Explore the vast range of titles available.

\"Imagine reaching for a tube of lipstick or a can of shaving cream and finding this label: 'Warning--The safety of this product has not been determined.' Many popular cosmetics and personal care products could bear such warnings if the Food and Drug Administration decides they need them.\" (KRT News Service) Learn about Environmental Working Group's study of personal care product safety and find out why the FDA may require warning labels on untested products. The cosmetics and toiletries industries' response to possible FDA regulation is discussed.

Figuring out the contents listed on a cosmetic label with terms like methylisothiazolinone and phenoxyethanol can be a challenge, even for the well-educated. But there are ways to decipher this chemical lingo. [FDA CONSUMER] The typical functions of many common ingredients for cosmetics are listed.

\"Cosmetics run the gamut from eye shadow to deodorant sprays. And consumers' concerns and questions are just as varied as the products themselves.\" (FDA CONSUMER) Learn how cosmetics are regulated, what the difference is between cosmetics and drugs, how to read an ingredient list, why some products can irritate the skin and what the terms on the labels mean. Other tips for consumers are included.

Backround: Laboratory and human studies raise concerns about endocrine disruption and asthma from exposure to chemicals in consumer products. Limited labeling or testing information is available to evaluate products as exposure sources. Objectives: We analytically quantified endocrine disruptors and asthma-related chemicals in a range of cosmetics, personal care products, cleaners, sunscreens, and vinyl products. We also evaluated whether product labels provide information that can be used to select products without these chemicals. Methods: We selected 213 commercial products representing 50 product types. We tested 42 composited samples of high-market-share products, and we tested 43 alternative products identified using criteria expected to minimize target compounds. Analytes included parabens, phthalates, bisphenol A (BPA), triclosan, ethanolamines, alkylphenols, fragrances, glycol ethers, cyclosiloxanes, and ultraviolet (UV) filters. Results: We detected 55 compounds, indicating a wide range of exposures from common products. Vinyl products contained > 10% bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) and could be an important source of DEHP in homes. In other products, the highest concentrations and numbers of detects were in the fragranced products (e.g., perfume, air fresheners, and dryer sheets) and in sunscreens. Some products that did not contain the well-known endocrine-disrupting phthalates contained other less-studied phthalates (dicyclohexyl phthalate, diisononyl phthalate, and di-n-propyl phthalate; also endocrine-disrupting compounds), suggesting a substitution. Many detected chemicals were not listed on product labels. Conclusions: Common products contain complex mixtures of EDCs and asthma-related compounds. Toxicological studies of these mixtures are needed to understand their biological activity. Regarding epidemiology, our findings raise concern about potential confounding from co-occurring chemicals and misclassification due to variability in product composition. Consumers should be able to avoid some target chemicals—synthetic fragrances, BPA, and regulated active ingredients— using purchasing criteria. More complete product labeling would enable consumers to avoid the rest of the target chemicals.

Background Most people do not apply sunscreen effectively. The Australian and New Zealand standard for sunscreen specifies labels must provide clear and adequate directions for use but does not prescribe specific wording or positioning. Additionally, water-resistant sunscreens must declare the duration of laboratory-tested water resistance, up to 4 h maximum. Formative research found consumers are confused by reapplication directions and water resistance claims. This study aimed to explore whether enhanced sunscreen labelling information can improve sunscreen reapplication. Methods Adult sunscreen users ( n  = 3,363) were randomised to view one of ten mock sunscreen labels in a 2 × 5 online experiment. Labels differed according to front-of-pack (FOP) water resistance claim (standard: tested for 4 h water resistance vs. alternative: water resistant) and reapplication information (none vs. any; with four message variations: simple text, simple icon, extended text, extended icon). We used multivariate logistic regression to examine the effect of FOP labelling on knowledge and intention to reapply sunscreen every 2 h and after swimming, sweating and towel drying (henceforth: activity), considering: (i) water resistance and reapplication information and (ii) reapplication message type. Results Compared to no information, FOP reapplication information increased knowledge (48% vs. 70%) and intention to reapply within 2 h (41% vs. 54%), but not after activity. Compared to the standard claim, the alternative water resistant claim increased knowledge (60% vs. 72%) and intention to reapply within 2 h (47% vs. 56%), but not after activity. Although there was no clear pattern of effects for reapplication message type, only the extended icon (with directions to reapply every 2 h or after activity) increased knowledge to reapply after activity, irrespective of the water resistance claim (52% standard and 57% alternative). Conclusions Under the current standard, sunscreen labels do not provide clear directions for use, which leaves consumers vulnerable to UV damage. Mandating FOP reapplication directions and adopting an alternative ‘water resistant’ claim could improve consumer understanding of how often to reapply sunscreen. Due to common misperceptions about the limits of water resistance, further user-centred label design and public education is needed to improve reapplication after swimming, sweating and towel drying.

This study examines how Japanese consumers’ awareness of multiple eco-labels, specifically Organic JAS and RSPO, affects their willingness to pay more for eco-labeled cosmetic products. Drawing on the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) and Signaling Theory, this study models the interaction between awareness of these two eco-labels and their influence on organic cosmetic buying intentions. Using statistical analysis of survey data from 505 Japanese consumers, the findings reveal that heightened awareness of the Organic JAS label significantly increases the willingness to pay more for eco-labeled cosmetics. However, when awareness of the RSPO label is also present, the positive effect of Organic JAS awareness diminishes, indicating that multiple eco-label signals may interfere with each other. These results underscore the complexity of consumer perceptions regarding eco-labels and suggest that the effectiveness of eco-labels as green marketing tools depends not only on raising awareness but also on understanding how different labels interact to influence consumers’ willingness to pay in the Japanese cosmetics market.

Consumers are increasingly exposed to labels communicating specific processing aspects of food production, and recent state and federal legislation in the United States has called for making some of these labels mandatory. This article reviews the literature in this area and identifies the positive and negative aspects of labeling food processes. The good parts are that, under appropriate third-party or governmental oversight, process labels can effectively bridge the informational gap between producers and consumers, satisfy consumer demand for broader and more stringent quality assurance criteria, and ultimately create value for both consumers and producers. Despite the appeal of the “Consumer Right to Know” slogan, process labeling also can have serious unintentional consequences. The bad parts are that consumers can misinterpret these labels and thus misalign their personal preferences and their actual food purchases. The ugly parts are that these labels can stigmatize food produced with conventional processes even when there is no scientific evidence that they cause harm, or even that it is compositionally any different. Based on this review of the literature, we provide three policy recommendations: (i) mandatory labeling of food processes should occur only in situations in which the product has been scientifically demonstrated to harm human health; (ii) governments should not impose bans on process labels because this approach goes against the general desire of consumers to know about and have control over the food they are eating, and it can undermine consumer trust of the agricultural sector; and (iii) a prudent policy approach is to encourage voluntary process labeling, perhaps using smart phone technology similar to that proposed in 2016 federal legislation related to foods containing ingredients that were genetically engineered.

As rapidly developing consumer products, cosmetics confront challenges regarding safety, especially hazardous ingredients, like sex hormones. Prolonged exposure to trace sex hormones in cosmetics can inflict immeasurable damage to human health. To accurately detect the trace amounts of sex hormones in cosmetics, a reliable method was developed and validated using ultra-high performance liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry (UHPLC-MS/MS) with magnetic solid-phase extraction (MSPE) and isotope-labeled internal standards (IL-ISs). The conditions of sample pretreatment, chromatography, and mass parameters were systemically investigated. In the MSPE procedure, the commercial Fe3O4@HLB magnetic material was employed for sample pretreatment, which was beneficial for operation, as well as sample purification and analyte enrichment. The utilization of IL-ISs compensated for potential matrix effects and losses during sample preparation, thereby improving precision and accuracy. Based on the proposed MSPE technology, UHPLC-MS/MS can address the qualitative and quantitative analysis needs for target analytes in complex cosmetic matrices. At three fortification levels, recoveries were in the range of 71.7–116.2%, with a relative standard deviation (RSD) ranging from 1.6% to 8.3%. Furthermore, based on the method proposed here, a total of 116 batches of cosmetics were analyzed, and trace progestins and estrogens were discovered in 10 samples. The MSPE method, coupled with UHPLC-MS/MS using IL-ISs, was convenient, efficient, and feasible for detecting trace amounts of sex hormones in cosmetics. The method scored 0.66 (out of 1) on the AGREE metric, confirming its green profile. Based on the detected concentrations, a preliminary safety evaluation was performed to assess the potential health risks of residual progesterone in hair loss prevention cosmetics by calculating the margin of safety (MoS).

To ensure safety and efficacy, cosmetic products are regulated and controlled worldwide. However, the regulatory approaches of each country may be significantly different and impact the competitiveness and economic viability of the industry. This work presents an updated review and comparison of regulatory requirements from the European Union, United States of America, Canada, Japan, People’s Republic of China and Brazil. It outlines contents such as the definition, classification and categorization of cosmetics, pre-market requirements, ingredients management, general labelling requirements, regulation of claims concerning advertisement and commercial practices, increase of animal testing and marketing bans on cosmetic products. Furthermore, it weighs the impact of regulatory differences on the safety and accessibility of these products in the mentioned regions.