Basic Brown:
Based on the Scientific Advice from the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) regarding the hair dye Basic Brown 16 adopted February 2, 2026, the committee concluded that the substance is not safe for use as a cosmetic ingredient.
Key Findings:
- Safety Conclusion: The SCCS does not consider Basic Brown 16 safe for use at 2% in non-oxidative hair dye formulations.
Primary Concern: The weight of evidence indicates the substance has potential for mutagenicity.
Basic Blue 99:
The Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) adopted its final scientific advice on the hair dye Basic Blue 99 on February 2, 2026. The committee concluded that the substance is not safe for use as an ingredient at a 1% concentration in non-oxidative hair dye formulations.
Key Safety Findings
- Genotoxicity: The SCCS does not consider Basic Blue 99 safe because the collective evidence indicates a potential for genotoxicity.
Skin Sensitisation: The substance is regarded as a skin sensitiser.
- Hypersensitivity: Several clinical reports indicate it is an immediate-type allergen and a delayed-type contact sensitiser. It has been linked to cases of allergic contact dermatitis and contact urticaria syndrome.
- Eye Irritation: Although tests were limited, the substance showed potential for severe and early-onset ocular changes, suggesting it is a likely eye irritant.
Thiomersal & Phenylmercuric Salts
Based on the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) advice regarding Thiomersal and Phenylmercuric salts (adopted February 2, 2026), these substances are not considered safe for use as preservatives in cosmetic eye products at current permitted levels.
Key Safety Conclusions
- Safety Status: The use of these mercury-containing preservatives in cosmetic eye products is not considered safe at the current maximum concentration of 0.007% (of mercury).
- Toxicological Concerns:
- Renal Toxicity: This was identified as the most sensitive endpoint for safety evaluation.
- Insufficient Margin of Safety (MoS): The calculated MoS for renal damage was less than 100, which is below the threshold required to ensure consumer safety.
- Genotoxicity: The evidence regarding the potential for genetic damage remains unresolved and of low reliability, making it impossible to conclude that these substances are not genotoxic.
Prostaglandin analogues
The Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) adopted its final opinion on Prostaglandin analogues used in cosmetic products on February 2, 2026. The committee concluded that three specific prostaglandin analogues (PGAs) are not safe for use in cosmetic products intended to promote the growth of eyelashes and eyebrows.
Safety Conclusions
The SCCS determined that the following substances cannot be considered safe at their proposed concentrations:
- Isopropyl Cloprostenate (IPCP) (at 0.005%).
- Methylamido-Dihydro-Noralfaprostal (MDN) (at 0.03%).
- Dechloro Dihydroxy Difluoro Ethylcloprostenolamide (DDDE), also known as Ethyl Tafluprostamide (at 0.018%).
Key Concerns
- Pharmacological Activity: PGAs are potent pharmacological compounds typically used under medical supervision for eye conditions like glaucoma. The SCCS noted they are not appropriate for unsupervised use by the general public in cosmetics.
- Reproductive Toxicity: There is a lack of acceptable data to rule out potential adverse effects regarding reproductive and developmental toxicity. This is particularly concerning as the primary users are likely to be women of child-bearing age.
- Ocular Side Effects: Clinical evidence from both pharmaceutical and cosmetic studies indicates significant side effects, including:
- Changes in ocular pigmentation (darkening of the iris).
- Decrease in periorbital volume, leading to a “sunken eye” appearance.
- Ocular irritation, redness, and hyperaemia.
Video workflow note: for creator video editing workflows, this CapCut Guide is a useful related reference.
