A look at the decline in popularity of so-called conventional cosmetics
The success of natural cosmetics stems in part from a growing mistrust of so-called conventional cosmetics, which are associated with petrochemicals and synthetic ingredients. At a time when the chemical industry was experiencing an unprecedented boom, the publication in 2001 of a book by the German journalist Rita Stiens (The Truth About Cosmetics), followed in 2006 by the broadcast on France 2 of an episode of Envoyé spécial, brought the first cosmetics scandals to public attention. Parabens, to name but one example, were linked to cases of breast cancer in a study by Philipa Varbre (published in the Journal of Applied Toxicology in January 2004). Glycol ethers, silicones, PEGs and phenoxyethanol were among the ingredients suddenly deemed undesirable. It was against this backdrop of fear that medicinal plants and traditional botanical recipes, presumed to be safer for health, gradually regained their appeal in the eyes of consumers.
The REACH Regulation and the safe use of cosmetics in Europe
Unlike the United States, where industrial excesses have paved the way for clean beauty , Europe strictly regulates the production of cosmetics within its territory. As well as being subject to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 on cosmetic products, the sector also falls within the scope of REACH. An acronym for Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals, this regulation, adopted in 2006, aims to assess and better manage the risks associated with the use of chemical substances. As for ingredients not covered by REACH, they fall under the responsibility of the companies themselves. In other words, products must be proven to be safe in order to be placed and remain on the market. This legislation applies to all cosmetics, whether they are natural, certified organic or sourced from more conventional channels. Whilst not infallible, it goes a long way towards managing the toxicological risks associated with the use of cosmetic products.
Toxicology and cosmetovigilance: some uncertainty remains
This regulatory framework, whilst rigorous, remains purely administrative. G.E. Pierrard thus points out that “anything not covered by these annexes [to the General Regulation] is free to be used in a cosmetic product, whilst remaining the responsibility of the manufacturer” (1). This monitoring system is known as cosmetovigilance. Furthermore, there is always a degree of uncertainty when choosing to apply a cosmetic product to one’s skin – whether natural or not. As the molecular toxicology expert Jacques Leclaire (2) points out, predicting systemic toxicity or chronic toxicity (linked to repeated exposure to a given substance) remains a major challenge across the entire industry. Finally, there are, of course, adverse effects that stem from individual reactions, such as certain allergies or intolerances.











