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/Unilever/Wet Look
Wet Look
Unilever

Wet Look

hair gel150mlGTIN 8999999025014
Curl Freeze Lash Styling Gel

Cleaner pick · Safest styling we have rated

Catrice Cosmetics

Curl Freeze Lash Styling Gel

+57 on ingredient safety

$7

Ingredient safetyRaters agree
Find on Amazon ↗See all 3742 cleaner options →

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

Your composite

35OUT OF 100Horrible

range 29–48

43▲▼ split
Safety
—
Eco
30
Labor
31
Pkg

Why this score

57-point split

70

Scan

25

Precautionary

82

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

3742 found

See better →

Flagged

4 ingredients

What's flagged →

Raters split

Ingredient safety

A 57-point gap between the two loudest voices.

25Greenlens Precautionary ScreenIndependent
vs
82Greenlens Tolerance ScreenIndependent
050100
See why, ingredient by ingredient→

All 3742 cleaner options, safest first → We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.

Every rater, every axis

Ingredient safety

57 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. This score changed Sep 1, 2026: source data updated. 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. This score changed Sep 1, 2026: source data updated. about this rater →

✓Also screened, nothing found: EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · Health Canada Ingredient Hotlist · California Proposition 65 · IARC Monographs · ECHA SVHC Candidate List

Environmental

    ✓Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction

    Labor

    • Run by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. This rates Unilever 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

    6 ratings · 3 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.

    1.0×
    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.

    Ingredients, decoded

    Data availability

    Robust·12 of 13 characterized

    Our sources have reference data on 12 of 13 listed ingredients; 1 is 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 →

    • Diazolidinyl Urea8/10common irritantpreservativeraters disagree

      Carcinogen-linked · flagged by 1 of 9 lists →

    • CI 420514/10colorantraters disagree

      EU-restricted (with limits) · flagged by 2 of 9 lists →

    • CI 162554/10colorant · hair dyeingraters disagree

      EU-restricted (with limits) · flagged by 2 of 9 lists →

    ✓No flags in our sources (8)

    • Water
    • Polysorbate 20
    • VP/Methacrylamide/Vinyl Imidazole Copolymer
    • Perfume
    • Trisodium Ethylenediamine Disuccinate
    • Sodium Methylparaben
    • Benzophenone-4
    • Sodium Ethylparaben

    No data in our sources (1)

    • Glyceninm Carbomer

    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 irritantDiazolidinyl Urea

      • Diazolidinyl Urea: A preservative the FDA lists as a formaldehyde releaser, so formaldehyde-reactive skin can notice it. How much reaches the skin depends on the whole formula, not on this name alone. EU Regulation (EC) 1223/2009, Annex V entry 46, permits diazolidinyl urea as a preservative up to 0,5%. The FDA names it among the "formaldehyde and formaldehyde releasing ingredients" on its Allergens in Cosmetics page (content current 25 February 2022). Annex V preamble point 2, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) 2022/1181, requires the warning "releases formaldehyde" on any product whose total released formaldehyde exceeds 0,001% (10 ppm). That Regulation states the sensitisation ground itself, so the chain is drawn by the regulator and not by us: recital (2) names the class, "Certain of those preservatives are gradually releasing formaldehyde in order to fulfil a preserving function in the final cosmetic product (so called formaldehyde releasers)", and recital (3) gives the purpose of the warning, "In order to inform consumers sensitised to formaldehyde about the presence of formaldehyde that may trigger an allergic reaction". Recital (1) records that formaldehyde is classified a skin sensitizer (Category 1) in Part 3 of Annex VI to Regulation (EC) 1272/2008.

    Where this came from

    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.