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
  • 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 safetyOpen data via Open Beauty Facts · no EWG/Yuka scraping
As an Amazon Associate, Greenlens earns from qualifying purchases. Affiliate income never changes a rating or ranking.PrivacyTerms
Catalog/Parodontax/parodontax
parodontax
Parodontax

parodontax

pasta dentifrica75mlGTIN 5054563058393

Your composite

49OUT OF 100Poor

range 45–62

68▲▼ split
Safety
—
Eco
30
Labor
—
Pkg

Why this score

34-point split

81

Scan

60

Precautionary

94

Tolerance

See why →
Find on Amazon↗

Affiliate link. We may earn a commission. It never changes a rating.

In your home

Sort this into a room

Alternatives

Nothing beats this on safety.

Flagged

5 ingredients

What's flagged →

Raters split

Ingredient safety

A 34-point gap between the two loudest voices.

60Greenlens Precautionary ScreenIndependent
vs
94Greenlens Tolerance ScreenIndependent
050100
See why, ingredient by ingredient→

Every rater, every axis

Ingredient safety

Split · 34 pts apart
  • Greenlens Ingredient ScanIndependentunverified match
    81
  • Greenlens Precautionary ScreenIndependentunverified match
    60
  • EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI)Governmentunverified match
    80
  • Greenlens Tolerance ScreenIndependentunverified match
    94
  • ANSES Endocrine DisruptorsGovernmentunverified match
    60

Lowest 60 · highest 94 · gap 34

Also screened — no listing found

  • US NTP Report on Carcinogens
  • ECHA SVHC Candidate List
  • IARC Monographs
  • Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist
  • California Proposition 65

Environmental

    Also screened — no listing found

    • EU Microplastics Restriction

    Labor

    • Cruelty-Free CertificationNonprofitunverified match
      30

    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.

    no black box

    How this score is built

    We don't rate products ourselves. We collect what each public rater already says, put every scale on common ground, and keep the disagreements visible instead of averaging them away.

    1. 1

      Collect each rater's own score

      Every source keeps its native verdict for this product. We never invent a score for an axis a source didn't measure.

    2. 2

      Normalize to 0–100, higher = better

      Raters can use different scales and directions: some where a low number means safe, some where a high one does. We map them all onto one 0–100 axis and flip the ones that run backwards so the numbers are finally comparable.

    3. 3

      Average per axis, but keep the spread

      Scores on the same axis become one representative number (their mean). When raters split by 20+ points we flag it and keep every rater's number. A disagreement is never blended into silence.

    4. 4

      Your weights make the overall

      The ring is the weighted average of the four pillars using your weights. It's computed fresh every time and never stored, so there's no hidden “objective” default.

    worked example · Ingredient safety

    • Greenlens Ingredient Scan81 on 0–100→81
    • Greenlens Precautionary Screen60 on 0–100→60
    • EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI)80 on 0–100→80
    • Greenlens Tolerance Screen94 on 0–100→94
    • ANSES Endocrine Disruptors60 on 0–100→60
    Average of 81 · 60 · 80 · 94 · 60pillar68

    Raters split here, so this 68 is a midpoint, not a consensus. The spread stays on the “every rater” list above.

    Why the safety score

    Greenlens Ingredient Scan

    Independent · EU regulatory reference

    81/100

    Flagged 4 of 18 ingredients: 1 restricted, 3 regulated allergens.

    • N,N-BIS(2-HYDROXYETHYL)- P-PHENYLENEDIAMINE SULFATEEU Cosmetics Regulation Annex III (restricted)−10
    • Mentha Piperita OilEU Cosmetics Regulation Annex III / Reg. (EU) 2023/1545 (labelled fragrance allergen)−3
    • LimoneneEU Cosmetics Regulation Annex III / Reg. (EU) 2023/1545 (labelled fragrance allergen)−3
    • LinaloolEU Cosmetics Regulation Annex III / Reg. (EU) 2023/1545 (labelled fragrance allergen)−3

    Starts at 100; 14 other ingredients carried no recognized regulated hazard. Absence of a flag means no regulated hazard was recognized — not proof of safety. This is one lens; see where raters disagree above.

    Why this score

    Every ingredient, under all three lenses

    The Scan is one opinion. The strict and lenient lenses read the same list and land 34 points apart. See what each one flags, and what it costs.

    All three lenses →

    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×
    Packagingno rating

    No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.

    0 means ignored. Higher = more weight in your composite.

    Flagged ingredients

    • Cocamidopropyl Betaine3 positions →
    • N,N-BIS(2-HYDROXYETHYL)- P-PHENYLENEDIAMINE SULFATE4 positions →
    • Mentha Piperita Oil3 positions →
    • Limonene5 positions →
    • Linalool4 positions →

    Ingredients, decoded

    Data availability

    Good·12 of 18 characterized

    Our sources have reference data on 12 of 18 listed ingredients; 6 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.

    Every listed ingredient: its function, where our safety lists land, and whether our sources have data on it.
    IngredientWhat it doesSafetyData
    Sodium bicarbonate→abrasivebufferingdeodorantabrasivebufferingdeodorantNo flags in our sourcesWell-characterized
    water→antiplaqueskin conditioningsolventantiplaqueskin conditioningsolventNo flags in our sourcesWell-characterized
    glycerin→perfuminghumectantdenaturantperfuminghumectantdenaturantNo flags in our sourcesWell-characterized
    alcohol→fragranceantimicrobialantifoamingfragranceantimicrobialantifoaming6/10ANSES endocrine candidate· flagged by 3 of 9raters disagreeReferenced
    cocamidopropyl betaine→antistaticcleansinghair conditioningantistaticcleansinghair conditioning6/10Strong contact sensitizer· flagged by 1 of 9raters disagreeReferenced
    mentha arvensis oil→—Not in our sourcesNo data
    mentha piperita oil→perfumingfragrancerefreshingperfumingfragrancerefreshing4/10EU-regulated fragrance allergen· flagged by 1 of 9raters disagreeReferenced
    xatham gum→—Not in our sourcesNo data
    echinacea purpurea flower Leaf→—Not in our sourcesNo data
    stem juice→—Not in our sourcesNo data
    krameria triandra extract→—Not in our sourcesNo data
    chamomilla recutita extract→skin conditioningskin conditioningNo flags in our sourcesCosIng-catalogued
    salvia officinalis oil→fragrancetonicfragrancetonicNo flags in our sourcesCosIng-catalogued
    commiphora myrrha extract→—Not in our sourcesNo data
    limonene→perfumingdeodorantsolventperfumingdeodorantsolvent7/10ANSES endocrine candidate· flagged by 3 of 9raters disagreeReferenced
    sodium saccharin→fragranceflavouringoral carefragranceflavouringoral careNo flags in our sourcesCosIng-catalogued
    linalool→perfumingdeodorantperfumingdeodorant6/10EU harmonised skin sensitizer· flagged by 2 of 9raters disagreeReferenced
    CI77491→colorantcolorantNo flags in our sourcesCosIng-catalogued

    Where this came from

    Cruelty-free status recorded from globalbankingandfinance.com ↗

    Researched facts on Greenlens always carry the page that stated them — nothing is inferred from a model's memory.