PRESERVATIVES
An insight into a scrutinised industry
Ben Elmadi – MSL Solution Providers, UK
Preservatives are defined as “substances which are exclusively or mainly intended to inhibit the development of micro-organisms in the cosmetic product”. Natural or synthetic ingredients, they are added to a wide range of products, from foods to pharmaceuticals, to prevent spoilage – whether from microbial growth or undesirable chemical changes. They are essential in personal care and cosmetic products to stop products being damaged by microorganisms and to protect the product from inadvertent contamination by the consumer during use. Acting as the antibiotics of the cosmetic
industry, they keep products from developing unsightly changes or spoiling, as well as protecting consumers themselves. Without them, cosmetics would have a much shorter shelf life, which would ultimately impact day to day skin care and beauty routines. For example, without preservatives, users could not take their favourite makeup or daily moisturising cream away on holiday with them. They also help to reduce the amount of packaging required, as they enable products to be sold as multi-use instead of single use doses. To safeguard health and safety, there are
stringent rules in place. The EU Cosmetic Regulation requires that all cosmetic products be safe for human health and preservatives within them must be listed on Annex V.1
Currently there
are 60 preservatives on the EU list but only a limited number are in common use and many of those are facing regulatory review and uncertainty. It is clear, then, that preservatives are
valuable – so why are they the subject of so much contention and debate?
Consumer perception Customer perception has had a significant impact on preservatives in recent years as people have become much more aware about what they are putting into, and onto, their bodies. Parabens are a perfect example here. Perhaps one of the most discussed and widely used preservatives, there are several kinds of paraben, including ethyl, butyl, propyl, benzyl, isobutyl and methylparaben. Despite having been safely used for more than 50 years, they came under the spotlight in 2004, when a small study by P.D. Darbre suggested paraben usage could be connected to breast cancer. Although the study was widely discredited and independent expert scientific panels have since confirmed their safety, nearly 20 years on, people still question whether they
www.personalcaremagazine.com
in leave-on cosmetic products and reduce the amount that can be used in rinse-off products. Following a request by the French authorities, the Scientific Committee for Consumer Safety (SCCS) was asked to review the safety information on phenoxyethanol. The SCCS re-confirmed the safety of phenoxyethanol when used as a preservative in cosmetic products, including baby wipes and other children’s products up to 1% (October 2016).4
However, the very fact that a safety
review was performed appears to have dented the preservative’s demand, in France at least. The problem with not using safe preservatives,
pose a risk to health.2 This has led to many
brands abandoning parabens for alternative preservatives and marketing their products as ‘paraben-free’. Products with such claims pose a problem
for the Cosmetic Regulation since it does not allow claims that imply a product is safe. This is because, in doing so, it indirectly insinuates there are products on the market that are not safe, which in turn contradicts the entire purpose of the cosmetic regulation.
A self-fulfilling prophecy Almost a trickle-down effect, consumer perception becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Despite excellent safety records, many products no longer have parabens, methylisothiazolinone (MIT), methylchloroisothiazolinone (CMIT/ CIT), or even phenoxyethanol, due to unsubstantiated consumer concerns. Like the paraben story, MIT and CMIT came under scrutiny, after media articles wrongly suggested a link between MIT and cancer. MIT and CMIT have been positively approved for use as preservatives for many years under the strict European cosmetics legislation; there are no links between the use of MIT or CMIT and cancer.3
There are, however, reported
cases of dermatological allergic reactions, and in February 2017, the European Commission changed the cosmetic law to ban the use of MIT
such as parabens or phenoxyethanol, because of these unfounded consumer concerns, is that there are only 60 ingredients on the list of preservatives allowed in cosmetic products (see Annex V). Since many of these have restrictions, combinations tend to be used, with many of the same combinations being used repeatedly. Sensitivity to compounds is often linked with over exposure and with an ever-shrinking list, it would seem that we will eventually become sensitive to the little we have left. Safety assessments are performed on each
product and a toxicological assessment is conducted prior to deeming a product safe. Whilst this assessment is essential, ultimately it does not consider one huge issue that has been alluded to. If 60% of your cosmetics have the same preservatives within them, then your exposure, and therefore bio accumulation, is not as the safety assessment reviewed. It is actually much higher. However, it is impossible to review products based on the big picture, so the regulation can only do what it can. At MSL Solution Providers, we have witnessed the rise and fall of particular preservatives and preservative combinations first-hand. For example, back in 2017, some products, mainly hand washes, contained parabens but we have seen these die out. Even in 2018, MIT was not uncommon, however, that has also pretty much disappeared and today, we have clients who are making MIT-free alternatives for their ranges. However, throughout the years up to present day, phenoxyethanol remains the most prominent preservative for the thousands of products we test each year. We have also noticed that manufacturers
tend to use the same mix of preservatives in lots of different products for a variety of brands. Why? Possibly because they know the mix works, not necessarily just from a microbiological
May 2021 PERSONAL CARE
33
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 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92
