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/The Organic Forest/Anti-Dandruff Shampoo
Anti-Dandruff Shampoo
The Organic Forest

Anti-Dandruff Shampoo

shampoosGTIN 8904406220418
Bio Therapy Shampoo

Cleaner pick · Safest cleansing we have rated

Africology Skincare & Spa

Bio Therapy Shampoo

+43 on ingredient safety

250ml · 47.50 ZAR · 19 ZAR/100 ml

Ingredient safetyRaters agree
Find on Amazon ↗See all 2769 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 37–66

57▲▼ split
Safety
—
Eco
—
Labor
32
Pkg

Why this score

58-point split

62

Scan

42

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

2769 found

See better →

Flagged

3 ingredients

What's flagged →

Raters split

Ingredient safety

A 58-point gap between the two loudest voices.

42Greenlens Precautionary ScreenIndependent
vs
100Greenlens Tolerance ScreenIndependent
050100
See why, ingredient by ingredient→

All 2769 cleaner options, safest first → We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.

Every rater, every axis

Ingredient safety

58 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 →

  • 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 · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · California Proposition 65 · ANSES Endocrine Disruptors · 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

    5 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

    Partly identified·1 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.

    • 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

    Fair·23 of 40 characterized

    Our sources have reference data on 23 of 40 listed ingredients; 17 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.

    Worth a look (3)

    • IFRA Certified Fragrance6/10raters disagree

      Undisclosed fragrance blend · flagged by 2 of 9 lists →

    • Citric Acid4/10fragrance · chelating · bufferingraters disagree

      Health Canada Hotlist — restricted · flagged by 1 of 9 lists →

    • Tea Tree Oil4/10common irritantraters disagree

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

    ✓No flags in our sources (20)

    • Sodium Lauroyl Methyl Isethionate
    • Sodium Methyl Oleoyl Taurate
    • Vegetable Glycerin
    • Phospholipids
    • Glycine Soja
    • Cetearyl Olivate
    • Erythritol
    • Glyceryl Monostearate
    • Xanthan Gum
    • Caprylyl Glycol
    • Sodium Stearoyl Glutamate
    • Vitamin E
    • Apple Cider Vinegar
    • Sodium Gluconate
    • Rosemary Oil
    • Coconut
    • Olive
    • Coconut Oil
    • Olive Oil
    • Lemon

    No data in our sources (17)

    • Lexfeel N5
    • Olivoil Fruttoside
    • Sunflower Phospholipids
    • Caprylhydroxamic
    • Glycolipid
    • Phytobioactive
    • Coconut and Castor
    • Oats
    • Sunflower Seed
    • Soybean
    • Grapes
    • Melons
    • Palm Kernel
    • Bark of Ziziphus Joazeiro
    • Plant-Based
    • Corn
    • Beets

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

    What these ingredient tags mean (1)

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

    • common irritantTea Tree Oil

      • Tea Tree Oil: An essential oil whose oxidation products carry its sensitising potential; the EU assesses it as a moderate skin sensitiser. SCCS Scientific Opinion on Tea Tree Oil (CAS/EC 68647-73-4 / 285-377-1), SCCS/1681/25, adopted 30 October 2025, which concludes it is a moderate skin sensitiser. It does not set maximum levels of its own: it assesses the concentrations the applicant defended, and finds no concern at 2,0% in shampoo, 1,0% in shower gel, 1,0% in face wash and 0,1% in face cream, for oil conforming to ISO 4730:2017, in adults, in non-sprayable formats. It draws on the earlier SCCP opinions SCCP/1155/08 and SCCP/0843/04 and incorporates their data by reference; it says nothing about their status.