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/baby dove/lotion
lotion
baby dove · owned by Unilever

lotion

open beauty factsGTIN 8710447362938

Your composite

61OUT OF 100Fair

range 55–71

52▲▼ split
Safety
90
Eco
55
Labor
46
Pkg

Why this score

13-point split

80

Scan

93

Precautionary

88

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

Alternatives

No fair cohort on file, so no comparison.

Flagged

4 ingredients

What's flagged →

Raters split

Ingredient safety

A 63-point gap between the two loudest voices.

30ANSES Endocrine DisruptorsGovernment
vs
93Greenlens Precautionary ScreenIndependent
050100
See why, ingredient by ingredient→

Every rater, every axis

Ingredient safety

63 pts apart
  • 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 · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist · California Proposition 65

Environmental

  • A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →

Labor

  • Run by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. This rates baby dove as a company and applies to everything they make, not this product alone. 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

8 ratings · 4 of 4 axes

  • Some ratings rest on an automatic match that has not been human-reviewed.

Weighted by what you care about

Tune your weights

composite recomputes live

+
1.0×
1.0×
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

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

Good·15 of 18 characterized

Our sources have reference data on 15 of 18 listed ingredients; 3 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.

Worth a look (4)

  • triethanolamine8/10fragrance · buffering · surfactant - cleansingraters disagree

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

  • ci 778918/10colorantraters disagree

    ANSES CMR-listed · flagged by 5 of 9 lists →

  • carbomer4/10emulsion stabilising · gel forming · viscosity controllingraters disagree

    EU microplastics-restricted · flagged by 1 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
  • petrolatumrich occlusive
  • stearic acid
  • dimethiconerich occlusive
  • cetearyl alcohol
  • disodium edta
  • glyceryl stearate
  • magnesium aluminum silicate
  • stearamide amp
  • tapioca starch

No data in our sources (3)

  • glycoll stearate
  • 38"> isopropyl isostearate
  • capryłyl glycol

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

What these ingredient tags mean (2)

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

  • rich occlusivepetrolatum, dimethicone

    • petrolatum: A barrier that sits on the surface of the skin, which is also why it feels heavy. FDA OTC skin protectant monograph, 21 CFR 347.10(m) and (r), lists petrolatum and white petrolatum as skin protectants at 30 to 100%.
    • dimethicone: A silicone that forms a film on the surface of the skin without an oily feel. FDA OTC skin protectant monograph, 21 CFR 347.10(g), lists dimethicone as a skin protectant at 1 to 30%.
  • 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 ebay.com ↗

Cruelty-free status recorded from crueltyfree.peta.org ↗

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