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/Love Generation/Lipstick Balm Wet Dream 08 Berry Nude - Moisturizing Lip Balm with Soft Shine
Lipstick Balm Wet Dream 08 Berry Nude - Moisturizing Lip Balm with Soft Shine
Love Generation

Lipstick Balm Wet Dream 08 Berry Nude - Moisturizing Lip Balm with Soft Shine

Tinted lip balmsGTIN 4602006352952
Grapefruit & Currant Thinkdaily Lip Balm

Cleaner pick · Safest lip care we have rated

Thinkbaby

Grapefruit & Currant Thinkdaily Lip Balm

+77 on ingredient safety

$3.49

Ingredient safetyRaters agree
Find on Amazon ↗See all 3955 cleaner options →

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

Your composite

35OUT OF 100Horrible

range 28–63

23▲▼ split
Safety
—
Eco
—
Labor
46
Pkg

Why this score

29-point split

13

Scan

42

Precautionary

25

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

3955 found

See better →

Flagged

4 ingredients

What's flagged →

Raters split

Ingredient safety

A 70-point gap between the two loudest voices.

10ANSES Endocrine DisruptorsGovernment
vs
80EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI)Government
050100
See why, ingredient by ingredient→

All 3955 cleaner options, safest first → We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.

Every rater, every axis

Ingredient safety

70 pts apart
  • 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 →

  • 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 →

✓Also screened, nothing found: Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · California Proposition 65

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

    7 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.

    How we know the packaging

    Read from the product photo, not declared by the maker — treat this score as weaker.

    The container looks like this, rather than the maker saying so. 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·17 of 22 characterized

    Our sources have reference data on 17 of 22 listed ingredients; 5 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.

    Worth a look (4)

    • Styrene10/10solventraters disagree

      EU-prohibited · flagged by 5 of 9 lists →

    • CI 778918/10colorantraters disagree

      ANSES CMR-listed · flagged by 5 of 9 lists →

    • Parfum6/10undeclared fragrance blendperfuming · fragranceraters disagree

      Undisclosed fragrance blend · flagged by 2 of 9 lists →

    • CI 172004/10colorant · hair dyeingraters disagree

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

    ✓No flags in our sources (13)

    • Diisostearyl Malate
    • Polyglyceryl-2 Triisostearate
    • Phenyl Trimethicone
    • Bis-Diglyceryl Polyacyladipate-2
    • Synthetic Wax
    • Silica Dimethyl Silylate
    • Cera Alba
    • Tocopheryl Acetate
    • Polyglyceryl-2 Diisostearate
    • Triethoxycaprylylsilane
    • Pentaerythrityl Tetra-dit-butyl Hydroxyhydrocinnamate
    • CI 77491
    • CI 77492

    No data in our sources (5)

    • Bis-Behenyl
    • Isostearyl
    • Phytosteryl Dimer Dilinoleyl Dimer Dilinoleate
    • Methylstyrene
    • Indene Copolymer

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

    What these ingredient tags mean (1)

    These describe what an ingredient is, not whether it is a problem. The stance marks above are the ratings; these are not.

    • undeclared fragrance blendParfum

      • Parfum: 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.