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
  • 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 safetyOpen data via Open Beauty Facts · no EWG/Yuka scraping
As an Amazon Associate, Greenlens earns from qualifying purchases. Affiliate income never changes a rating or ranking.PrivacyTerms
Catalog/Paglieri/Felce azzurra bio
Felce azzurra bio
Paglieri

Felce azzurra bio

bubble baths500mlGTIN 8001280068195

Your composite

65OUT OF 100Fair

range 61–75

71▲▼ split
Safety
78
Eco
—
Labor
46
Pkg

Why this score

21-point split

79

Scan

100

Precautionary

100

Tolerance

See why →
Find on Amazon↗

Affiliate link. We may earn a commission. It never changes a rating.

In your home

Sort this into a room

Cleaner options

1 found

See better →

Flagged

6 ingredients

What's flagged →

Raters split

Ingredient safety

A 40-point gap between the two loudest voices.

60ANSES Endocrine DisruptorsGovernment
vs
100Greenlens Tolerance ScreenIndependent
050100
See why, ingredient by ingredient→

Cleaner options

See 1 cleaner alternative

Same category, ranked by ingredient safety, never by affiliate payout.

See better →

Every rater, every axis

Ingredient safety

Split · 40 pts apart
  • Greenlens Ingredient ScanIndependentunverified match
    79
  • Greenlens Precautionary ScreenIndependentunverified match
    100
  • IARC MonographsGovernmentunverified match
    82
  • ANSES Endocrine DisruptorsGovernmentunverified match
    60
  • EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI)Governmentunverified match
    70
  • Greenlens Tolerance ScreenIndependentunverified match
    100
  • Health Canada Ingredient HotlistGovernmentunverified match
    85

Lowest 60 · highest 100 · gap 40

Also screened — no listing found

  • US NTP Report on Carcinogens
  • ECHA SVHC Candidate List
  • California Proposition 65

Recognized on a safer-ingredients list

  • US EPA Safer Choice (SCIL) — 53% of ingredients recognized

Environmental

  • Open Beauty Facts Organic & NaturalNonprofitunverified match
    78

Also screened — no listing found

  • EU Microplastics Restriction

Packaging

  • Greenlens Packaging ScanIndependentunverified match
    46

Coverage & match quality

9 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.

no black box

How this score is built

We don't rate products ourselves. We collect what each public rater already says, put every scale on common ground, and keep the disagreements visible instead of averaging them away.

  1. 1

    Collect each rater's own score

    Every source keeps its native verdict for this product. We never invent a score for an axis a source didn't measure.

  2. 2

    Normalize to 0–100, higher = better

    Raters can use different scales and directions: some where a low number means safe, some where a high one does. We map them all onto one 0–100 axis and flip the ones that run backwards so the numbers are finally comparable.

  3. 3

    Average per axis, but keep the spread

    Scores on the same axis become one representative number (their mean). When raters split by 20+ points we flag it and keep every rater's number. A disagreement is never blended into silence.

  4. 4

    Your weights make the overall

    The ring is the weighted average of the four pillars using your weights. It's computed fresh every time and never stored, so there's no hidden “objective” default.

worked example · Ingredient safety

  • Greenlens Ingredient Scan79 on 0–100→79
  • Greenlens Precautionary Screen100 on 0–100→100
  • IARC Monographs82 on 0–100→82
  • ANSES Endocrine Disruptors60 on 0–100→60
  • EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI)70 on 0–100→70
  • Greenlens Tolerance Screen100 on 0–100→100
  • Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist85 on 0–100→85
Average of 79 · 100 · 82 · 60 · 70 · 100 · 85pillar71

Raters split here, so this 71 is a midpoint, not a consensus. The spread stays on the “every rater” list above.

Why the safety score

Greenlens Ingredient Scan

Independent · EU regulatory reference

79/100

Flagged 4 of 17 ingredients: 1 of concern, 3 regulated allergens.

  • Fragrance / Parfum (undisclosed)Common transparency/sensitization concern (not a regulatory ban)−12
  • CitralEU Cosmetics Regulation Annex III / Reg. (EU) 2023/1545 (labelled fragrance allergen)−3
  • GeraniolEU Cosmetics Regulation Annex III / Reg. (EU) 2023/1545 (labelled fragrance allergen)−3
  • LimoneneEU Cosmetics Regulation Annex III / Reg. (EU) 2023/1545 (labelled fragrance allergen)−3

Starts at 100; 13 other ingredients carried no recognized regulated hazard. Absence of a flag means no regulated hazard was recognized — not proof of safety. This is one lens; see where raters disagree above.

Why this score

Every ingredient, under all three lenses

The Scan is one opinion. The strict and lenient lenses read the same list and land 21 points apart. See what each one flags, and what it costs.

All three lenses →

Weighted by what you care about

Tune your weights

composite recomputes live

+
1.0×
1.0×
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.

Flagged ingredients

  • Aloe barbadensis Leaf Juice4 positions →
  • Fragrance / Parfum (undisclosed)3 positions →
  • citric acid4 positions →
  • Citral5 positions →
  • Geraniol4 positions →
  • Limonene5 positions →

Ingredients, decoded

Data availability

Robust·15 of 17 characterized

Our sources have reference data on 15 of 17 listed ingredients; 2 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.

Every listed ingredient: its function, where our safety lists land, and whether our sources have data on it.
IngredientWhat it doesSafetyData
water→antiplaqueskin conditioningsolventantiplaqueskin conditioningsolventNo flags in our sourcesWell-characterized
Aloe barbadensis Leaf Juice→skin conditioningskin conditioning4/10IARC possible carcinogen (Group 2B)· flagged by 1 of 9raters disagreeReferenced
ammonium coco sulfate→cleansingfoamingsurfactant - cleansingcleansingfoamingsurfactant - cleansingNo flags in our sourcesCosIng-catalogued
glycerin→perfuminghumectantdenaturantperfuminghumectantdenaturantNo flags in our sourcesWell-characterized
coco betaine→antistaticcleansinghair conditioningantistaticcleansinghair conditioningNo flags in our sourcesWell-characterized
Coco-Glucoside→cleansingfoamingsurfactant - cleansingcleansingfoamingsurfactant - cleansingNo flags in our sourcesWell-characterized
disodium lauroyl glutamate→cleansinghair conditioningsurfactant - cleansingcleansinghair conditioningsurfactant - cleansingNo flags in our sourcesCosIng-catalogued
glyceryl oleate→perfumingemollientsurfactant - emulsifyingperfumingemollientsurfactant - emulsifyingNo flags in our sourcesWell-characterized
parfum→perfumingfragranceperfumingfragrance4/10Transparency concern· flagged by 1 of 9raters disagreeReferenced
Citrus Limon→—Not in our sourcesNo data
fruit extracts→—Not in our sourcesNo data
citric acid→fragrancechelatingbufferingfragrancechelatingbuffering4/10Health Canada Hotlist — restricted· flagged by 1 of 9raters disagreeReferenced
sodium benzoate→preservativefragranceanticorrosivepreservativefragranceanticorrosiveNo flags in our sourcesWell-characterized
potassium sorbate→preservativefragrancepreservativefragranceNo flags in our sourcesWell-characterized
citral→perfumingflavouringperfumingflavouring7/10ANSES endocrine candidate· flagged by 3 of 9raters disagreeReferenced
geraniol→perfumingtonicperfumingtonic6/10EU harmonised skin sensitizer· flagged by 2 of 9raters disagreeReferenced
limonene→perfumingdeodorantsolventperfumingdeodorantsolvent7/10ANSES endocrine candidate· flagged by 3 of 9raters disagreeReferenced