Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Lessons from the European Regulation 1223 of 2009, on Cosmetics: Expectations Versus Reality

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
NanoEthics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to conduct an analysis of the application of the specific rules of nanotechnology incorporated in Regulation No. 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products. It has been ten years since the European Commission had issued its proposal to start the co-decision procedure to create Regulation 1223 of 2009. Although it has been praised for noting the regulatory difference of nanomaterials over the rest of the chemicals, what has been the efficacy of the standard? It is concluded that despite what it meant, the regulation has encountered technical obstacles, thus rendering the objectives relating to nanotechnology that were proposed from the European Commission unfulfilled. This finding is inferred through legal dogmatic methodologies and the identification of nanomaterials that have not been expressly approved. Nevertheless, products incorporating nanomaterials still circulate in the European market. The precepts about nanotechnology in the regulation should be reviewed because technical inconsistencies should be avoided in future regulations or applicable regulations in contexts other than Europe. Such inconsistencies exist with respect to the high level of protection of human health that should be ensured and the provisions intended to protect consumer safety. For instance, the catalog of nanomaterials in circulation does not indicate the materials that have been approved or their toxicological profiles. To date, no comparison studies have been presented between the expectations and legislative objectives set as embodied in the regulation and debated in the European Parliament involving the actual efficacy of this regulation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Miller G (2008) Contemplating the implications of a nanotechnology “revolution”. In: Fisher E, Selin C, Wetmore JM (eds) Presenting futures. The yearbook of nanotechnology in society, vol 1. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 215–225

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2013) Nanotechnology in the context of technology convergence. OECD, Paris

  3. European Commission (2016) Horizon 2020 Work Programme 2016–2017. 5.ii. Nanotechnologies, Advanced Materials, Biotechnology and Advanced Manufacturing and Processing. EC, Brussels

  4. Food and Drug Administration (2014) Guidance for industry “considering whether an FDA-regulated product involves the application of nanotechnology”. FDA, Washington, DC

  5. World Intellectual Property Organization (2015) Economic growth and breakthrough innovations: a case study of nanotechnology. WIPO, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  6. See: http://product.statnano.com/. Accessed 13 Feb 2019

  7. Bowman DM (2017) More than a decade on: mapping today’s regulatory and policy landscapes following the publication of nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. NanoEthics 11(2):169–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-017-0281-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Lai RWS, Yeung KWY, Yung MMN, Djurišić AB, Giesy JP, Leung KMY (2017) Regulation of engineered nanomaterials: current challenges, insights and future directions. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-9489-0

    Google Scholar 

  9. Food and Drug Administration (2014) Office of the Commissioner, FDA, guidance for industry: considering whether an FDA-regulated product involves the application of nanotechnology. FDA, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  10. Burden N, Aschberger K, Chaudhry Q (2017) The 3Rs as a framework to support a 21st century approach for nanosafety assessment. Nano Today 12:10–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nantod.2016.06.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Reimhult E (2017) Nanoparticle risks and identification in a world where small things do not survive. NanoEthics 11(3):283–290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-017-0305-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Maynard AD, Aitken RJ (2016) Safe handling of nanotechnology ten years on. Nat Nanotechnol 11:998–1000. https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2016.270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bowman DM, Chaudhry Q, Gergely A (2015) Evidence-based regulation of food nanotechnologies: a perspective from the European Union and United States. In: Sabliov CM, Chen H, Yada RY (eds) Nanotechnology and functional foods: effective delivery of bioactive ingredients. Wiley, NJ, pp 358–374

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering (2004) Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. RS/RAEng, London

    Google Scholar 

  15. Justo-Hanani R, Dayan T (2015) European risk governance of nanotechnology: explaining the emerging regulatory policy. Res Policy 44:1527–1536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.05.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Official Journal of the European Union (2009) Regulation (EC) 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on cosmetic products (recast). 30 November 2009. EU, Brussels

  17. Future Markets (2012) Nanomaterials in the cosmetics and personal care. http://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/2069662/nanomaterials_in_the_cosmetics_and_personal_care

  18. Council of the European Communities (1976) Council Directive on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products (No 76/768/EEC, 27 Jul, 1976). CEC, Brussels

  19. European Commission (2008) Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on cosmetic products (No COM (2008) 49 final, 05 Feb 2008). EC, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  20. European Commission (2008) Accompanying document to the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee (Commission Staff Working Paper No SEC (2008) 117, 05 Feb 2008). EC, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  21. European Commission (2008) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee. Regulatory Aspects of Nanomaterials (No COM (2008) 366 final, 17 Jun 2008). EC, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  22. European Economic and Social Committee (2008) Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on cosmetic products’ (No CESE (2008) 1193, 09 Jul 2008). EESC, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  23. European Parliament (2008) Report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on cosmetic products (No A6 (2008) 484, 02 Dec 2008). EP, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  24. European Parliament (2009) Debate about cosmetic products (recast version, CRE 23/03/2009–15, 23 Mar 2009). EP, Strasbourg

  25. European Parliament Press Release (2009) MEPs approve new rules on safer cosmetics (24 Mar 2009). EP, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  26. European Commission (2016) Commission Regulation amending Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council, on cosmetic products (C/2016/4325). EC, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  27. European Parliament (2008) A guide to how the European Parliament co-legislates under the ordinary legislative procedure, Brussels. EP

  28. European Commission (2012) Cosmetic products notification portal. Article 13 User Manual. EC, Brussels

  29. European Commission (2008) Commission decision setting up an advisory structure of scientific committees and experts in the field of consumer safety, public health and the environment and repealing (No 721/EC (2008)). EC, Brussels

  30. European Commission (2012) User manual for the notification of cosmetic products containing nanomaterial according to article 16. EC, Brussels

  31. European Commission (2017) Catalogue of nanomaterials used in cosmetic products placed on the EU market. Version 1 (31.12.2016). EC, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  32. Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (2015) Second revision opinion on carbon black (nano-form) (no SCCS/1515/13). SCCS, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  33. European Commission (2016) Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/1143 amending Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on cosmetic products (13 July 2016). EC, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  34. Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (2015) Second revision opinion on titanium dioxide (nano form) (no SCCS/1516/13). SCCS, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  35. European Commission (2014) Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/1143 amending Annexes III, V and VI to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and the Council on cosmetic products (08 Aug 2014). EC, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  36. Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (2015) Second revision opinion on 1,3,5-triazine, 2,4,6-tris[1,1′-biphenyl]-4-yl (No SCCS/1429/11). SCCS, Brussels

  37. European Commission (2016) Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/621 amending Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on cosmetic products (21 April 2016). EC, Brussels

  38. Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (2012) Second revision opinion on zinc oxide (nano form). (No SCCS/1489/12). SCCS, Brussels

  39. Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (2013) Second revision opinion on zinc oxide (nano form). (No SCCS/1518/13). SCCS, Brussels

  40. Hansen S (2017) React now regarding nanomaterial regulation. Nat Nanotechnol 12:714–716. https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2017.163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. European Commission (2012) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee. Second regulatory review on nanomaterials (no COM(2012) 572, 3 Oct 2012). EC, Brussels

  42. JRC (2010) Considerations on a definition of nanomaterial for regulatory purposes. JRC, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

A special thanks is given to Red NANOCELIA (CYTED) and COLCIENCIAS for the scholarship for the doctorate studies of one of the authors within its competition. In particular, the financial support is given by this institution through the open call: “Convocatoria para Doctorado Nacional 757” from 2017. This original research is part of the project “Investigación en Derecho Internacional y Nanotecnología” registered in the Research Centre of Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana with register number 766B-06/17-37.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Grupo de Investigación sobre Nuevos Materiales, Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana, Circular 1 # 73-76, Bloque 22B 1r piso, Medellín, Colombia

    Ricardo Santana Cabello

  2. Facultad de Ingeniería Química, Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana, Circular 1 No. 70-01, Bloque 9, Medellín, Colombia

    Piedad Gañán Rojo

  3. Facultad de Ingeniería Agroindustrial, Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana, Circular 1 No. 70-01, Bloque 11B-411, Medellín, Colombia

    Robin Zuluaga

Authors
  1. Ricardo Santana Cabello
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Piedad Gañán Rojo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Robin Zuluaga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ricardo Santana Cabello.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Santana Cabello, R., Gañán Rojo, P. & Zuluaga, R. Lessons from the European Regulation 1223 of 2009, on Cosmetics: Expectations Versus Reality. Nanoethics 13, 21–35 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-019-00335-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-019-00335-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation