Naturally toxic: natural substances used in personal care products

Abstract

Background: Nature offers an incredible diversity of chemical compounds that boast a wide array of physiological effects. Many natural substances are employed in personal care products. Which of these natural substances are hazardous ingredients? How do European legal instruments regulate natural substances with toxic effects? Results: 1,358 natural substances appear in the 'International Nomenclature of Cosmetic Ingredients' (INCI list, 'inventory …… of ingredients employed in cosmetic products') [Commission Decision 96/335/EC], most of them are herbal products, others are of animal, fungal, or bacterial origin. Out of these, 655 natural substances are enrolled in the EU database for classification and labeling, with 56% classified as hazardous chemicals, 38% classified due to their hazards to human health (35% due to their effects on skin and eyes), and 21% due to their hazards to the environment. 53 natural substances in the INCI list are classified as carcinogens, mutagens, and substances toxic to reproduction. Many classifications are not in line with expectations from experience, such as severe classifications of substances derived from some basic food plants or lacking classification of known medical plants or plants with sensitizing potential. Classification and labeling is a trigger for the registration requirements according to REACH. It must be assumed that there are more substances that should undergo the REACH process among the 703 natural substances that do not turn up in the C&L inventory. Conclusions: Many natural substances used in personal care products have toxic properties. The interdisciplinary compilation and analysis of regulatory instruments concerning natural substances revealed some inconsistencies which need further analysis and urgent correction to ensure prudent handling in consumer products.

A dark side of nature: Natural substances as dangerous for the aquatic environment

“…Of these, 70% were classified due to their hazards to human health, and again of these 88% were classified due to their effects on skin and eyes. Fifty‐three natural substances were even classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction (CMR) substances (Klaschka ).…”

Personal Care Products Are Only One of Many Exposure Routes of Natural Toxic Substances to Humans and the Environment

“…In addition to these anthropogenic chemicals, Klaschka [7] identified over one thousand natural substances-mainly of herbal origin-that appear in the International Nomenclature of Cosmetics Ingredients (INCI), and out of which 27% are classified as hazardous to human and environmental health. Already in 2006, the Committee of Experts on Cosmetic Products had listed 24 potentially harmful plant components in cosmetics [8].…”

“…Already in 2006, the Committee of Experts on Cosmetic Products had listed 24 potentially harmful plant components in cosmetics [8]. It has also been pointed out that the classification, regulation, and risk assessment of toxic natural products used in cosmetics is weak, incoherent, and inconsistent [7], and hence there may be situations with no or poor human and/or environmental protection. Even the European Regulation on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) does in most cases not include natural substances, although some of them are known to be toxic.…”

An experiment on the impact of a neonicotinoid pesticide on honeybees: the value of a formal analysis of the data

“…We do not address the issue of whether or not the practical details of the experimental methods used by Pilling et al [5] were appropriate; this has been covered elsewhere [6, 7]. Hoppe et al [6] also questioned the lack of formal analysis.…”

“…Hoppe et al [6] also questioned the lack of formal analysis. We concentrate on that issue, showing that formal statistical analysis is not misleading as Pilling et al [5] claim, but leads to clear conclusions in a way that simply looking at graphs may not.…”