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/Dr.Reddy's/Venusia Derm Moisturizing Cream
Venusia Derm Moisturizing Cream
Dr.Reddy's

Venusia Derm Moisturizing Cream

Face Cream75gGTIN 8901148250451
Beta Glucan Daily Moisture Cream

Cleaner pick · Safest moisturizers we have rated

Iunik Global

Beta Glucan Daily Moisture Cream

+69 on ingredient safety

$17

Ingredient safetyRaters agree
Find on Amazon ↗See all 5592 cleaner options →

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

Your composite

39OUT OF 100Horrible

range 31–63

31▲▼ split
Safety
—
Eco
—
Labor
46
Pkg

Why this score

27-point split

15

Scan

42

Precautionary

25

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

5592 found

See better →

Flagged

3 ingredients

What's flagged →

Raters split

Ingredient safety

A 65-point gap between the two loudest voices.

15Greenlens Ingredient ScanIndependent
vs
80ECHA SVHC Candidate ListGovernment
050100
See why, ingredient by ingredient→

All 5592 cleaner options, safest first → We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.

Every rater, every axis

Ingredient safety

65 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 →

  • 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 →

✓Also screened, nothing found: California Proposition 65 · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · IARC Monographs · Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist

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.

    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

    Good·13 of 16 characterized

    Our sources have reference data on 13 of 16 listed ingredients; 3 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.

    Worth a look (3)

    • Cyclomethicone10/10emollient · hair conditioning · solventraters disagree

      EU-prohibited · flagged by 5 of 9 lists →

    • Fragrance6/10undeclared fragrance blendperfumingraters disagree

      Undisclosed fragrance blend · flagged by 2 of 9 lists →

    • Phenoxy ethanol4/10preservative · antimicrobialraters disagree

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

    ✓No flags in our sources (10)

    • Purified water
    • Propylene glycolcommon irritant
    • Emulsifying wax
    • Glycerinhumectant
    • Shea butter
    • Mango butter
    • Cocoa butterrich occlusive
    • Stearic acid
    • Dimethiconerich occlusive
    • Zinc oxidesoothing

    No data in our sources (3)

    • Aloe butter
    • Cetanol
    • Disodium Edetate

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

    What these ingredient tags mean (5)

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

    • common irritantPropylene glycol

      • Propylene glycol: A solvent that shows up in patch-test clinics, more often as irritation than as allergy. American Contact Dermatitis Society, Allergen of the Year 2018 (Jacob SE, Scheman A, McGowan MA, Dermatitis 2018;29(1):3-5).
    • undeclared fragrance blendFragrance

      • Fragrance: 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.
    • rich occlusiveCocoa butter, Dimethicone

      • Cocoa butter: A rich butter the FDA recognises by name as a skin protectant. FDA OTC skin protectant monograph, 21 CFR 347.10(d): "Cocoa butter, 50 to 100 percent."
      • 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".
    • soothingZinc oxide

      • Zinc oxide: A mineral UV filter that the FDA also recognises as a skin protectant. FDA OTC skin protectant monograph, 21 CFR 347.10(u), lists zinc oxide as a skin-protectant active at 1 to 25%. Its labelled indication is 21 CFR 347.50(b)(3), "dries the oozing and weeping of poison: ivy, oak, sumac". The monograph does not give it the "minor skin irritation and itching" wording.

    Where this came from

    Product identity (name, brand, category) verified against drreddysvenusia.com ↗

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