Category: Cosmetic Formulation : Ingredients Focus

PFAS – Forever Chemicals

In this society concerned by low quality items, that sometimes don’t even last a year, we  usually appreciate « things that last forever »… except when it comes to chemicals, probably…In this article, we will be tackling the question of a specific category of substances, PFAS,  (also called «Forever Chemicals» – initially named as such by Joseph Allen de Harvard) because of their persistence in the environment.

PFAS cosmetics Europe : France lawmakers vote to ban ‘forever chemicals’

In April 2024 French MPs approved the first reading of a bill aimed at restricting the manufacture and sale of non-essential products (except in cooking utensils) containing PFAS or “forever chemicals”, marking a significant step in environmental health protection. The ban also applies to cosmetic products.

PFAS -Those widespread “Forever Chemicals”

PFAS (per-and poly fluoroalkyl substances) is a chemical family consisting of at least 5,000 individual substances. As a result of their widespread use and persistence, PFAS are being found to be present in many different environments.

“Forever Chemicals”  PFAS in cosmetics

A study published in 2021 in Environmental Science & Technology Letters also linked the general problematic of PFAS to the cosmetic sector. The researchers found high fluorine levels—indicating the probable presence of PFAS—in most waterproof mascara, liquid lipsticks, and foundations tested :The problem with cosmetic products is that on the one hand some products intentionally include ingredients that qualify as PFAS (see the list of INCIs below) and on the other hand PFAS are also sometimes found in analyses of conventional cosmetic products, without being clearly displayed on the products, according to a Green Science Policy Institute study on PFAS dating from June 2021. 

« Many cosmetics sold in the United States and Canada likely contain high levels of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), a potentially toxic class of chemicals linked to a number of serious health conditions, according to new research from the University of Notre Dame. Scientists tested more than 200 cosmetics including concealers, foundations, eye and eyebrow products and various lip products. According to the study, 56 percent of foundations and eye products, 48 percent of lip products and 47 percent of mascaras tested were found to contain high levels of fluorine, which is an indicator of PFAS use in the product. The study was recently published in the journal of Environmental Science and Technology Letters. » *

Some cosmetic brands intentionally add PFAS to make cosmetics last longer and spread easily. PFAS can also sometimes be found cosmetics through cross-contamination, such as machinery used in manufacturing or plastic packaging that contains PFAS.

Other Studies also reveal the presence of PFAS in different everyday products

In addition to that, another study by Katherine E. Boronow and her team, published in the Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology in 2019, for instance reveals the presence of “perfluoroalkyl” and “polyfluoroalkyl” substances in certain dental products products. In dental floss, in particular, although it is not the only source of PFAS, as the study makes clear.

Environmental Concerns

First of all, keep in mind that PFASs, also called « Forever Chemicals », are among the synthetic substances that are are considered (among other things) extremely problematic from an environmental point of view. Some PFAS have recently made the headlines, as they can now even be traced in rainwater, making it ‘unfit for consumption’, according to recents studies*.

Let’s get back to the basics – What exactly are PFAS? 

PFASs, poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances, are chemical substances consisting of about 4,000 to 6,000 different components. PFASs are persistent, rapidly spreading and not, or only very partially, biodegradable. They can be found in textiles, food packaging, cosmetics, pesticides, kitchen utensils, varnishes and many other everyday products.

Which cosmetic products can contain PFAS ?

What are PFAS used for in cosmetics?

Basically,  PFAS are used in cosmetics and beauty products,  to condition and smooth the skin, making it appear shiny, or to affect product consistency and texture. In other products such as dental floss, it is the waterproofing properties that comes into play.

All things considered, what are the health risks?

Because Perfluoroalkyl compounds are not destroyed in the human body and bioaccumulate, they increasing health risks. Several PFASs are strongly suspected of being toxic, with health risks to humans, animals and the environment. These include effects on hormone balance (so-called endocrine disruptors), the immune system, reproduction and unborn child development. The exact properties differ for each specific PFAS. These substances can accumulate in the human body, in animals and in plants. PFASs can enter the human body through food, drinking water, inhalation or the skin.

Identified as problematic by the french authorities already in 2019

Previously, in September 2019, Santé publique France published a study on “the impregnation of the French population by perfluorinated compounds“, recalling how, since the 1950s, these man-made substances have been used in “numerous industrial applications and in everyday consumer products”, including cosmetics, as recalled in this article (in french)

And what about the laws in Europe?

The production and use of various PFAS compounds is clearly restricted by European directives. In the coming years, various applications containing PFAS will be further restricted. BUT it can actually take decades between the identification of the problem, partial restrictions phase and the final ban of components or classes of components. For instance, in some countries, retailers take actions, -like in Denmark- before the official legal restrictions, – which often take years to implement. In Denmark, for example, the second largest food retailer in Denmark, the Coop Group, the world’s largest retail group, immediately stopped all purchases of cosmetics and personal care products containing Polyfluoroalkyl and Perfluoroalkyl compounds.

“The ban applies to the group’s own brands as well as to international brands. Sales of products still containing PFAS will be phased out by 1 September 2019 at the latest. Coop also calls on the Danish Minister for the Environment and Food to propose a law against PFAS in cosmetic products.”

What are the different INCI names of the PFAS components used in cosmetics?

Spotting Hidden Peas 

Therefore, to minimize your contact with PFAS, it’s necessary to educate yourself about the common cosmetic ingredients that may be contaminated. Look out for ingredients such as Teflon, PTFE, or any vague mention of “fluorinated” compounds on product labels. Identifying these hidden peas will empower you to make informed buying decisions and ensure the products you choose are free from harmful chemicals.

Which cosmetic ingredients are identified as PFAS ? 

INCI

• PFTE (Teflon)
• Perfluorononyl dimethicone
• Perfluorononyl triethosyxilane
• Ethyl perfluorobutyl ether
• Perfluorotetralin,
• Polyurethane-27 / Polyurethane ( verifier microplastique ?)
• Polyperfluoroethoxymethoxy Peg-2 Phosphate
• Octafluoropentyl Methacrylate
• Pentafluoropropane
• Methyl Perfluorobutyl Ether
• Perfluorononylethyl Carboxydecyl Peg-10 Dimethicone
• Perfluorodecalin
• Polyperfluoroethoxymethoxy Difluoroethyl Peg Phosphate
• Perfluorodimethylcyclohexane
• Perfluoroperhydrophenanthrene
• PEG-10 dimethicone
• C9-15 fluoroalcohol phosphate
• Perfluorohexane

 

 

PFAS in cosmetics, the Green Science Policy Institute  study-2021

The problem with cosmetics is twofold. Some conventional products can contain them as added ingredients in the formulation (see the INCI list above) and PFASs are also sometimes found in analyses of conventional cosmetics, without being clearly displayed on the products, according to a Green Science Policy Institute study on PFASs dating from June 2021.

Hidden PFASs

In its study, the Green Science Policy Institute, in collaboration with the University of Notre Dame (Canada), the University of Toronto, Indiana University and ETH Zurich, tested 231 make-up products from leading brands in the USA and Canada. According to the study, the vast majority of cosmetics tested contained concealed PFAS.

➡️ 29 products with the highest fluoride levels, (an indicator of the presence of PFAS), were further analyzed and confirmed to contain at least four PFAS of concern. These were PFASs that break down into other PFASs known to be highly toxic and harmful to the environment.

➡️ Ingredients such as Methicone, Acrylate and Silicone polymers also exist in versions that already contain the chemical at their base. The researchers therefore assume that some of the PFAS detected already came from these ingredients. The concentrations of these ingredients corresponded to the highest fluorine concentrations measured in the analysis, they added.

What kind of make-up products contain PFAS?

Overall, 52% of the products tested by the Green Science Policy Institute contained what the researchers consider to be “higher” levels of fluoride, particularly present in products marketed as “waterproof” or “long-lasting”.

PFAS could be traced in :

• 82% of waterproof mascaras.
• 58% of other eye make-up products, such as eyeshadows, eyeliners and eye creams.
• 63% of foundations
• 62% of lipsticks.
• Of the 17 Canadian products tested, only one displayed the ingredient on the ingredient label.

However, the problem of PFAS in consumer goods goes of course far beyond the cosmetics sector, but the industry is part of the problem and must take its share of responsibility to ban these components which are absolutely not indispensable. The natural and organic cosmetics sector is proof of this, as these components are simply not part of the “authorised” components defined by the various labels for natural and organic cosmetics.

 

More ressources

It would also seem that the subject as such was more widely discussed in English-speaking or Nordic countries in the last decades, for example with the following resources.

➡️ Dark Waters: a film to warn about perfluorinated chemical pollution

➡️ EWG in the US questioning the presence of Teflon in our cosmetics

➡️  In Denmark, an official 2018 study by the Danish Environmental Protection Agency on the issue in cosmetics

 

Get informed & take action

It is therefore also up to us to raise this issue as informed consumers and to ask brands – also from the cosmetics sector – to review their formulations as soon as possible to ban these toxic substances from their products. Official bans through national or international legislation will take far too long to counteract this global problematic.

❓ What are PFAS in cosmetics?

PFAS are synthetic chemicals also used in cosmetics for their waterproof and long-lasting properties, but they persist in the body and environment.

❓ Why are PFAS called “forever chemicals”?

They do not break down naturally and can accumulate in the body over time, raising serious health and environmental concerns.

❓ Are PFAS dangerous for health?

Some PFAS are suspected endocrine disruptors and have been linked to hormonal imbalance and other long-term health risks.

❓ How can I avoid PFAS in skincare products?

Check the full ingredient list (INCI lists) for ingredients containing “PTFE”, “perfluoro”, or “polyfluoro”, and favor certified organic or natural cosmetics.

❓ Are PFAS regulated in cosmetics?

Regulations vary by country, but many PFAS are still legally used in cosmetics despite growing scientific concern.

Conclusion

As shown above : in a world where cosmetic products can sometimes contain harmful forever pollutants like PFAS, it’s critical to be vigilant about the ingredients we expose ourselves to. By understanding the dangers of PFAS and educating ourselves about common cosmetic ingredients, we can avoid these undesirable chemicals in our beauty routine. Whether it’s choosing clean  or opting for natural, organic and certified alternatives (by serious labels), taking proactive steps toward a healthier beauty regimen is essential.

 

Microplastics & cosmetics

Plastic isn’t exactly fantastic – even for cosmetics!

Microplastics & cosmetics- a bit of history about Plastic

On the scale of global human evolution, plastics made their appearance relatively recently, with the appearance of bakelite in 1907 and PVC in 1924, for example. Most of the plastics developed in the 20th century were petrochemicals – produced from refined fractions of petroleum. From the 1950s onwards, with the advent of “mass” consumption and a diversified range of plastics, these materials became part of our daily lives… to the point of saturation, endangering our health, that of animals and the planet.To illustrate this point, let’s take a closer look at microplastic pollution.

 

What exactly are microplastics?

Definition: microplastics are tiny pieces of plastic, generally measuring less than 5 millimeters.

Microplastics usually fall into two categories:

Primary microplastics = synthesized microplastics intentionally added to products (this part concerns also the formulation of cosmetic products, for example).

Secondary microplastics = microplastics derived from the degradation of larger plastic wastes (this part also concerns cosmetics packaging, for example).

The specific case of microplastics in cosmetics

Added microplastics components are still widely present in beauty products today in the form of synthetic polymers or microbeads. Their functions are manifold: they can act as exfoliating agents (microbeads), film-formers (e.g. silicones, also known as “liquid plastics”), viscosity regulators, binders, etc…

Concerning « microbead » ingredients, which can still be found as exfoliants in scrubs, shower gels and other “rinse-off products”, can account for up to 10% of the product’s total weight* – which corresponds to several thousand microbeads per gram of product!

 

Microplastics INCI in cosmetics

Here are just a few of the ingredients/INCIs in beauty product considered as microplastics and “liquid plastics” such as silicones, for instance

• Acrylates Co-, Crosspolymer (AC, ACS)

• Polyamides (PA, Nylon)

• Polyacrylates (PA)

• Polymethyl Methacrylate (PMMA)

• Polyquaternium (PQ)

• Polyethylene (PE)

• Polyethylene Glycol (PEG)*

• Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET)

• Polypropylene (PP)

• Polypropylene Glycol (PPG)*

• Polystyrene (PS)

• Polyurethane (PUR)

And in the «liquid plastics» category we will find the whole range of silicone-based ingredients, in all their different types and forms, like for example

• Silicones
–Cyclo-, Di-, Amodi-, Tri-, Methicone
–Cyclotetra-, Cyclopenta-, Cyclohexasiloxane
– Dimethiconol –Di-, Tri-, Siloxane , Silsesquioxane

Microplastics – still way too common in beauty products today

While alternatives do exist, added microplastics are still very much present, as recently highlighted once again by the Rethink Plastic collective, a collective of some twenty ONGs alerting to the problem of microplastics in cosmetics.

 

Proof: the Plastic Soup Foundation study

In its study and project “Beat the Microbead”, the Dutch association Plastic Soup Foundation has carried out a study on microplastic ingredients in cosmetics, analyzing the products of conventional “classic” brands from European top brands: L’Oréal, Nivea, Dove, Gilette and Rexona.

The full study is available on their website. Product analyses show that 9 out of 10 analyzed beauty products still contain these notorious microplastics.

Glitter = microplastics

Another example: those beautiful make-up glitters…. ah gee, is that microplastic too?

Most of the time, the glitter we love for to apply for our very festive parties or even use in children’s make-up is simply plastic, in form of microparticles, made from a mixture of aluminum and plastic components.

Especially when it comes to glitter products from the “conventional” cosmetics sector – plastic microparticles are not allowed in certified natural and organic cosmetics, for example. But alternatives have been available for some years now: “biodegradable” sequins, and even the Rio Carnival is turning its back on microplastics and is getting excited about these new, more environmentally-friendly sequins…

What about the health impact of microplastics?

Pollution & microplastics – everyone is concerned, in the end

Beyond the presence of microplastics as added cosmetic ingredients, these microplastic particles also come from general plastic pollution: particles of various plastics, which pass through the filters of sewage treatment plants (as they are too small to be properly filtered) and then end up in the oceans and continental waters in very large quantities. Microplastic-based pollution has already been traced in various studies throughout our immediate environment. In our oceans, soils, animals and even… in our stomachs, lungs and even our hearts.

Numerous studies on the subject

A study from 2022 also revealed that traces of these microplastics have even been found in human blood. The study, published in Environment International, analyzed blood samples from 22 anonymous donors, all healthy volunteers, and found microplastics in 17 of them.

“For the first time, we have been able to detect and quantify” such microplastics in human blood, said Dick Vethaak, an ecotoxicologist at the Free University of Amsterdam. “This is proof that we have plastics in our bodies – and we shouldn’t,” he told AFP, deeming further research on the possible health impact necessary. According to the study, the microplastics detected could have entered the body via many routes, from air, water or food, to cosmetic products. “It is scientifically plausible that plastic particles can be transported to organs via the bloodstream”, add the authors.The big question is what happens inside our bodies,” stresses Professor Dick Vethaak. Are the particles retained in the body? Are they transported to certain organs, can they cross the blood-brain barrier? And are these levels high enough to trigger the disease? We urgently need to fund further research so we can find out.”

Pregnant women are also affected by the plastic pollution

The placenta is also contaminated by microplastics, reveals an Italian study published in the International Environment journal in 2021. This could affect the health of unborn babies, who are particularly sensitive to endocrine disruptors.

“As for the source of these microplastics, the researchers suggest two possible routes: the dietary route, as these particles are present in both food and water, and the respiratory route, as microplastics are also abundant in the air we breathe. The latter is also a source of fine particles, also found in the placenta.”

Microplastics : what about animals & the environment?

The choice of products we buy and use on a daily basis, whether for cosmetics or any other products (ingredients, packaging and everyday products) never only concerns our very own, narrow personal surroundings – the circle of our personnel health, and the health of our children – but always affects the entire system, as well…

And sooner or later, these consumer choices come back to us “like a boomerang effect” with the accumulation of chemical pollution in the oceans, which then finds its way onto our plates – for those of us who aren’t vegan. Microplastics are already widely present in the environment, affecting flora and fauna, as numerous studies attest.

In an article in Le Monde (french newspaper) published on the 29th of April 2021 entitled “Dans les océans, la pollution chimique menace toute la chaîne alimentaire” (In the oceans, chemical pollution threatens the entire food chain), scientists detail the food chain problem, for example:

“Fertilizers, pesticides, heavy metals, hydrocarbons, drug residues, thousands of tons of sunscreen and plastic in all its forms, not to mention sediments laden with various chemicals, juxtapose or synthesize their deleterious effects. The report by the International Pollutant Elimination Network notes that human discharges impact all ocean life, from plankton to birds. Over two hundred of these studies are summarized in a report on Aquatic Pollutants in Oceans and Fisheries, published on Tuesday April 27. The survey was carried out for the International Pollutant Elimination Network (IPEN), which brings together over 600 NGOs in more than 120 countries, with the Australian organization for a toxics-free future (National Toxics Network, NTN).”

What is the current status of legislation about “added” microplastics in cosmetics?

In Europe, the restriction or ban on microplastics in cosmetics is not governed by the cosmetics regulation (1223/2009 EC) but regulated independently in the various countries.

This restriction only applies to microplastics intentionally added to products intended for rinsing, e.g. in France, where the Biodiversity Act of 2018 bans plastic microbeads from “rinsed cosmetics” (shower gels, peels, shampoos, etc.) used for cleansing or exfoliation. This ban therefore only covers a fraction of the microplastic problem.Other countries around the world have introduced similar restrictions (USA, Canada, India, Korea…). But harmonization of legislation at European, and even international, level is still some way off.

At 7 kg of plastic discarded every minute

The Rethink Plastic Alliance, which brings together some twenty environmental associations (Plastic Soup Foundation, No Plastic in my sea, Client Earth and Surfrider), highlights the “negative and irreversible damage to our ecosystems” and the risk to human health. “In Europe alone, 7 kg of plastics from cosmetics are released into the environment every minute”.

A particularly slow ban & a transition phase … mostly in favor of the global plastic industry and manufacturers

On March 1, 2023, the European expert committee that was to decide on the restriction of “intentionally added” microplastics under the Reach regulation postponed its vote. This has also prompted reactions from brands committed to speeding up the process of banning microplastics. A group of around twenty brands and environmental ONGs, led by Weleda, Beauty Kitchen and Naïf, has sent an open letter to the European Commission calling for a faster and more comprehensive ban on microplastics in cosmetics.

Ban of  microplastics in cosmetics

Under the current proposal for a ban on microplastics in cosmetics (which, incidentally, represent only one aspect of this global pollution), transition periods would vary from four years for rinse-off products to 12 years for certain make-up products. Encapsulated fragrances would benefit from five to eight years, and leave-on cosmetics would have six years to adapt.

 

These are not reassuring figures

Of course, the cosmetics sector is not solely responsible for microplastic pollution, but the cosmetic industry is also part of the problem. The industry as a whole therefore needs to accelerate the process of change. It’s also up to us, as informed and enlightened consumers, to support all those brands that have been committed to environmental protection from the outset, and not just the ones who hopped on the wagon recently, under the greenwashing flag.

And what about plastic packaging?

Again, this aspect doesn’t only concern the cosmetics sector, but the cosmetic industry is part of the problem… and will therefore also have to be part of the solutions.

According to the OECD, global plastic waste is set to almost triple by 2060

At current rates, the amount of plastic waste produced worldwide will triple by 2060, with around half ending up in landfill and less than a fifth being recycled, according to a new OECD report (…) Even with aggressive measures to reduce demand and improve efficiency, plastic production would almost double in less than 40 years, the organization projects. However, such globally coordinated policies could significantly increase the share of future plastic waste recycled, from 12% to 40%.(…) Since the 1950s, some 8.3 billion tonnes of plastic have been produced, over 60% of which ended up in landfill, or was burnt or dumped directly into rivers and oceans.

How to avoid microplastics in beauty products

*Choose certified natural and organic cosmetics, as added microplastics are not authorized by the different labels.

• Read the labels and  formulation of your products using the site’s INCI search to rule out microplastics,
• On the packaging side: encourage the initiatives of brands that make a real commitment in these directions, such as Überwood and Dr. Bronner’s. Ask your favorite brands – even those in the organic sector – the “tough questions” to find out what they have planned to speed up the process of finding alternatives to plastic packaging.
• Invite the “zero waste” mouvement into your bathroom; so many products now exist in solid versions, it’s up to you to find the brand or product that suits you. As long as the solid version is not certified organic, continue to check its composition, as some brands still contain too many controversial ingredients.
• Focus on the essentials: do we really need 4 different creams, with their promise of miraculous ingredients, when a good night’s sleep, a real moment of relaxation, a great surfing session or a laugh shared with girlfriends, releasing tons of endorphins… will give us that instant “healthy glow” effect envied by the world’s best cosmetic formulas? Even certified organic creams? In short, degrowth makes sense, even in the bathroom… and can also turn into a fun process.

Get creative on your plastic-free journey

As far as other everyday products are concerned, the web is full of alternatives and tips on how to get as far away as possible from our current plastic-laden lifestyle.

And even if the biggest lever remains the industrial sector, our daily spending choices remain a truly crucial lever, which can also inspire those around us to do the same. We can’t repeat it often enough: the choice of our everyday consumer products matters… at every level…

 

“Every time you spend money, you’re casting a vote for the kind of world you want.” (Anna Lappe)

 

 

 

There are many warnings in the press regarding essential oils. Some are justified and some are so exaggerated that the slightest trace of essential oil diluted in the composition of a formula becomes as suspicious as a component in a proven toxic, endocrine disruptor, or becomes controversial at another level.

Of course, essential oils are very powerful substances (which is also what makes them effective). They are active concentrates that are used within the framework of specific protocols and which can become problematic if used incorrectly, in too high a concentration or undiluted, for example. Some essential oils, used pure, can be photosensitizing or cause discomfort if the dosage is not respected.

The advantage of these substances is that they have been used in traditional pharmacopoeia for centuries and their use, function, warnings and of course also their multiple advantages, even in interaction with other herbal substances, have been studied and documented for a long time. 

 

This is not the case for a large number of chemical substances, whose interaction with other chemical substances and the effects of their daily use have not yet been studied in the long term, or even in the medium term, for that matter.  

This is a reference to the famous “cocktail effect” that can result from combining these chemical substances and which of course does not essentially concern the problem of cosmetics.

Many users, who are increasingly better informed, are now turning to certified natural and organic cosmetics to avoid the range of controversial components found in conventional cosmetics. 

Here, once again, we come across warnings about the famous “allergens” derived from essential oils. The prevailing distrust towards essential oils in France seems to be generally established in the minds of consumers and the press. 

 

So is this distrust justified or not?

For years consumer tests in France have tended to systematically downgrade natural and organic cosmetics containing components, fractions of essential oils, classified as potentially allergenic (such as Linalool and Geraniol*). 

*The leading German consumer magazine ÖKOTEST does not work in the same way.

In cosmetics, essential oils are used both for their intrinsic care properties (soothing, astringent, purifying, etc.) and/or as perfuming substances, for example. Depending on the context of the formulation, they can also contribute to product preservation.

For example, certified natural and organic cosmetics products are exclusively perfumed with essential oils. Synthetic perfumes (just like synthetic preservatives, etc.) are not authorised by the demanding, much stricter specifications recommended in the “conventional” cosmetics industry. 

Of course there are also certified organic cosmetics ranges that are “fragrance-free”, but in general, essential oils are among the components widely used in natural and organic cosmetics. 

So would users also be willing to give up the pleasure of perfumes in their cosmetic products? 

If we wanted at all costs to avoid the use of essential oils, or components derived from essential oils, we would be obliged “by default” to use products that contain synthetic perfumes instead, in fact most “conventional” products are perfumed with synthetic perfumes, grouped under the generic term “perfume/fragrance”.  

And among these synthetic perfumes, we also find the famous phthalates, classified as endocrine disruptors or other equally controversial substances, or musk compounds, which are also very problematic, and can stick to tissues. Some chemical fragrance substances are often also potentially allergenic and are added to the impressive cocktail of problematic synthetic substances that can be found in a conventional cosmetic product.

So is there any real justification in putting components from essential oils that are potentially allergenic for some people, on the same level as proven, reprotoxic, controversial, toxic and polluting components?

What exactly are the perfuming substances which are considered to be potentially “allergenic”?

In the list of substances identified by the CSSC (Chemical Safety and Surveillance Committee) as potentially allergenic, some fragrances may be more or less problematic or controversial. Among the substances that must be reported “separately” on the INCI list, i.e. outside the generic term “perfume” or “fragrance” usually used, (if they exceed a certain concentration threshold), both natural and chemical substances are to be found.

And among this list of components there are also components derived from essential oils (Citral, Limonene, Geraniol etc.). 

These components are isolated parts (fractions) of essential oils used for example in natural and organic cosmetics as perfume and partly also for preservation. This also means that they are present in very small quantities, usually listed at the end of the INCI list. It is therefore these isolated components, these fractions of essential oils (and not the essential oil as a whole) that need to be declared at the end of the list.

What are the differences between these categories of potentially allergenic substances?

The allergenic potential for all these substances is not identical, and the in-depth studies and research work carried out by the German Federation for Information in Dermatology Clinics (IVDK, Informationsverbund Dermatologischer Kliniken*) has made it possible to assess and differentiate the risk of the various substances. 

The principle is simple: if a substance is used frequently and is rarely found to be allergenic, the allergenic potential should be considered low.

If, on the other hand, a substance is rarely used, but triggers frequent allergies in tests, its allergenic potential is considered high.

*http://www.ivdk.org/en/

Most of these substances fall into the category of “less problematic” substances, only a few substances really stand out for their higher allergenic potential.

High allergenic potential:

Oak Moos Evernia Prunastri Extract

Tree Moos Evernia Furfuracea Extract

Cinnamal

Isoeugenol

Methylheptincarbonate (Methyl 2-octynoate)

Intermediary allergenic potential:

Cinnamyl Alcohol

Hydroxycitronellal, Hydroxyisohexyl 3-Cyclohexene Carboxaldehyde (trade name: Lyral)

The least problematic:

Alpha-Isomethyl Ionone

Amyl Cinnamal

Amylcinnamyl Alcohol

Anise Alcohol
Benzyl Alcohol

Benzyl Benzoate

Benzyl Cinnamate

Benzyl Salicylate

Butylphenyl methylpropional (Lilial).  (However concern as possible endocrine disruptor)

Citral

Lemonellol

Coumarin (study by the BFR which nevertheless advises against intensive use in food/ and cosmetics)

Eugenol

Farnesol

Geraniol

Hexyl Cinnamal 

Limonene

Linalool

Methyl 2-Octynoate.

Should all products containing, for example, Citral, Geraniol, or Linalool, be systematically avoided?  

What are the alternatives?

All substances derived from essential oils can of course also cause allergic reactions in some people. There is not a single substance, even natural, which is 100% guaranteed of not causing a reaction, obviously.

Generally speaking, all natural substances can also sometimes trigger allergic reactions. Some people, for example, have grass allergies, others are allergic to strawberries or citrus fruits. 

Usually the people concerned know what triggers their allergies and simply avoid these substances on a daily basis. 

The same logic applies to components derived from essential oils. If peeling an orange or approaching a bouquet of roses causes an allergic reaction, it is best to simply avoid products containing essential oils derived from citrus fruits (Citral, Limonene etc.) or rose (Geraniol), etc.

A BDIH study carried out in 2010 on Geraniol also confirms the need to distinguish between “Geraniol”… and “Geraniol”, i.e. Geraniol as an essential oil component and chemically isolated Geraniol. 

In this study on 50 people, none showed an allergic reaction to essential oils, which contained Geraniol as a natural component. On the other hand, 20% of the participants reacted to the synthetic molecule, isolated Geraniol. 

These distinctions are important, just as important as the distinctions in the IVDK study, which provide a differentiated ranking of the subject.

Systematically avoiding any product that contains fractions of essential oils that are potentially allergenic for some people seems an excessive and illogical approach. 

In particular because the alternatives proposed, from conventional products to synthetic perfumes, often contain a wide range of components that are proven to be toxic, problematic or polluting.

And to systematically warn against products containing components based on essential oils, and treat them as being potentially equally problematic as mainstream conventional products, without moderating the context, surely contributes nothing to making progress on the debate.