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/Agiva/Perfect Hair Styling Wax Matte Look
A
Agiva

Perfect Hair Styling Wax Matte Look

Styling Gel175mlGTIN 8698703025202
Curl Freeze Lash Styling Gel

Cleaner pick · Safest styling we have rated

Catrice Cosmetics

Curl Freeze Lash Styling Gel

+56 on ingredient safety

$7

Ingredient safetyRaters agree
Find on Amazon ↗See all 3658 cleaner options →

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

Your composite

45OUT OF 100Poor

range 34–73

44▲▼ split
Safety
—
Eco
—
Labor
46
Pkg

Why this score

78-point split

62

Scan

22

Precautionary

100

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

3658 found

See better →

Flagged

6 ingredients

What's flagged →

Raters split

Ingredient safety

A 78-point gap between the two loudest voices.

22Greenlens Precautionary ScreenIndependent
vs
100Greenlens Tolerance ScreenIndependent
050100
See why, ingredient by ingredient→

All 3658 cleaner options, safest first → We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.

Every rater, every axis

Ingredient safety

78 pts apart
  • 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 →

  • 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 →

✓Also screened, nothing found: ECHA SVHC Candidate List · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · California Proposition 65 · IARC Monographs

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

    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.

    Ingredients, decoded

    Data availability

    Robust·14 of 15 characterized

    Our sources have reference data on 14 of 15 listed ingredients; 1 is uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.

    Worth a look (6)

    • 2-Bromo-2-Nitropropane-1‚3-Diol8/10preservativeraters disagree

      Carcinogen-linked · flagged by 2 of 9 lists →

    • BHT7/10fragrance · antioxidantraters disagree

      Endocrine-active · flagged by 3 of 9 lists →

    • Parfum6/10undeclared fragrance blendperfuming · fragranceraters disagree

      Undisclosed fragrance blend · flagged by 2 of 9 lists →

    • Iodopropynyl Butylcarbamate6/10preservativeraters disagree

      EU harmonised skin sensitizer · flagged by 1 of 9 lists →

    • Hexyl Cinnamal6/10fragrance materialperfumingraters disagree

      ANSES endocrine candidate · flagged by 2 of 9 lists →

    • D-Limonene6/10fragrance materialraters disagree

      ANSES endocrine candidate · flagged by 2 of 9 lists →

    ✓No flags in our sources (8)

    • Ceteareth-25
    • PEG-7 Glyceryl Cocoate
    • Hectorite
    • Glycerinhumectant
    • Laureth-4
    • Ozokerite
    • PPG-2 Methyl Etherfragrance material
    • Aqua

    No data in our sources (1)

    • Berzyl Alcohol

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

    What these ingredient tags mean (3)

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

    • fragrance materialHexyl Cinnamal, D-Limonene

      • Hexyl Cinnamal: A jasmine-like fragrance component named separately on the label. EU Regulation (EC) 1223/2009, Annex III entry 87: a fragrance substance whose presence must be indicated in the list of ingredients above 0,001% in leave-on and 0,01% in rinse-off products, because of established contact-allergy risk.
      • D-Limonene: A citrus-smelling fragrance component named separately on the label; the one name covers three related isomers. EU Regulation (EC) 1223/2009, Annex III entry 88: a fragrance substance whose presence must be indicated in the list of ingredients above 0,001% in leave-on and 0,01% in rinse-off products, because of established contact-allergy risk. That entry carries transition footnote (37): stock that does not comply, lawfully placed on the Union market before the 31 July 2026 cut-off, may still be made available until 31 July 2028. It is marked on the racemic dl-limonene/Dipentene line and the (S)-(l-limonene) line, but NOT the (R)-p-mentha-1,8-diene (d-limonene) line, CAS 5989-27-5, whose duty was already running as entry 88 before Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/1545 and so needed no transition. All three isomers are declared under the single glossary name "Limonene", so that name on a label does not identify which of them is present.
    • undeclared fragrance blendParfum

      • Parfum: A blend the label does not itemize, so what is in it cannot be read from the ingredient list. EU Regulation (EC) 1223/2009 permits the collective term "parfum"; the SCCS Opinion on Fragrance Allergens (SCCS/1459/11) reviews the contact-allergy evidence for the substances it can contain.
    • 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".

    Where this came from

    Product identity (name, brand, category) verified against world.openbeautyfacts.org ↗

    Researched facts on Greenlens always carry the page that stated them — nothing is inferred from a model's memory.