REGULATORY HAND SANITISER
S
hopping aisles bereft of soaps and pharmacists bare of painkillers were both early warning signs that infections of Covid-19 were rising. But there was one hygiene product in particular that became like gold dust virtually overnight: hand sanitiser. Much like a favoured hand cream or lip balm, keeping a tiny travel-sized hand gel at the bottom of handbags, coat pockets and car glove compartments has become ingrained in consumers’ everyday routines.
According to a study by bathroom brand Baylis & Harding, two thirds of parents say using hand sanitiser is now normalised among their children, with 40% of respondents that have children between the ages of ten and 12 saying their children carry hand gel everywhere. Moreover, the category’s compound annual growth rate (CAGR) is set to catapult almost 25% by 2027, as health- conscious consumers’ demand for the convenient colourless liquid surges. But what’s the cost for this added protection? As the global demand for hand sanitiser skyrocketed, suppliers were inundated with requests for primary components ethanol and isopropyl, which rendered some unable to keep up.
In response, manufacturers across the globe and a variety of industries stepped in to show solidarity as the pandemic crippled national health services. Among these were beauty goliaths LVMH, Estée Lauder Companies, Coty and L’Oréal, who repurposed their production lines to make hand sanitisers as sales spiked.
But while most were showing the world a moment of
unity, others used the pandemic to cut corners and exploit consumer fear by profiteering from substandard practices.
NOT PLAYING BY THE RULES
As the pandemic began to rip through countries worldwide, the World Health Organisation (WHO) set out guidelines on how manufacturers new to the hand sanitiser space could join the battle. Under the European Commission’s Article 55 derogation clause, non-authorised biocidal companies were allowed to register their hand sanitisers on the market – upon acceptance of country officials – as long as the new product conformed with WHO’s recommended hand sanitiser formulas: one with ethanol as the main ingredient, at a concentration of 96%, or an isopropyl alcohol-based hand sanitiser at 99.8% concentration, combined with glycerol, hydrogen peroxide and water. However, getting hold of these ingredients was easier said than done due to global shortage. This put pressure on companies to deliver product and tempted some to deviate from safe formulas to capitalise on the surge in demand. “During the sanitary crisis, you’re allowed to manufacture WHO standard formulations if you’re not [normally] authorised to do so,” Univar Solutions’ Global Director of Commercial Communications, Arnita Wofford, tells Cosmetics Business.
“Hand sanitisers have to have, legally, in order for it to be a hand sanitiser, depending on the country, a minimum of 60-70% alcohol. But not everybody played by the rules and there were some companies that were making ‘hand sanitisers’ that had nothing to do with those formulas and were not at all conforming to that 60-70% minimum. Some of those bottles were tested and turned out to have 3% alcohol – that’s not even effective.”
50 December 2020
She adds: “Not everyone was out for the sanitary crisis, some people were out for commercial gain only. That’s part of the risk when you open up a market, that you do sometimes have people who take advantage. “For us, we were really vigilant in selling our raw materials. Even ethanol or hydrogen peroxide, glycerol, things we sell all the time, we did not sell them in large quantities to unknown companies.” Wofford also notes that due to the severity of the crisis, country officials expected producers to be above board. “The problem is, in this particular crisis, there’s so much other important work going on that you’re almost expecting people to be above board and to do the right thing and not endanger consumers,” she says.
CRACKS BEGIN TO SHOW
Almost a year since Covid-19 broke out, the European Commission has received six notifications from member states of biocidal hand gels or sanitisers that are non- compliant with these regulations and, as a result, putting consumers at risk. These included products from Symex, Shield, Vecteur Energy, On Dermo, Ficomed and MissLife. All of the products were found to be non-compliant with the Classification, Labelling and Packaging (CLP) Regulation (1272/2008). Some had inadequate alcohol levels to knock out the common cold, let alone the potentially deadly Covid- 19, while others contained the toxic ingredient methanol. In the European Union, methanol is not registered by the
EU’s Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) and is regarded, by ECHA, as a toxic substance if swallowed; it is also toxic upon contact with the skin and if inhaled.
The most worrying of the incidents was MissLife’s Hand Disinfectant. Originating in Turkey, the product was found to contain more than 11% methanol, while missing the required hazard pictograms and warnings on its packaging. Shield’s Hand Sanitiser Gel measured just 0.05% ethanol and 0.1% propan-2-ol, and contained 3.4% value of methanol. This product was circulating online via eBay and was produced in the UK. Meanwhile, Vector Energy’s Hydroalcoolic Antibactérien product measured less than 35% ethanol and did not include the correct labels. It originated from France.
ETHANOL’S AUTHENTICATION
It is worth noting here a bureaucratic technicality. Ethanol is currently undergoing a formal review process to be used as a biocide in the European Union. However, according to the Biocidal Product Regulation (BPR) it is presently allowed as an ingredient in extenuating circumstances: “Products containing new active substances that are still under assessment may also be allowed on the market where a provisional authorisation is granted.” This means there are “no specific BPR requirements for the grade of ethanol that can be used in such biocidal products”. However, propan-2-ol-based hand sanitisers do have approval to be used as a biocidal active ingredient. Due to ethanol’s lack of registration, producers do not need authorisation from the UK’s Health and Safety Executive (HSE), the region’s government agency responsible for regulation of workplace health and safety, in order to be used as a biocidal ingredient.
cosmeticsbusiness.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
