CSS REGULATORY
The Cosmetics Regulation, however, does not contain a general prohibition on endocrine disruptors in the way it does for CMR substances, although some known endocrine disruptors are already banned from cosmetics – bisphenol A (BPA), for example.
In 2019, the Commission compiled a list of 28 potential endocrine disruptors not covered by the Cosmetics Regulation, to be reviewed and then prohibited or restricted, if necessary.
REACH does contain provisions to treat endocrine disruptors on a similar basis to CMR substances, but only if there is “scientific evidence of probable serious effects to human health or the environment” caused by the chemical in question, and if these effects “give rise to an equivalent level of concern” to CMR substances. Such chemicals are identified by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), an EU agency.
But “this is not really sufficient to apprehend endocrine disruptors”, argues Vitali. “With this procedure there were only a few identified as endocrine disruptors, when there could be hundreds of them [among the registered chemicals] under REACH.” Chave, however, thinks that the SCCS already has the tools to deal with endocrine disruptors in cosmetics. The current regulation “doesn’t leave anything to chance”, he says. “It doesn’t make close margin calls on whether any particular exposure is dangerous. It really takes the view that consumer safety is paramount, and therefore the industry needs to make a convincing case that it’s not proposing any risk to consumers.”
That will not satisfy environmentalists, however, such as
Watson, who says: “Endocrine disruptors have been shown to have adverse impacts at very low doses.” She adds: “With chemicals regulation, what happens is you find out a chemical is hazardous at a certain dose, and then a few years later you find it’s hazardous at an even lower dose. The trajectory is that as we understand more and more, we understand that harm occurs at lower and lower concentrations, it doesn’t go the other way.” Watson notes that safe levels of exposure during pregnancy are unknowable, because “you obviously can’t test on unborn children”.
Under the CSS, chemicals regulations would treat proven or suspected endocrine disruptors in a similar way to proven or suspected CMR hazards. That could mean the REACH clause requiring probable harm that raises an “equivalent level of concern” becomes redundant. Chemicals identified as endocrine disruptors by ECHA could then be banned from cosmetics automatically, although the details of how such regulatory tightening will work must await the proposed legislation next year. Chave, however, says a move to automatic bans would be controversial, “because there have been different opinions about how you should define and identify endocrine disruptors”.
PERSISTENT SUBSTANCES & MICROPLASTICS The same concerns surround how the CSS also targets persistent and biocumulative substances, which could thenceforth be regulated under the same general risk framework as CMR substances and endocrine disruptors. The document gives the example of PFAS, a group of
cosmeticsbusiness.com
“As we understand more and more, we understand that harm occurs at lower and lower concentrations, it doesn’t go the other way
chemicals that remain in the body for a long time after exposure, which the CSS says should be banned. Two years ago, the Environmental Working Group (EWG), an American NGO, reported finding PFAS in 66 different cosmetics products sold on the US market. One side issue is that microplastics in cosmetics are not explicitly mentioned in the CSS as persistent or biocumulative substances, but they are already the subject of a forthcoming ban.
In any case, the example of microplastics helps illustrate the approach being taken, says Vitali.
“The problem of the current chemicals regulation is it’s very often tackling [issues] chemical by chemical,” she says, whereas the new approach looks at groups of chemicals. “This is the case for microplastics, because in the end a microplastic is thousands of different types of polymers,” she says. Similarly, PFAS are likely within the CSS reforms to be regulated as a group, rather than one chemical at a time.
WHAT IS ‘ESSENTIAL FOR SOCIETY’? The CSS says there could be exceptions to blanket bans when use of a substance is proven “essential for society”, which will bring little comfort to makers of beauty products, except perhaps sunscreen manufacturers.
Chave says this standard has been used in the past, in the 1987 Montreal Protocol for ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). At the time, these had an essential use in asthma inhalers, but they have since been replaced by hydrofluoroalkanes (HFAs).
Nevertheless, he expresses frustration at what he sees as some policymakers’ dismissive attitude to cosmetics, “that really cosmetics are not that important, let alone essential”, so negative consequences for personal care products are of little concern. “We strongly disagree with that,” he says. “Cosmetics play a much more important role in people’s lives than is widely appreciated.”
Even setting aside obvious examples like sunscreen and soap, “if you look at skin care and decorative products, there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that these products contribute broadly to people’s wellbeing, to their quality of life, to issues such as self-confidence and self-esteem,” he says.
The notion that the diversity of such products could be restricted without harming consumers “seems to me just profoundly wrong”, says Chave
January 2021 51
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76
