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/Haslinger Seifen & Kosmetik GmbH/Shampoo & Shower Bath with Marigold Extract
HS
Haslinger Seifen & Kosmetik GmbH

Shampoo & Shower Bath with Marigold Extract

Shampoo100gGTIN 9002070002107
Shampoo/Body Wash, Ginger-Orange (2019 formulation)

Cleaner pick · Safest multi-function cleansing we have rated

Healing-Scents

Shampoo/Body Wash, Ginger-Orange (2019 formulation)

+70 on ingredient safety

$12–30

Ingredient safetyRaters agree
Find on Amazon ↗See all 782 cleaner options →

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

Your composite

38OUT OF 100Horrible

range 26–67

30▲▼ split
Safety
—
Eco
—
Labor
46
Pkg

Why this score

46-point split

56

Scan

42

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

Cleaner options

782 found

See better →

Flagged

7 ingredients

What's flagged →

Raters split

Ingredient safety

A 83-point gap between the two loudest voices.

5ANSES Endocrine DisruptorsGovernment
vs
88Greenlens Tolerance ScreenIndependent
050100
See why, ingredient by ingredient→

All 782 cleaner options, safest first → We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.

Every rater, every axis

Ingredient safety

83 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 →

  • 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 →

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

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

    6 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·17 of 20 characterized

    Our sources have reference data on 17 of 20 listed ingredients; 3 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.

    Worth a look (7)

    • titanium dioxide8/10uv filter · uv absorber · colorantraters disagree

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

    • Parfum6/10undeclared fragrance blendperfuming · fragranceraters disagree

      Undisclosed fragrance blend · flagged by 2 of 9 lists →

    • cinnamyl alcohol6/10fragrance materialperfuming · flavouringraters disagree

      ANSES endocrine candidate · flagged by 2 of 9 lists →

    • coumarin6/10fragrance materialperfumingraters disagree

      ANSES endocrine candidate · flagged by 2 of 9 lists →

    • hexyl cinnamal6/10fragrance materialperfumingraters disagree

      ANSES endocrine candidate · flagged by 2 of 9 lists →

    • arachis hypogaea oil4/10skin conditioningraters disagree

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

    • amyl cinnamal4/10fragrance materialperfumingraters disagree

      EU-regulated fragrance allergen · flagged by 1 of 9 lists →

    ✓No flags in our sources (10)

    • disodium lauryl sulfosuccinate
    • sodium cocosulfate
    • corn starch
    • cetearyl alcohol
    • hydrogenated Palm glycerides
    • lauryl PCA
    • aqua
    • propylene glycolcommon irritant
    • calendula officinalis extract
    • ci 14720

    No data in our sources (3)

    • ci 8965
    • bencyl salicylat
    • peanut

    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.

    • 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).
    • fragrance materialcinnamyl alcohol, coumarin, amyl cinnamal, hexyl cinnamal

      • cinnamyl alcohol: A cinnamon-scented fragrance component named separately on the label. EU Regulation (EC) 1223/2009, Annex III entry 69: 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.
      • coumarin: A sweet hay-scented fragrance component named separately on the label. EU Regulation (EC) 1223/2009, Annex III entry 77: 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.
      • amyl cinnamal: A jasmine-like fragrance component named separately on the label. EU Regulation (EC) 1223/2009, Annex III entry 67: 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.
      • 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.
    • 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.