Posts in category: News

BB creams, concealers, mascaras

Be cautious, especially during pregnancy

After previous reports on baby cosmetics and sunscreens for children, Wecf France today reveals the results of a survey of cosmetic products. We made an expert study of the labels 47 make-up products: 17 BB creams, 15 concealers and 15 mascaras, whose use has not decreased during the Covid-19 pandemic. Many women use make-up products and cosmetics daily, including during or when envisaging pregnancy. They are part of everyday consumer products which may contribute to the exposure of pregnant women and the unborn child to chemicals of concern for human health, such as potential endocrine disruptors.

Our survey

In May 2021, we selected and purchased 47 cosmetic products, sold in supermarkets, perfume stores, drug stores, and organic shops. We screened the lists of ingredients on the packaging or available online, to list and identify ingredients of concern based on the most recent scientific literature: endocrine disruptors, nanoparticles, allergens, substances hazardous for ecosystems, etc.

Main results of our survey

• We identified 37 substances of concern in the 47 products of our survey. Among these 37 substances, we classified 13 as very high concern (RED), 9 as of high concern (ORANGE) and 15 as of moderate concern (YELLOW). 7 are endocrine disruptors of very high concern.
• BB creams are the product category containing the highest number of substances of concern. Of the 17 BB creams of our survey, 10 contain at least 4 substances of very high concern. 3 BB creams contain a minimum of 12 substances of concern.
• 3 of the 15 concealers of our survey contain at least 4 substances of very high concern.
• Mascaras are the category with the lowest number of substances of concern: none contains more than 3 substances of very high concern.
• 11 products of our survey contain no plastic ingredients, 8 of them are organic products.
• Cosmetic products with organic labels are globally of better quality, with the main concerns being the use of titanium dioxide (in BB creams) and fragrance allergens of moderate concern.

Our main demands

• Ban ingredients which we classified of very high concern from cosmetics, including the endocrine disruptors benzyl salicylate, BHT, butylphenyl methylpropional, ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate, ethylparaben, methylparaben and octocrylene.
• Establish a pictogram, similar to the one displayed on alcohol, to warn pregnant women of the presence in cosmetics of ingredients suspected of being of concern for human health, in particular endocrine disruptors.
• Strengthen research work of the French risk assessment agencies ANSM and ANSES to identify the risks linked to the use of cosmetics containing ingredients of concern, especially for pregnant women.
• Ensure that all ingredients listed on cosmetic products are readable and understandable for consumers.

For more information download the report (in French): https://wecf-france.org/rapport-cosmetiques-trop-de-substances-problematiques/

Press contacts

Anja Härtwig, Communication Officer: +33 (0)4 50 83 48 10, anja.hartwig@wecf.org

Elisabeth Ruffinengo, Advocacy Manager: +33 (0)6 74 77 77 00, elisabeth.ruffinengo@wecf.org

The European Commission has launched a targeted stakeholder consultation through an online survey to gather insights from experts in nanotechnology and the general public on the common definition of ‘nanomaterials’. The current definition of ‘nanomaterials’ was adopted by the European Commission in 2011 and stipulated in the Recommendation 2011/696/EU on the definition of nanomaterial. This consultation aims to gather stakeholders’ views on the Commission’s interim findings that were attained through preparatory evaluations, i.e., a targeted stakeholder survey, a comprehensive assessment, a workshop, and three technical reports published by the EC JRC. The overall aim is to consider potential changes in the Recommendation.

Click here to participate in the survey.

Your opinion matters!

The survey closes on 30 June 2021.

The latest Newsletter from the NMBP-13 Projects is out now. This issue provides an update on the development of the NRGC, and the process of fine-tuning four different scenarios for the Council during the Council Workshops.

Save the date and join us.

This Friday 27^th November NANORIGO will feature in different events and activities in Austria and the UK.

•        In the UK on Friday at 17.30 (GMT), Scotland’s ERN Explorathon is featuring  Making Nano Work for Us – a NANORIGO video and family quiz

•        The NANORIGO video is also featuring on the Scottish Research Showcase at 13.00 (GMT) [@EU_NANORIGO]

•        In Austria, PLUS  are hosting a Citizen Science Café here https://researchersnight.eu/2020/10/01/nano-science-gesundheit/
Nano Science and Health:
–        what makes SARS-CoV-2 successful?
–        viruses are biologic nanoparticles
–        what is nano and where do we find it?
–        can nano fight Covid?
–        how safe is nano and who cares?

The NANORIGO videos in English and German are available on our YouTube Channel

This virtual conference aims to demonstrate to the entire NanoSafety community how various research project bring together fruitful outcomes through interactive sessions with hands-on activities. It will serve as an opportune platform that allows different perspectives to meet in pro/contra discussions. For participation in the NanoSafety Cluster Education Day, please register here.

The programme and video for the event are now available.

On 7 October 2020, the NANORIGO, Gov4Nano and RiskGONE projects chaired a session at the recent 4^th EU-Asia Dialogue on Nanosafety meeting. The projects gave a presentation outlining the progress with the Governance work. The session “Risk Governance – Where do we stand and where do we go”, was chaired by Dr. Janeck J Scott-Fordsmand (NANORIGO, Europe), Dr. Tae G. Lee (KRISS, Korea), Dr.  Monique Groenewold (Gov4Nano, Europe) and Dr. Maria Dusinska (RISKGONE, Europe). The session consisted of two presentations (from Korea and from the European projects) which were followed by a lively dialogue showing the various risk roadmaps and governance approaches developed.

The presentations can be found here.

It is the task of hazard research and of toxicology to uncover detrimental effects. Once a substantial knowledge has been gained, it is important to shift gears and try to look at the problem from the other side: What is safe? This change in perspective is necessary to allow focusing on genuinely problematic materials and not focus too much work on less worrisome entities, merely because there is large body of literature about them.

The group of Albert Duschl from The Paris-Lodron University of Salzburg (PLUS), one of NANORIGO project partner, has recently published a review that addresses this issue with respect to the immunosafety of nanomaterials: Himly M, Geppert M, Hofer S, Hofstätter N, Horejs-Höck J, Duschl A. 2020. When would immunologists consider a nanomaterial to be safe? Recommendations for planning studies on nanosafety. Small. DOI:10.1002/smll.201907483. The paper tries to answer which data are needed to consider a nanomaterial as – from an immunological point of view – rather harmless. Of course, this does not cover other issues like genotoxicity of developmental toxicity, but since the immune system is often the first and certainly the professional responder upon exposure to nanoparticles, it is an important part of safety assessment.

The authors recommend to fully cover three aspects in the design of a study:

1. A stringent testing for contamination with Endotoxin / LPS is required to exclude that these powerful proinflammatory agents elicit reactions that can be falsely attributed to the particles tested. Due to assay interference it is necessary to use two different tests relying on different principles. The sensitivity of the test needs to match the sensitivity of the relevant cell, organ or species. Note that the sensitivity of human Dendritic cells is 0.2 EU/ml.
2. The dose needs to be justified by applying the same dose in vitro that may also be acting in vivo. The dose considered here is the dose that reaches a cell – NP per cell would be good expression. This requires to calculate which dose of nanoparticles is “seen” by cells that e.g. adhere to the bottom of a well. Dose per m² would in this case be a good measure, but dose per m³ would be not. A second calculation is needed to estimate the dose to which e.g. a lung epithelial cell of a human is exposed, which again is not the same as particles/m³.
3. If markers of cell stress or of inflammation are observed in absence of proinflammatory contaminants and at a dose that occurs in real life, then it needs to be checked whether this represents an immune reaction or merely a homeostatic fluctuation. It is easy to produce artifacts; for example, cells go into cell stress when they are handled due to the temperature shock. This analysis may require some help for experts, while the first two points can be addressed by any experimenter.

Within NANORIGO, we specifically address the second point, for example by producing an equivalence dose library for tissue-delivered dose, that will support the RGF and its users. Work with the partners should allow us to further improve this library and make it user-friendly.