Dangerous cosmetics - criteria for classification, labelling and packaging (EC 1272/2008) applied to personal care products

Abstract

Background: Cosmetic products need not be classified and labelled according to the Regulation on Classification, Labelling and Packaging (CLP) in the European Union, even if they contain dangerous substances. What would happen without this exception? Would cosmetic products have to be labelled if they were treated like any other consumer product? Results: The criteria of the CLP Regulation were applied to a selection of cosmetic product formulas in a conservative approach. All but one product contain hazardous ingredients in amounts that would lead to classification and labelling of the mixtures. 85% of the products analyzed would have to be labelled because of potential negative effects to the eye, and 52% because of potential negative effects to the skin. The signal word WARNING would have to be on the labels of 64%, DANGER would have to be on 33% of the products. Conclusions:The results here show that it is urgent to inform consumers about the potential dangers of personal care products, because cosmetics need to be applied even with more care than any other consumer product. Classification and labelling according to the CLP Regulation is a very good means to improve the risk communication for consumers. Therefore, it is strongly recommended that the exception for cosmetic products should be repealed in the next amendment of the CLP Regulation.

‘Read this and be safe!’ Comparison of regulatory processes for communicating risks of personal care products to European and South African consumers

“…Mutagens (such as m-phenylenediamine), carcinogens (such as carbomer) or substances toxic for reproduction (such as cyclomethicone) were listed in formulations of PCPs [26], but they usually are below the concentration thresholds for labelling and classification of the mixture thus exposing uninformed consumers. Butylphenyl methylpropional, classified as suspected of damaging fertility or the unborn child (C&L Inventory [27]), is a frequently used masking agent present in products sold in retail shops where the exact percentage in the final product is not disclosed.…”

“…In contrast, other consumer products, such as glue or varnish, are classified and labeled but not required to have the list of ingredients on their container labels. If, however, PCPs were classified and labelled in accordance with the CLP, many of them would require hazard pictograms on the label [26].…”

“…The outcome is that final classifications of the products are not consistent yet. Recent self-classifications made by the majority of suppliers tended to be less severe [63] so that the final classification of some products will be less severe as described by Klaschka [26]. As some PCPs contain hazardous substances above the threshold for labeling, the EU legislators made this exception in the CLP Regulation.…”

Naturally toxic: natural substances used in personal care products

“…Many natural substances used in personal care products are classified as hazardous substances. How many consumers know the classifications of natural substances, especially as long as the products need not be classified [20]? How could consumers be informed about the hazardous properties and the relevant exposure of natural substances in personal care products [21]?…”

Lost in translation? Ways for environmental sciences to communicate about risk and research

“…Already some previous contributions in ESEU addressed risk communication in different fields e.g. [3,4].…”