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/Xpel/Tea Tree Foaming Face Wash
Tea Tree Foaming Face Wash
Xpel

Tea Tree Foaming Face Wash

CleanserGTIN 5060120163424

Your composite

32OUT OF 100Horrible

Packaging only

—
Safety
—
Eco
—
Labor
32
Pkg
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

Alternatives

Nothing beats this on safety.

Flags

No ingredient flags.

Every rater, every axis

Ingredient safety

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

    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

      1 rating · 1 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

      +
      Ingredient safetyno rating

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

      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

      Partly identified·1 of 2 identified

      1 of 2 packaging components is a named material; Plastic (unspecified) is recorded only in general terms, so that part of the score is a stand-in.

      • 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

      Not enough to score·2 of 7 characterized

      Our sources have reference data on 2 of 7 listed ingredients; 5 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill. That is not enough of the label for a safety score to be honest, so we do not publish one.

      ✓No flags in our sources (2)

      • aqua
      • betaine

      No data in our sources (5)

      • sodium
      • laureth sulfate
      • cocomido
      • propy
      • tea tree oil etc

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

      Where this came from

      Product identity (name, brand, category) verified against intamarquewholesale.com ↗

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