Blistex
Ultra Lip Balm SPF 50+
Lip Balm4.25gGTIN 9313501311706
Cleaner pick · Safest lip care we have rated
Thinkbaby
Grapefruit & Currant Thinkdaily Lip Balm+20 on ingredient safety
$3.49
Ingredient safetyRaters agree
Ranked by safety only. Greenlens earns from qualifying purchases. Payout never affects a rating, a ranking, or the cleaner pick.
All 761 cleaner options, safest first We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.
Every rater, every axis
Ingredient safety
A government authority. 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 · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · California Proposition 65 · IARC Monographs
Environmental
Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction
Labor
Run by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. This rates Blistex 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
3 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
Unidentified0 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
Not enough to score4 of 6 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 4 of 6 listed ingredients; 2 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill. That is not enough of the label for a safety score to be honest, so we do not publish one.
Worth a look (1)
ANSES endocrine candidateflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
No flags in our sources (3)
No data in our sources (2)
Not a verdict — our authorities simply have no reference for these.
Where this came from
Product identity (name, brand, category) verified against chempro.com.au ↗
Cruelty-free status recorded from ethicalelephant.com ↗
Researched facts on Greenlens always carry the page that stated them — nothing is inferred from a model's memory.