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/Lola Cosmetics/Meu Cacho Minha Vida Jelly Gel
Meu Cacho Minha Vida Jelly Gel
Lola Cosmetics

Meu Cacho Minha Vida Jelly Gel

Leave in Styling Product500gGTIN 7899572806799
Curl Freeze Lash Styling Gel

Cleaner pick · Safest styling we have rated

Catrice Cosmetics

Curl Freeze Lash Styling Gel

+24 on ingredient safety

$7

Ingredient safetyRaters agree
Find on Amazon ↗See all 420 cleaner options →

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

Your composite

65OUT OF 100Fair

range 62–73

76▲▼ split
Safety
—
Eco
74
Labor
46
Pkg

Why this score

8-point split

90

Scan

98

Precautionary

94

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

420 found

See better →

Flagged

2 ingredients

What's flagged →

Raters split

Ingredient safety

A 33-point gap between the two loudest voices.

65ANSES Endocrine DisruptorsGovernment
vs
98Greenlens Precautionary ScreenIndependent
050100
See why, ingredient by ingredient→

All 420 cleaner options, safest first → We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.

Every rater, every axis

Ingredient safety

33 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: Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist · ECHA SVHC Candidate List · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · California Proposition 65 · IARC Monographs

Environmental

    ✓Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction

    Labor

    • Run by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →

    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

    6 ratings · 3 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.

    1.0×
    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

    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

    Robust·13 of 13 characterized

    Our sources have reference data on all 13 listed ingredients.

    Worth a look (2)

    • Triethanolamine8/10fragrance · buffering · surfactant - cleansingraters disagree

      ANSES CMR-listed · flagged by 3 of 9 lists →

    • Phenoxyethanol4/10preservative · antimicrobialraters disagree

      Mild sensitizer for some · flagged by 1 of 9 lists →

    ✓No flags in our sources (11)

    • Aqua
    • Glycerinhumectant
    • Acrylates/Beheneth-25 Methacrylate Copolymer
    • Oenocarpus Bataua Fruit Oil
    • Kappaphycus Alvarezii Extract
    • Eucheuma Spinosum Extract
    • Cocos Nucifera Fruit Extract
    • Chenopodium Quinoa Seed Extract
    • Carica Papaya Fruit Extract
    • Polyquaternium-10
    • Caprylyl Glycol
    What these ingredient tags mean (1)

    These describe what an ingredient is, not whether it is a problem. The stance marks above are the ratings; these are not.

    • humectantGlycerin

      • Glycerin: A humectant, and one of the two ingredients a comparison of moisturiser components found made a significant difference to skin hydration. FDA OTC skin protectant monograph, 21 CFR 347.10(h), lists glycerin as a skin protectant at 20 to 45%. On the humectant half: Jeong CB, Han JY, Cho JC, Suh KD, Nam GW, "Analysis of electrical property changes of skin by oil-in-water emulsion components", Int J Cosmet Sci 2013;35(4):402-410, DOI 10.1111/ics.12059, PMID 23621673, found that "glycerine and urea showed significant skin hydration effects compared with other humectants".