Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 40-point gap between the two loudest voices.
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: California Proposition 65 · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · IARC Monographs · ECHA SVHC Candidate List
Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction
Coverage & match quality
2 ratings · 1 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.
No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.
No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.
Data availability
Not enough to score3 of 12 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 3 of 12 listed ingredients; 9 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 That is not enough of the label for a safety score to be honest, so we do not publish one.
Worth a look (2)
ANSES endocrine candidateflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
Health Canada Hotlist — prohibitedflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
No flags in our sources (1)
No data in our sources (9)
Not a verdict — our authorities simply have no reference for these.
Where this came from
Product identity (name, brand, category) verified against fitaminat.com ↗
Researched facts on Greenlens always carry the page that stated them — nothing is inferred from a model's memory.