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/Frank Body | AU & NZ/Brightening Cream Moisturiser
Brightening Cream Moisturiser
Frank Body | AU & NZ

Brightening Cream Moisturiser

skincare16 AUD MSRPGTIN 9351134011136
Beta Glucan Daily Moisture Cream

Cleaner pick · Safest moisturizers we have rated

Iunik Global

Beta Glucan Daily Moisture Cream

+19 on ingredient safety

$17

Ingredient safetyRaters agree
Find on Amazon ↗See all 2375 cleaner options →

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

Your composite

71OUT OF 100Good

range 67–77

81▲▼ split
Safety
—
Eco
85
Labor
46
Pkg

Why this score

2-point split

100

Scan

98

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

2375 found

See better →

Flagged

3 ingredients

What's flagged →

Raters split

Ingredient safety

A 30-point gap between the two loudest voices.

70Health Canada Ingredient HotlistGovernment
vs
100Greenlens Tolerance ScreenIndependent
050100
See why, ingredient by ingredient→

All 2375 cleaner options, safest first → We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.

Every rater, every axis

Ingredient safety

30 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 →

  • 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: ECHA SVHC Candidate List · IARC Monographs · California Proposition 65 · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · ANSES Endocrine Disruptors · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI)

Environmental

    ✓Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction

    Labor

    • Run by a nonprofit. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. This rates Frank Body | AU & NZ 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

    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

    Robust·19 of 21 characterized

    Our sources have reference data on 19 of 21 listed ingredients; 2 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill.

    Worth a look (3)

    • Mandelic Acid4/10antimicrobialraters disagree

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

    • Phenoxyethanol4/10preservative · antimicrobialraters disagree

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

    • Citric Acid4/10fragrance · chelating · bufferingraters disagree

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

    ✓No flags in our sources (16)

    • Water
    • Caprylic/Capric Triglycerides
    • Sodium Ascorbyl Phosphate
    • Glycerinhumectant
    • Myristyl Myristatecomedogenic in testing
    • Helianthus Annuus Seed Oil
    • Terminalia Ferdinandiana Fruit Extract
    • Camellia Sinensis Leaf Extract
    • Glycyrrhiza Glabra Root Extract
    • Sodium Stearoyl Glutamate
    • Polyacrylate Crosspolymer-6
    • Sodium Polyacrylate
    • T-Butyl Alcohol
    • Sodium Benzoate
    • Potassium Sorbate
    • Aminomethyl Propanol

    No data in our sources (2)

    • Cetyl Stearyl Alcohol
    • Ethyhexylglycerin

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

    What these ingredient tags mean (2)

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

    • comedogenic in testingMyristyl Myristate

      • Myristyl Myristate: A waxy emollient named among the pore-clogging materials in the rabbit-ear assay. Fulton JE Jr, Pay SR, Fulton JE 3rd, "Comedogenicity of current therapeutic products, cosmetics, and ingredients in the rabbit ear", J Am Acad Dermatol 1984;10(1):96-105, PMID 6229554. The openly readable abstract names this ingredient among its "ingredient offenders", in prose and without a numeric rating: "Ingredient offenders include isopropyl myristate and its analogs, such as isopropyl palmitate, isopropyl isostearate, butyl stearate, isostearyl neopentanoate, myristyl myristate..." The rabbit-ear assay rates raw ingredients and does not predict how a finished formula behaves on human skin.
    • 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".

    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.