CTPA Annual Report 2014 - page 10

Review of the Year
Endocrine Disruptors
An endocrine disruptor is defined by the World Health
Organisation (WHO) as an exogenous substance or
mixture that alters function(s) of the endocrine system and
consequently causes adverse health effects in an intact
organism. A key point is that the definition applies only if the
endocrine effect produced is harmful to health. Given this
WHO definition, ingredients in cosmetics should not be
considered as endocrine disruptors.
However, no formal criteria for identifying endocrine
disruptors have been established in Europe. CTPA responded
to the public consultation from the European Commission
making clear its position that, in addition to potency,
reversibility, thresholds, severity and toxicity must form part
of the final criteria. Without these, many cosmetic ingredients
would be mistakenly categorised as endocrine disruptors
resulting in unnecessary and costly reformulation of products
and unfounded concerns in the minds of consumers.
Fragrance Ingredients
In 2012, the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS)
adopted an opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic
products. This opinion was based on a systematic and critical
review of the scientific literature to identify fragrance
allergens, including natural extracts, relevant to consumers.
As a result of this opinion, the European Commission proposed
a number of restrictions on specific fragrance ingredients
and obligatory labelling on products of some other fragrance
ingredients. This stimulated a tremendous response and
debate from experts, industry and consumers alike.
From common natural fragrances such as rose or lavender
to complex premium perfumes, fragrance is one of the
great pleasures in life.
In 2014, the European Commission initiated a public
consultation where interested parties were invited to
submit their comments on the proposed measures and on
their possible economic impact. Comments ranged from
detailed technical arguments on the way ingredients are
tested and the way risk is assessed to the most appropriate
way of providing information to consumers. CTPA has always
been of the view that the simplest measure is for consumers
sensitive to fragrance to avoid products where ‘parfum’ is
named in the list of ingredients present on all cosmetic
products. Additionally, there is so much information that
needs to be included on product labels, that modern
alternatives should be investigated; labelling is not a universal
solution. The French cosmetics association, FEBEA, has been
working with major retailers to investigate and carry out trials
on possible alternatives.
At the year end, we were still waiting for proposals from the
European Commission on how it intends to proceed.
Certain ingredients classed as nanomaterials according to
the definition in the Cosmetics Regulation must, in addition
to being specifically included in the notification of products,
be separately notified so that a decision can be made
whether or not a further safety review is required by the
European Commission. Unfortunately, there were major
discrepancies between the declarations made in the two
systems of notifications.
The cosmetics industry, via Cosmetics Europe, has worked
with the European Commission to identify and correct
these but, by year end, the European Commission had
not published the catalogue of nanomaterials as it is
required to do.
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,...48
Powered by FlippingBook