Probiotic, Prebiotic and Postbiotic Claims in Cosmetic Products
Microbiome claims such as probiotic, prebiotic, postbiotic and other related terms are becoming more and more popular in the beauty industry. But what does it really mean? How can a cosmetic company justify such claims? How are these products regulated in terms of their safety and quality standards?


As addressed in one of our previous posts, when making available a cosmetic product in the EU market, the product must comply with the definition of cosmetic product according to the European Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009. Moreover, every single claim made or implied by the product has to be compliant with the Commission Regulation (EU) No 655/2013, which lays down common criteria for the justification of claims in cosmetic products. This applies to all cosmetic product claims, irrespective of the medium or type of marketing tool used, the product’s claimed functions or its the target audience.

In order to help companies to comply with the Commission Regulation No 655/2013, in 2017, the European Commission has published a technical document. Besides providing a detailed description of the common criteria, this document also lays down the best practices to be followed in regard to the type of evidential support used for the justification of cosmetic claims, as well as for the application of the common criteria to “free from” and “hypoallergenic” claims.

Claims can be made in the form of texts, names, trademarks, pictures and figurative or other signs that convey, explicitly or implicitly, product characteristic or functions in the labelling, marketing and advertising media.


In 2018, at the 12th annual meeting of International Cooperation on Cosmetics Regulation (ICCR), the topic of cosmetics and the microbiome was discussed. Given that “technologies exploring the relationship between the human microbiome and healthy skin was an area of increasing interest”, the ICCR Steering Committee agreed to create a new Joint Working Group (JWG) on the topic “Microbiome as it relates to Cosmetics”. Early this year, the ICCR has published a report entitled “Microbiome and Cosmetics: Survey of Products, Ingredients, Terminologies and Regulatory Approaches”.

According to the ICCR, Probiotics are “live or dormant micro-organisms (e.g. Lactobacillus casei, Lactobacillus acidophillus, Nitrosomonas eutropha, etc.)” and Prebiotics are “nutrients for probiotics or natural skin microbiota (e.g. niacinamide, minerals, thermal water, vitamins, oligosaccharides, natural oils, etc.)”. Postbiotics are defined as “soluble factors (products or metabolic by-products) secreted by live bacteria or released after bacterial lysis (e.g. Bifida ferment lysate, Lactococcus ferment lysate, Bacillus coagulans ferment, etc.)”. If a product is ‘microbiome friendly’ or ‘microbiota-friendly’, it means that it does not interfere with the skin microbiome.


Presently, there are no international guidelines on definitions or terminologies applicable to microbiome claims in cosmetic products.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has expressed some concerns related with this type of cosmetics, specifically with the efficacy, safety and quality of these products. There are still some outstanding questions raised by the FDA, like whether probiotics are still alive in cosmetics in the presence of preservatives or if they affect product quality and safety.

The definition of cosmetic product and the substance/mixture it contains does not make any reference to the terms ‘viable’ or ‘non-viable’, so it is not clear if prebiotics, probiotics and other fall into this definition. There is a regulatory uncertainty, as these ‘ingredients’ are neither explicitly banned or allowed.

In the European Union, the safety of a cosmetic product must be demonstrated and data on microbiological quality must be included in the Cosmetic Product Safety Report (CPSR), which is part of the Product Information File (PIF). The total count of aerobic mesophilic microorganisms (bacteria, yeasts and moulds) and the absence of specific microorganisms (Candida albicansStaphylococcus aureusPseudomonas aeruginosaEscherichia coli) should be included. Other regulated markets can establish different cosmetic requirements which may differ when it comes to the product’s microbiological quality standards.

For example, in South Korea, the use of live microorganisms in cosmetic products is usually not permitted. In Japan, “ingredients of cosmetics, including any impurities contained therein, shall not contain anything that may cause infection or that otherwise makes the use of the cosmetic a potential health hazard“. In Canada and USA, cosmetic products must comply with imposed microbiological limits. Depending on where the product shall be made available, the use of probiotics may not be a choice (as they are considered ‘live or dormant’ microrganisms) or it must comply with regional microbiological limits.

On another perspective, if a cosmetic product mentions it has pharmaceutical or medicinal-type activities, it will fall outside the cosmetic product definition set by the European Cosmetic Regulation. Claims like ‘microbiome-friendly’ usually fall under this definition. Therapeutic claims (e.g. preventing or treating diseases) are not permitted in cosmetics.

All cosmetic and personal care product must be proved as safe for the consumer, under normal and foreseeable conditions of use, and cosmetic claims must be supported and properly substantiated. However, some claims might be difficult or too complex to verify or substantiate (e.g., efficacy claims on the skin microflora).

In sum, can probiotics, prebiotics and postbiotics be considered cosmetic ingredients? Will they interfere with the microbiological limits set by regulators? Cosmetics containing these ‘ingredients’ fall under the definition of the EU Cosmetics Regulation or should be considered borderline products? There are still many questions to be answered and a case-by-case evaluation is usually advisable. CRITICAL CATALYST is here to help you! If you need further information or advice on which claims and type of substantiation can be made for your cosmetic products, feel free to contact us at


  1. Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products.
  2. Commission Regulation (EU) No 655/2013 of 10 July 22013 laying down common criteria for the justification of claims used in relation to cosmetic products.
  3. Technical document on cosmetic claims. Agreed by the Sub-Working Group on Claims. 2017. European Commission.
  4. Microbiome and Cosmetics: Survey of Products, Ingredients, Terminologies and Regulatory Approaches. International Cooperation on Cosmetics Regulation (ICCR). 2021.


medical devices

Amendments to the Transitional Provisions of the European Union MDR and IVDR

The proposed amendments aim to maintain patients’ access to a wide range of medical devices while ensuring the transition to the new framework. The ammendments proposal aims to extend the current transition period (Article 120 of the MDR), and it also deletes the ‘sell-off’ deadlines of both MDR and IVDR. The extension is staggered depending on the risk class of the device – until December 2027 for high-risk devices and December 2028 for medium and lower-risk devices.

Read More »
medical devices

EU MDR – Proposal for Extension of Transition Period

The transition to MDR has been slower than anticipated by the European Commission. Insufficient capacity of notified bodies and the low level of preparedness of manufacturers led to a proposal for extension of current MDR transition period with deadlines depending on the risk class of the devices.

Read More »
medical devices

MDCG 2022-18 – EU MDR Article 97

EU MDR Article 97 may be a temporary solution to avoid disruption of supply of Medical Devices on the EU Market. The MDCG 2022-18 presents a uniform approach for application of MDR Article 97 on non-compliant legacy devices under the conditions set by the competent authorities, while limiting the impact on the supply of safe and effective devices.

Read More »
cosmetic products

EU to set Labelling Requirements for 56 additional Fragrance Allergens in Cosmetic Products

World Trade Organization (WTO) has been notified by the European Commission of a draft amendment to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 as regards labelling of fragrance allergens in Cosmetic Products. The proposed date of adoption of the new regulation is expected to be in the first half of 2023 and the propose date of entry in force 20 days from the publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Read More »
cosmetic products

New Amendments to the European Cosmetics Regulation – CMR Substances

The European Commission published the Commission Regulation (EU) 2022/1531, which amends Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 in regards to the use in cosmetic products of certain substances classified as CMR. This amendment introduces new entries to Annex II and Annex III and revises an entry to Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009.

Read More »
medical devices

EUDAMED – harmonized practices and alternative solutions for IVDR until the database is fully functional

EUDAMED is one of the key aspects of the new rules on in vitro diagnostic medical devices – Regulation (EU) 2017/746. However, it is only expected to achieve full functionality by the second quarter of 2024. Until then, how is the information submitted and/or exchanged between manufacturers, notified bodies and competent authorities?

Read More »
medical devices

EUDAMED – update on timelines

EUDAMED is one of the key aspects of the new rules on medical devices (Regulation (EU) 2017/745) and in vitro diagnostic medical devices (Regulation (EU) 2017/746), and it is expected to achieve full functionality by the second quarter of 2024.

Read More »
cosmetic products

UK OPSS call for data on six cosmetic ingredients

On 14 July 2022, the Office for Product Safety and Standards (OPSS – the UK regulator for cosmetic products) issued a call for data on the safety of the following six cosmetic ingredients to investigate any suspected endocrine disrupting properties. 

Read More »