Some recent publications raised concern over a possible link between hair dye use and the incidence of bladder tumours in a Californian population. The Scientific Committee for Cosmetic Products and Non-Food Products intended for Consumers (SCCNFP) demanded the toxicological testing of all hair dyes used in Europe to exclude any risk. The EU commission initiated corresponding measures. Only safe hair dyes will be included on a positive list while all other hair dyes will be banned. The hair dye lawsone--the dyeing ingredient of henna--was evaluated by the SCCNFP as genotoxic but the BfR came to another conclusion. The regulation of both lawsone and henna remains an open question. Furthermore, some cosmetic colorants were critically discussed. The azo dyes CI 12150, CI 26100, CI 27290 and CI 20170 are allowed for use in cosmetics. On cleavage they form the carcinogenic aromatic amines o-anisidine, 4-aminoazobenzene and 2,4-xylidine, respectively. For three of these dyes the cleavage by human skin bacteria in vitro to the respective arylamine was shown experimentally. Further problems may arise from colorants used for tattoos and permanent makeup. These products up to now are not subject to legislation and there are no regulatory stipulations with respect to health safety and purity for colorants used for these purposes
In Europe, the data requirements for the hazard and exposure characterisation of chemicals are defined according to the REACH regulation and its guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment (Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), and its guidance documents; available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ. do?uri=OJ:L:2006:396:0001:0849: EN:PDF; and at: http://guidance. echa.europa.eu/docs/guidance-document/ information-requirements-en.htm). This is the basis for any related risk assessment. The standard reference for the testing of cosmetic ingredients is the SCCP's 'Notes of Guidance for the Testing of Cosmetic Ingredients and their Safety Evaluation' (The SCCP's Notes of Guidance for the testing of cosmetic ingredients and their safety evaluation (2006); available at: http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph-risk/committees/04-sccp/docs/ sccp-o-03j.pdf), which refers to the OECD guidelines for the testing of chemicals (The OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals as a collection of the most relevant internationally agreed testing methods used by government, industry and independent laboratories to assess the safety of chemical products; available at: http://www.oecd. org/topic/0,2686,en-2649-34377-1-1-1-1-37407,00.html). According to the cosmetics directive [76/768/EEC], compounds that are classified as mutagenic, carcinogenic or toxic to reproduction are banned for the use in cosmetic products. Since December 2010, the respective labelling is based on the rules of regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008 (Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, amending and repealing Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/ 45/EC, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, Official Journal L 353, 31/12/2008, pages 1-1355; available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri= OJ:L:2008:353:0001:1355: en:PDF) on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (CLP). There is no further impact from the CLP regulation on cosmetic products, because regulation (EC) No. 1223/2009 on cosmetic products defines its own labelling rules (Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products; available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/ LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:342:0059:0209: en:PDF). Special notification procedures are mandatory for preservatives, colourants and UV-filters where a safety approval from the European 'Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety' (SCCS) is needed prior to marketing. The risk assessment of nanomaterials in consumer products still poses a significant challenge as highlighted by the example of UV-filters in sunscreens since nanomaterials cannot be classified as a homogenous group of chemicals but still need to be addressed in risk characterisation on a case by case basis. -® Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012
The French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety (Anses) hosted a two-day workshop on Endocrine Disruptors: Exposure and Potential Impact on Consumers Health, bringing together participants from international organizations, academia, research institutes and from German, Swedish, Danish and French governmental agencies. The main objective of the workshop was to share knowledge and experiences on endocrine disruptors (ED) exposure and potential impact on consumers' health, to identify current risk assessment practices and knowledge gaps and issue recommendations on research needs and future collaboration. The following topics were reviewed: (1) Definition of ED, (2) endpoints to be considered for Risk assessment (RA) of ED, (3) non-monotonic dose response curves, (4) studies to be considered for RA (regulatory versus academic studies), (5) point of departure and uncertainty factors, (6) exposure assessment, (7) regulatory issues related to ED. The opinions expressed during this workshop reflect day-to-day experiences from scientists, regulators, researchers, and others from many different countries in the fields of risk assessment, and were regarded by the attendees as an important basis for further discussions. Accordingly, the participants underlined the need for more exchange in the future to share experiences and improve the methodology related to risk assessment for endocrine disrupters
