Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 21-point gap between the two loudest voices.
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 →
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 · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · California Proposition 65 · IARC Monographs
Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction
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 · 2 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.
What we know about the packaging
Partly identified1 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.
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.
Data availability
Fair16 of 29 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 16 of 29 listed ingredients; 13 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.
Worth a look (11)
Reproductive-toxicant concernflagged by 5 of 9 lists →
ANSES endocrine candidateflagged by 3 of 9 lists →
ANSES endocrine candidateflagged by 2 of 9 lists →
EU harmonised skin sensitizerflagged by 2 of 9 lists →
Undisclosed fragrance blendflagged by 2 of 9 lists →
ANSES endocrine candidateflagged by 2 of 9 lists →
EU harmonised skin sensitizerflagged by 2 of 9 lists →
EU harmonised skin sensitizerflagged by 2 of 9 lists →
EU-restricted (with limits)flagged by 2 of 9 lists →
Mild sensitizer for someflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
EU-regulated fragrance allergenflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
No flags in our sources (5)
No data in our sources (13)
Not a verdict — our authorities simply have no reference for these.
These describe what an ingredient is, not whether it is a problem. The stance marks above are the ratings; these are not.
fragrance materialBUTYLPHENYL METHYLPROPIONAL, LIMONENE, CITRONELLOL, GERANIOL, HEXYL CINNAMAL, ALPHA-ISOMETHYL IONONE, LINALOOL, BENZYL ALCOHOL
undeclared fragrance blendPARFUM
humectantGLYCERIN
Where this came from
Product identity (name, brand, category) verified against valquer.com ↗
Researched facts on Greenlens always carry the page that stated them — nothing is inferred from a model's memory.