Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 70-point gap between the two loudest voices.
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 →
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 →
Also screened, nothing found: ECHA SVHC Candidate List · California Proposition 65 · IARC Monographs · US NTP Report on Carcinogens
Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction
Run by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. This rates Scholl 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
Robust30 of 31 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 30 of 31 listed ingredients; 1 is uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.
Worth a look (15)
Reproductive-toxicant concernflagged by 5 of 9 lists →
ANSES endocrine candidateflagged by 3 of 9 lists →
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 →
ANSES endocrine candidateflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
ANSES endocrine candidateflagged by 2 of 9 lists →
Mild sensitizer for someflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
EU-regulated fragrance allergenflagged by 2 of 9 lists →
EU-restricted (with limits)flagged by 2 of 9 lists →
EU-regulated fragrance allergenflagged by 1 of 9 lists
Health Canada Hotlist — restrictedflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
EU-restricted (with limits)flagged by 2 of 9 lists
No flags in our sources (15)
No data in our sources (1)
Not a verdict — our authorities simply have no reference for these.
Where this came from
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.