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
  • Ask Sonion
  • 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 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/iWHITE/instant teeth whitening
I
iWHITE

instant teeth whitening

Toothpaste75mlGTIN 5412748731187
R

Cleaner pick · Safest toothpaste we have rated

RiseWell

Mineral Toothpaste Flavorless

+69 on ingredient safety

$12

Ingredient safetyRaters agree
Find on Amazon ↗See all 571 cleaner options →

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

Your composite

31OUT OF 100Horrible

range 22–57

31▲▼ split
Safety
—
Eco
—
Labor
31
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

571 found

See better →

Flagged

4 ingredients

What's flagged →

Raters split

Ingredient safety

A 69-point gap between the two loudest voices.

13Greenlens Ingredient ScanIndependent
vs
82IARC MonographsGovernment
050100
See why, ingredient by ingredient→

All 571 cleaner options, safest first → We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.

Every rater, every axis

Ingredient safety

69 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 →

  • 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 →

  • 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 →

✓Also screened, nothing found: EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · California Proposition 65 · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · ECHA SVHC Candidate List

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

    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.

    Ingredients, decoded

    Data availability

    Good·21 of 25 characterized

    Our sources have reference data on 21 of 25 listed ingredients; 4 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.

    Worth a look (5)

    • Cl 741608/10raters disagree

      EU-prohibited · flagged by 2 of 9 lists

    • CI 778918/10colorantraters disagree

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

    • Aroma6/10flavouringraters disagree

      Undisclosed fragrance blend · flagged by 2 of 9 lists →

    • Sodium Fluoride4/10antiplaque · oral careraters disagree

      EU-restricted (with limits) · flagged by 3 of 9 lists →

    • Citric Acid4/10fragrance · chelating · bufferingraters disagree

      Health Canada Hotlist — restricted · flagged by 1 of 9 lists →

    ✓No flags in our sources (16)

    • Aqua
    • Hydrated Silica
    • Disodium Pyrophosphate
    • Tetrapotassium Pyrophosphate
    • Alumina
    • Cellulose Gum
    • Cyclodextrin
    • Mannitol
    • Microcrystalline Cellulose
    • Sodium Saccharin
    • Phthalimidoperoxycaproic Acid
    • Hydroxypropyl Starch Phosphate
    • Zea Mays Starch
    • Hydrogenated Lecithin
    • Monosodium Citrate
    • Sorbitol

    No data in our sources (4)

    • Sodium Lauryl Sulfate Sodium Folyphosphate
    • Charcdal Powder
    • Contains Sodium Fluoride
    • 1450 ppm F

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