From November 10, 2018 profaktiva sulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA, C8) are considered to be in California (USA) toxins that affect the human reproductive system.
These chemicals are not cosmetic ingredients, but they are found in sunscreens. Their presence in the composition of these funds can be explained by the fact that PFOS and PFOA are derived from polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), which is one of the cosmetic ingredients.
One of the main initiators of the ban of PFOS and PFOA was a group of Independent Cosmetic Manufacturers and Distributors (ICMAD) (literal translation “Independent cosmetic manufacturers and distributors”). “As in the case of phthalates, it is expected that these chemicals will be the cause of many complaints and claims,” said the group. ICMAD not only highlighted date is November 10, but also urged cosmetic manufacturers to learn about labeling requirements associated with these chemicals.
In particular, according to the Code of regulations of the state of California, United States, labeling of the presence of PFOS and PFOA must contain a clear message that these chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects or cause other damage to the reproductive system. In November 2017, the state of California identified these compounds as toxins that cause reproductive disorders.
PFOS and PFOA represent fluorinated hydrocarbons, which were previously used in industry because of their oil – and water-resistant properties. According to ICMAD, the studies of Thai sunscreens in 2015 it was found that these substances are also used as binders in some waterproof sunscreens.
Since PFOS and PFOA have been used in a wide range of products, ICMAD currently encourages companies to determine whether any of their products these substances and, if so, accordingly to prepare the warning labels. At this point in the assessment of the effects of adverse environmental factors on health (OEHHA) of the state of California does not set permissible levels of use of these chemical compounds.
One of the experts in the beauty industry, David Steinberg, presented his assessment of the situation. First of all, he noted that the use of PFOS and PFOA violates the requirements of the Department for control over products and medicines of the USA to the labeling of sunscreen products.
So, if the label is not claimed cosmetic properties of the product, the ingredients should be listed in alphabetical order using their names in USAN (the name of the drug Dictionary national generic names USA). None of these chemicals do not have such names, so their labelling is wrong.
If the label States any cosmetic property (e.g., “vitamin E” “contains aloe”), the ingredients must be listed in descending order down to 1% using their names in the INCI (international nomenclature of cosmetic ingredients). However, none of them have names in INCI.
In addition, according to Mr. Steinberg, from the chemical point of view, PFOS and PFOA are useless in the composition of sunscreen products. If they are used in nonionic emulsions or anhydrous products, t can burn the skin. If they are used in emulsions, they become salts and lose any water resistant properties, becoming water-soluble.