BackgroundEveryday products can contain a multitude of harmful substances unnoticed by most consumers, because established risk communication channels reach only part of the society. The question is, whether at least interested and informed consumers are able to use risk communication tools and assess harmful chemicals in products.ResultsAn online survey investigated the awareness of 1030 consumers on harmful substances in everyday items. Participating consumers’ education level, knowledge in chemistry, and motivation were above society’s average. Although a large number of responses showed that survey participants were familiar with several aspects of the issue, the results revealed that knowledge in chemistry helped, but was not enough. Many participants assumed that products with an eco-label, natural personal care products, products without hazard pictograms or products produced in the European Union would not contain harmful substances. Most participants indicated to use hazard pictograms, information on the packaging, reports in the media, and environmental and consumer organizations as information sources, while information by authorities and manufacturers were not named frequently and did not receive high confidence. Smartphone applications were not indicated by many participants as information sources. The information sources most trusted were environmental and consumer organizations, hazard pictograms, and lists of ingredients on the containers. The declared confidence in certain risk communication instruments did not always correspond to the use frequencies indicated. Nearly all participants considered legislators as responsible for the reduction of harmful substances in consumer products.ConclusionsMisconceptions about harmful substances in products can be dangerous for the personal health and the environment. The survey indicates that motivation, educational level, and chemical expertise do not automatically provide an appropriate understanding of harmful substances in products. If well-informed consumers are not sufficiently capable to use risk information elements as revealed in this study, then this will be even more the case for the general public. Consumer awareness should be stipulated by an improved information strategy about chemical risks in consumer products with an extensive participation of the target groups and by more efforts by authorities and manufactures to build trust and to provide easily understandable information.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12302-017-0127-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundMany natural substances are classified as dangerous substances according to the European regulation on classification and labelling. Are they used in natural personal care products today? One hundred ingredient lists were analyzed to find this out.ResultsAll products with natural substances contained dangerous natural substances or they contained natural substances, for which the information about their classification as dangerous substances is not available. 54 natural substances quoted in the ingredient lists were found to be classified, with 37 substances being classified due to hazardous effects for skin and eyes. However, the most frequently used natural substances are not classified as dangerous. Natural substances are multi-constituent compounds, leading to two main problems in personal care products: the potential interactions of a multitude of substances and the fact that dangerous constituents are not disclosed in the ingredient lists. For example, the fragrance allergens citral, farnesol, limonene, and linalool are frequent components of the natural substances employed. In addition, 82 products listed allergenic fragrance ingredients as single substances in their ingredient lists. Recommendations for sensitive skin in a product’s name do not imply that the ‘26 fragrance allergens’ are omitted. Furthermore, 80 products listed ‘parfum’/‘aroma’, and 50 products listed ethanol.ConclusionsThe data show that the loopholes for natural substances and for personal care products in the present European chemical legislation (e.g. the exception for classification and labelling of cosmetic products and the exception for information transfer in the supply chain) are not in line with an adequate consumer and environmental protection.

No abstract

Background: Cosmetic products need not be classified and labelled according to the Regulation on Classification, Labelling and Packaging (CLP) in the European Union, even if they contain dangerous substances. What would happen without this exception? Would cosmetic products have to be labelled if they were treated like any other consumer product? Results: The criteria of the CLP Regulation were applied to a selection of cosmetic product formulas in a conservative approach. All but one product contain hazardous ingredients in amounts that would lead to classification and labelling of the mixtures. 85% of the products analyzed would have to be labelled because of potential negative effects to the eye, and 52% because of potential negative effects to the skin. The signal word WARNING would have to be on the labels of 64%, DANGER would have to be on 33% of the products. Conclusions:The results here show that it is urgent to inform consumers about the potential dangers of personal care products, because cosmetics need to be applied even with more care than any other consumer product. Classification and labelling according to the CLP Regulation is a very good means to improve the risk communication for consumers. Therefore, it is strongly recommended that the exception for cosmetic products should be repealed in the next amendment of the CLP Regulation.

Fragrances are used in a wide array of everyday products and enter the aquatic environment via wastewater. While several musk compounds have been studied in detail, little is known about the occurrence and fate of other fragrances. We selected 16 fragrance compounds and scrutinized their presence in Bavarian sewage treatment plants (STP) influents and effluents and discussed their ecological risks for the receiving surface waters. Moreover, we followed their concentrations along the path in one STP by corresponding time-related water sampling and derived the respective elimination rates in the purification process. Six fragrance substances (OTNE, HHCB, lilial, acetyl cedrene, menthol, and, in some grab samples, also methyl-dihydrojasmonate) could be detected in the effluents of the investigated sewage treatment plants. The other fragrances under scrutiny were only found in the inflow and were eliminated in the purification process. Only OTNE and HHCB were found in the receiving surface waters of the STP in congruent concentrations, which exceeded the preliminary derived environmental thresholds by a factor of 1.15 and 1.12, respectively, indicating potential risks. OTNE was also detected in similar concentration ranges as HHCB in muscles and livers of fish from surface waters and from ponds that are supplied with purified wastewater. The findings show that some fragrance compounds undergo high elimination rates, whereas others-not only musks-are present in receiving surface water and biota and may present a risk to local aquatic biota. Hence, our results suggest that the fate and potential effects of fragrance compounds in the aquatic environment deserve more attention.

No abstract

Background: Nature offers an incredible diversity of chemical compounds that boast a wide array of physiological effects. Many natural substances are employed in personal care products. Which of these natural substances are hazardous ingredients? How do European legal instruments regulate natural substances with toxic effects? Results: 1,358 natural substances appear in the 'International Nomenclature of Cosmetic Ingredients' (INCI list, 'inventory …… of ingredients employed in cosmetic products') [Commission Decision 96/335/EC], most of them are herbal products, others are of animal, fungal, or bacterial origin. Out of these, 655 natural substances are enrolled in the EU database for classification and labeling, with 56% classified as hazardous chemicals, 38% classified due to their hazards to human health (35% due to their effects on skin and eyes), and 21% due to their hazards to the environment. 53 natural substances in the INCI list are classified as carcinogens, mutagens, and substances toxic to reproduction. Many classifications are not in line with expectations from experience, such as severe classifications of substances derived from some basic food plants or lacking classification of known medical plants or plants with sensitizing potential. Classification and labeling is a trigger for the registration requirements according to REACH. It must be assumed that there are more substances that should undergo the REACH process among the 703 natural substances that do not turn up in the C&L inventory. Conclusions: Many natural substances used in personal care products have toxic properties. The interdisciplinary compilation and analysis of regulatory instruments concerning natural substances revealed some inconsistencies which need further analysis and urgent correction to ensure prudent handling in consumer products.

No abstract