18
INTERVIEW
most of us didn’t really know this field existed. We were just looking for jobs and ended up doing it. Today, the cosmetics industry is
much more public-facing. Cosmetic scientists are out there on social media, and that’s generated a lot more interest in careers in this field. So we have a lot more students, as
well as early-career scientists who are interested in changing from a different industry to get into cosmetics. This has created a lot more competition for entry level positions.
TP: What other challenges do you see for the industry right now? KD: Innovation can be a real challenge. We use a lot of ingredients we’ve been using for a long time. It can be really hard to patent a cosmetic formulation because many of our ingredient technologies have been around for decades. Brands also need to worry about
others duping their products and formulations. You’ve got counterfeits as well, someone trying to use your brand identity to make money, and those products can be made in unsafe conditions with unsafe ingredients. So the challenge today for
some brands is innovating and then protecting their innovation. But having a space carved out with dedicated resources for real innovation, not just something that is an iteration on an existing type of product, is incredibly important.
TP: Does the recent approval by the Food and Drug Administration of bemotrizinol for use in sun care point to a more innovative environment for cosmetic product development in the United States?
We’ve got a palette of preservatives that is shrinking considerably and that’s exposing challenges in manufacturing
hygiene that maybe we didn’t see before Kelly Dobos, instructor of cosmetic science at the University of Cincinnati
KD: Particularly since the Covid pandemic, the scope of cosmetic product development has changed because there’s other things to consider besides performance and the aesthetics of the formula. We have to worry about global regulatory compliance, ingredient restrictions, supply chain resilience and so on. There’s greater complexity to
cosmetic product development today in the US, and a big part of that is the regulatory consideration. We have the Modernization of Cosmetic Regulation Act (MoCRA), which I think has changed expectations around safety documentation and adverse event reporting. Consumers are also a piece of this
puzzle because they want greater transparency about ingredients and product safety as they’re much more educated these days. It’s also getting more challenging
to innovate because the way that we substantiate safety can be a challenge. For example, animal testing.
The industry is driving forward
with developing NAMs (new approach methodologies) to replace animal tests. But the challenge is that not all regulatory bodies accept these methods for safety substantiation. A great example of that was the
PERSONAL CARE MAGAZINE October 2026
European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) ordering Symrise to perform animal tests on two sunscreen ingredients even though animal testing for cosmetic ingredients in the European Union (EU) had been banned. Another example is oral toxicity.
There’s not an accepted non-animal endpoint for oral toxicity. If you want to bring a new colour additive to market for use in lipstick, you have to understand the oral toxicity of that colour additive if you ingest it. If you were to do an animal
feeding study on a new colour for lipstick, you would lose the entire European market because you tested it on animals. So I think that creates a
conundrum until we get validated non-animal models.
TP: The direction of travel seems to be towards fewer permitted ingredients, not more. KD: Cosmetic ingredient bans can be a real challenge, especially when they’re hazard-based assessments rather than risk-based. Some ingredient bans have
been a problem. We’ve got a palette of preservatives that is shrinking considerably and that’s exposing challenges in manufacturing hygiene that maybe we didn’t see before. Things like water quality in the plant
and how you maintain it. Ingredient bans and regulations
can be positive because they challenge us to think differently and come up with innovations and new solutions. But our choice of preservatives now makes it much more challenging to preserve a product over a long shelf life. For example, parabens have got
a bad reputation with consumers but they’re really effective preservatives. I think these bans should be based on ingredient risk, like, how much of the ingredient are you exposed to. Another example is
TPO (Trimethylbenzoyl diphenylphosphine oxide), which was banned by the EU via another hazard-based approach. It was based on animal feeding studies, which has little to do with a small amount of the ingredient applied to the nail plate and cured under UV light.
There needs to be better
dialogue between regulators and scientists about ingredient safety.
TP: Do you think the cosmetic industry’s ‘licence to trade’ is secure? KD: It certainly shouldn’t be taken for granted. The only way to maintain it is through manufacturers being invested in science and safety. It’s also about transparency with consumers. As we move away from
traditional ingredients made from petrochemicals, we need to communicate technological advances in a way that consumers can understand, so they see the value and benefits, and also that they’re safe.
PCM
www.personalcaremagazine.com
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 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132
