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/essence/Lash Princess False Lash Effect Black Waterproof Mascara
Lash Princess False Lash Effect Black Waterproof Mascara
essence · owned by Henkel

Lash Princess False Lash Effect Black Waterproof Mascara

beautyGTIN 4059729207241
Just Chillin' Cooling Shadow Stick

Cleaner pick · Safest eyes we have rated

Revolution

Just Chillin' Cooling Shadow Stick
Ingredient safetyRaters agree
Find on Amazon ↗See all 531 cleaner options →

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

Your composite

79OUT OF 100Good

range 79–79

99
Safety
—
Eco
92
Labor
46
Pkg

Why this score

2-point split

100

Scan

98

Precautionary

100

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

531 found

See better →

Flagged

1 ingredient

What's flagged →

All 531 cleaner options, safest first → We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.

Every rater, every axis

Ingredient safety

raters agree
  • 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 →

✓Also screened, nothing found: ECHA SVHC Candidate List · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · California Proposition 65 · IARC Monographs · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · ANSES Endocrine Disruptors · Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist

✓US EPA Safer Choice (SCIL) recognizes 52% of ingredients as safer choices — a marker, never a score.

Environmental

    ✓Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction

    Labor

    • Run by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. This rates essence as a company and applies to everything they make, not this product alone. Checked this week. about this rater →

    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

    5 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

    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.

    How we know the packaging

    Nobody published the material for this product, so it was read from the product photo — the container looks like this, rather than the maker saying so. Treat the packaging score as weaker here than on a product with a declared material.

    A photo also cannot show the resin code moulded into the base, so every plastic container reads as “plastic, unspecified” — the cautious end of the plastics range, not a finding about this particular pack.

    Ingredients, decoded

    Data availability

    Good·22 of 29 characterized

    Our sources have reference data on 22 of 29 listed ingredients; 7 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.

    Worth a look (1)

    • phenoxyethanol4/10preservative · antimicrobialraters disagree

      Mild sensitizer for some · flagged by 1 of 9 lists →

    ✓No flags in our sources (21)

    • aqua
    • cera alba
    • paraffin
    • glyceryl stearate
    • oryza sativa
    • butylene glycol
    • palmitic acid
    • acacia senegal gum
    • polybutene
    • copernicia cerifera cera
    • potassium sorbate
    • ci 77499
    • aminomethyl propanol
    • stearic acid
    • eicosene copolymer
    • tocopherol
    • hydroxyethylcellulose
    • dimethicone
    • polyester 4
    • ethylhexylglycerin
    • sodium nitrate

    No data in our sources (7)

    • bran wax
    • vp
    • cosnova frankfurt
    • new york
    • london
    • 0 40 fl
    • oz e e gm

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