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/Jordan/Tandpasta Milde Fruitsmaak 6-12 Jaar
Tandpasta Milde Fruitsmaak 6-12 Jaar
Jordan

Tandpasta Milde Fruitsmaak 6-12 Jaar

Verzorging50mlGTIN 7046110075562
Natural Tooth Powder, Cinnamon

Cleaner pick · Safest oral care we have rated

BEE-OCH Organics

Natural Tooth Powder, Cinnamon

+84 on ingredient safety

Ingredient safetyRaters agree
Find on Amazon ↗See all 1539 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 23–66

16▲▼ split
Safety
—
Eco
—
Labor
46
Pkg

Why this score

42-point split

0

Scan

42

Precautionary

0

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

1539 found

See better →

Flagged

5 ingredients

What's flagged →

Raters split

Ingredient safety

A 85-point gap between the two loudest voices.

0Greenlens Ingredient ScanIndependent
vs
85Health Canada Ingredient HotlistGovernment
050100
See why, ingredient by ingredient→

All 1539 cleaner options, safest first → We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.

Every rater, every axis

Ingredient safety

85 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 →

  • 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: ECHA SVHC Candidate List · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · California Proposition 65 · IARC Monographs · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · ANSES Endocrine Disruptors

✓US EPA Safer Choice (SCIL) recognizes 69% of ingredients as safer choices — a marker, never a score.

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

    5 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

    Unidentified·0 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.

    • 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

    Nobody published the material for this product, so it was read from the product photo — the container looks like this, rather than the maker saying so. Treat the packaging score as weaker here than on a product with a declared material.

    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

    Robust·16 of 16 characterized

    Our sources have reference data on all 16 listed ingredients.

    Worth a look (5)

    • CI 420518/10colorantraters disagree

      EU-prohibited · flagged by 2 of 9 lists →

    • CI 741608/10colorantraters disagree

      EU-prohibited · flagged by 2 of 9 lists →

    • Cocamidopropyl Betaine6/10antistatic · cleansing · hair conditioningraters disagree

      Strong contact sensitizer · flagged by 1 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 →

    ✓No flags in our sources (11)

    • Sorbitol
    • Aqua
    • Hydrated Silica
    • PEG-32
    • Glycerin
    • Trisodium Phosphate
    • Cellulose Gum
    • Sodium Benzoate
    • Sodium Chloride
    • Sodium Sulfate
    • Sodium Saccharin