“Anti-pollution” claims in cosmetic products
Nowadays, it is possible to find in the market several cosmetic products with claims like “anti-pollution protection”, “pollution shield”, “against pollution damage” and similar ones. But how can a company test and prove this type of allegations?

EU LEGAL FRAMEWORK REGARDING CLAIMS 

According to the European Cosmetics Regulation (EC) No. 1223/2009, “in the labelling, making available on the market and advertising of cosmetic products, text, names, trademarks, pictures and figurative or other signs shall not be used to imply that these products have characteristics or functions which they do not have”. 

Claims of cosmetic products have the goal to inform the users about the characteristics and qualities of those products. The Product Information File (PIF) of the cosmetic product should contain proof of the effects claimed for such cosmetic (when justified by the nature or the effect of the cosmetic product). 

The EU Commission Regulation (EU) No. 655/2013 lays down the common criteria for the justification of claims used in relation to cosmetic products. Its main goal is to guarantee a high level of protection for end users, in particular from misleading claims in relation to cosmetic products.  

Claims made about cosmetic products that are available in the EU market must also follow the provisions of Directive 2005/29/EC. The purpose of this Directive is to protect traders against misleading advertising and the unfair consequences thereof, as well as, to lay down the conditions under which comparative advertising is permitted. It also has the purpose to contribute to the proper functioning of the internal market and achieve a high level of consumer protection.

POLLUTION VS. SKIN 

Air pollution poses a major threat to health and climate. The World Health Organization (WHO) states that 9 out of 10 people breath air containing high levels of pollutants. Inhaled or ingested pollutants can be distributed through the whole body through the systemic circulation. Pollutants may reach the superficial and deeper skin layers by transcutaneous and systemic routes, which makes the skin one of the main targets of these compounds.   

Pollution may cause a wide range of effects on the skin, e.g. allergy, dull complexion, dark spots, premature ageing (wrinkles), cancer and others. Pollutants may activate cutaneous metabolism and inflammatory pathways and induce oxidative stress (lowering the levels of antioxidants present). UV radiation is also a known source of oxidative stress and a main factor on skin ageing. 

The main goal of cosmetics when fighting pollution is to avoid the entrance of pollutants through the skin barrier, inhibit reactions on skin surface (e.g. sebum peroxidation) and to prevent or correct metabolic reactions in skin cells.  

“ANTI-POLLUTION” TESTING 

These days, in vitro/ex vivo testing is crucial to prove “anti-pollution” properties and efficacy, and consequent cosmetic claims. The state of cells and tissues can be evaluated by quantifying important biomarkers. Examples of such biomarkers are the following: 

  • DNA damage markers;  
  • Lactic acid content; 
  • Antioxidant defence markers;  
  • Mitochondrial proteins;  
  • Inflammation mediators;  
  • Stress proteins;  
  • Antioxidant and detox enzymes;  
  • Lipid metabolism biomarkers; protease activity;  
  • Proteins associated with pigmentation;  
  • Adenosine triphosphate; 
  • Interleukin IL1a; 
  • Tissue oxygenation.  

For example, pollution stress (like cigarette smoke, heavy metals, volatile organic compounds, and others) can be applied directly in cell culture media or by spraying the pollutant on skin tissue in a chamber.  

In vivo testing, like skin barrier test or evaluation of lipid peroxidation of sebum on volunteers, may also be done to access anti-pollution efficacy of cosmetics. However, this is not common and is more difficult to perform and evaluate objectively. 

There are no international regulated or standardized and reproducible anti-pollution tests, as well as there is no agreement on which biomarkers are best to prove the efficacy of anti-pollution products. 

At the end, different factors need to be considered and the cosmetic company should choose the correct testing depending on the intended claims. Testing the right pollutant can be a tricky question and it is important to be suitable to the different factors inherent to the region (climate, most common pollutants, skin type, etc) where the cosmetic is marketed. 

References: 

  1. Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products. 
  1. Commission Regulation (EU) No 655/2013 of 10 July 2013 laying down common criteria for the justification of claims used in relation to cosmetic products. 
  1. Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market. 

further
reading

cosmetic products

Citral under review: SCCS Preliminary Opinion

The SCCS was tasked by the European Commission to evaluate if the safety levels for Citral, determined through QRA2 based on skin sensitization induction, are sufficient to safeguard consumers. A preliminary opinion was released.

Read More »
cosmetic products

Are sunscreens with Benzophenone-4 safe?

Benzophenone-4 is commonly known as a UV-filter in cosmetic products. Learn what the final opinion of SCCS states about Benzophenone’s safety profile as a UV-filter in cosmetic products.

Read More »
cosmetic products

Is Aluminium in cosmetics safe for human health?

The Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) published its Final Opinion on the safety of Aluminium in cosmetic products. This follows a lengthy review process that began in 2013 when the SCCS was first mandated to evaluate the potential health risks of Aluminium (Al) and its compounds in cosmetics.

Read More »
cosmetic products

Silver in Cosmetics: SCCS preliminary opinion.

Ingredients: SILVER

The recent preliminary opinion from the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) regarding silver in cosmetics is crucial for consumers and manufacturers. This article breaks down the key points, making it easier to understand the implications and stay informed.

Read More »
news & updates

EU Ecolabel adoption and recognition are on the rise

The Ecolabel certification is a comprehensive program focused on fostering sustainable practices. It evaluates products based on life cycle assessments, where every phase of said life cycle must abide by strict standards to attain the Ecolabel certification. The overarching objective of this certification is minimizing environmental harm from production or consumption activities.

Read More »
cosmetic products

UK proposes ban of wet wipes containing plastic 

The UK has proposed, on April 24, 2024, a regulation titled The Environmental Protection (Wet Wipes Containing Plastic) (England) Regulations 2024, to the World Trade Organization (WTO). The regulation aims to eliminate the supply and sale of plastic-containing wet wipes, including cosmetic ones. The public can offer comments on the draft until June 23, 2024, with adoption expected in September of the same year.

Read More »
news & updates

SCCS preliminary opinion on Citral sensitization endpoint

Ingredients: CITRAL

Date of publication: 27/03/2024

On March 27 2024, the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) published the Preliminary Opinion on the safety of Citral in cosmetic products. The deadline for comments is set to June 2, 2024.

Read More »
medical devices

Safety Reporting in Clinical Investigations: a Gap Analysis of Guidance Documents 

Safety reporting in clinical investigations of medical devices shall be performed in line with Article 80(2) of the EU MDR. On May 2020, it was published the MDCG 2020-10/1, outlining the procedures for safety reporting in clinical investigations of medical devices under the EU MDR. However, on October 2022 the Medical Device Coordination Group (MDCG) published an updated version of the MDCG 2020-10/1, the MDCG 2020-10/1 Rev 1. This article highlights the updates included in the new revision, analysing the gaps between both documents.

Read More »
medical devices

Roles and Responsibilities of an Authorised Representative under EU MDR and IVDR 

If a medical device manufacturer is not established in a Member State, the devices can only be placed on the Union market if the manufacturer designates an authorised representative. The authorised representative plays a pivotal role in ensuring the compliance of the devices with EU regulation, serving as point of contact. The obligations and responsibilities of authorised representative are outlined on Article 11 of both MDR and IVDR, but clarification of relevant requirements is described in MDCG 2022-16 of October 2022.

Read More »
medical devices

Understanding the ISO Standards Lifecycle

ISO Standards cover a huge range of activities, representing the distilled wisdom of people with expertise in their subject matter and providing the regulators with a sound basis to develop better legislation. ISO Standards are diverse, addressing from the shoe size we wear to the quality of air we breathe. The medical device sector is no exception. ISO has many International Standards and guidance documents aimed at helping the sector ensure safe and effective medical devices while meeting the multitude of national, regional and international regulatory requirements. But how exactly is a Standard developed, reviewed and withdraw?

Read More »