Cropwatch Critiques the Inventory of Cosmetic Ingredients (Aromatics)
With this latest critique, Cropwatch has now made a initial investigations into four flawed SCCP reports on individual natural ingredients, and one matter of bungled EU legislation, again relating to a natural fragrance ingredient.
This report criticises the notorious 'EU Inventory of Ingredients in Cosmetic Products II: Perfume & Aromatic Materials' (1st update). It is an easy target, which has been damned elsewhere, and normally, the bio-illiteracy, misleading chemotaxonomic information, and incorrect taxonomic botany entries would need little comment, apart from advice such as "don't even go there!". However when toxicologists/dermatologists refer and use the information, as if it were current & valid sound science, then it needs to be either corrected or scrapped. Further, some of the entries refer to hazardous materials which should not be used in perfumery under any circumstances. Others materials are listed which derive from over-exploited plants and animals. and thus would be unethical or illegal to use in cosmetics/perfumery because of restrictions on international trading (CITES listings etc) and/or appear as medicinal and aromatic plants in Annex D of EC Regulation No 338/97 (and some additionally under Annex V of the EU Habitats, Fauna and Flora Directive).
It seems obvious to Cropwatch that trade & industry, toxicologists, dermatologists, safety evaluators etc. etc. are capable of working to a higher standard than that which was approved by the SCCP in this Inventory, and the file of corrections to the EU Inventory is displayed as a living document on the Cropwatch website at www.cropwatch.org/cropwatch12.htm for experts and professionals to add any further corrections and comments. Since the EU Commission is not seemingly capable of working to 'best practice' in this respect, then, bearing in mind our 'duty of care', there is no reason why we should not.
Tony Burfield
on behalf of Cropwatch
www.cropwatch.org
EMAIL ALERTS
