged by 3 of 9 lists →
Undisclosed fragrance blendflagged by 2 of 9 lists →
EU harmonised skin sensitizerflagged by 2 of 9 lists →
ANSES endocrine candidateflagged by 2 of 9 lists →
Health Canada Hotlist — restrictedflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
No flags in our sources (12)
No data in our sources (2)
Not a verdict — our authorities simply have no reference for these.
These describe what an ingredient is, not whether it is a problem. The stance marks above are the ratings; these are not.
comedogenic in testingISOPROPYL PALMITATE
fragrance materialLIMONENE, LINALOOL, CITRONELLOL
undeclared fragrance blendPARFUM
humectantGLYCERIN
Where this came from
Product identity (name, brand, category) verified against world.openbeautyfacts.org ↗
Researched facts on Greenlens always carry the page that stated them — nothing is inferred from a model's memory.