Safety evaluation of cosmetics in the EU. Reality and challenges for the toxicologist
- PMID: 15177635
- DOI: 10.1016/j.toxlet.2004.01.026
Safety evaluation of cosmetics in the EU. Reality and challenges for the toxicologist
Abstract
Council Directive 76/768/EEC, its seven amendments and 30 adaptations to technical progress form the basis of the cosmetic EU legislation today. There are actually four key principles for safety in the cosmetic legislation. (i) The full responsibility for the safety of cosmetics for human health is placed on the manufacturer, first importer in the EU or marketer. (ii) The safety evaluation of finished products is based on safety of individual ingredients, more specifically on their chemical structure, toxicological profile and their level of exposure. (iii) A compilation of information on each cosmetic product (dossier) must be kept readily available for inspection by the competent authorities of the Member State concerned. This information source, usually called a technical information file (TIF) or product information file/requirements (PIF(R)), contains, as the most important part, the safety assessment of the product undersigned by a competent safety assessor. (iv) The use of validated replacement alternative methods instead of animal testing forms the 4th key principle for safety of cosmetic products on the EU market. The 7th amendment imposes strict deadlines for the abolition of animal in vivo studies on cosmetic ingredients. These legal requirements induce a number of important challenges for the cosmetic industry and more specifically for the toxicologist involved as safety assessor.
Similar articles
-
Changes in European legislation make it timely to introduce a transparent market surveillance system for cosmetics.Acta Derm Venereol. 2007;87(6):485-92. doi: 10.2340/00015555-0311. Acta Derm Venereol. 2007. PMID: 17989885
-
Is the replacement strategy, as it exists today in the EU for cosmetics, the way forward ?Arch Toxicol. 2011 May;85(5):363-4. doi: 10.1007/s00204-011-0712-3. Arch Toxicol. 2011. PMID: 21528384 No abstract available.
-
Alternative (non-animal) methods for cosmetics testing: current status and future prospects-2010.Arch Toxicol. 2011 May;85(5):367-485. doi: 10.1007/s00204-011-0693-2. Epub 2011 May 1. Arch Toxicol. 2011. PMID: 21533817 Review.
-
Human health safety evaluation of cosmetics in the EU: a legally imposed challenge to science.Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2010 Mar 1;243(2):260-74. doi: 10.1016/j.taap.2009.12.007. Epub 2009 Dec 16. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2010. PMID: 20006634 Review.
-
A tiered approach to the use of alternatives to animal testing for the safety assessment of cosmetics: eye irritation.Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2009 Jul;54(2):197-209. doi: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2009.04.004. Epub 2009 Apr 22. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2009. PMID: 19393279
Cited by
-
Detection of Counterfeit Perfumes by Using GC-MS Technique and Electronic Nose System Combined with Chemometric Tools.Micromachines (Basel). 2023 Feb 24;14(3):524. doi: 10.3390/mi14030524. Micromachines (Basel). 2023. PMID: 36984931 Free PMC article.
-
Applications of Engineered Skin Tissue for Cosmetic Component and Toxicology Detection.Cell Transplant. 2024 Jan-Dec;33:9636897241235464. doi: 10.1177/09636897241235464. Cell Transplant. 2024. PMID: 38491929 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Assessment of the risk of fragrance allergy in the general population: challenges and methodological issues.Drug Saf. 2008;31(5):440-3. doi: 10.2165/00002018-200831050-00012. Drug Saf. 2008. PMID: 18422388
-
Toxicity testing in the 21 century: defining new risk assessment approaches based on perturbation of intracellular toxicity pathways.PLoS One. 2011;6(6):e20887. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0020887. Epub 2011 Jun 20. PLoS One. 2011. PMID: 21701582 Free PMC article. Review.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical