|
home>
topics of interest> baby products
Baby Products: It's all
in the labelling
by Sharon Trotter
Sharon's website
www.tipslimited.com
The
full reference for this article is Trotter S (2007). Baby products –
it’s all in the labelling. MIDIRS Midwifery Digest, 17:2, 263-266
Abstract
Sharon Trotter recently joined us at MIDIRS to present our second
Webinar; ‘Skin deep –neonatal skin/cord care: exploring best
practice in skincare and umbilical cord care of the neonate’. The
following article will focus on the wider issues surrounding the use
and labelling of manufactured baby products and the legislation in
place to protect consumers.
Introduction
As a passionate advocate of safe skincare for the neonate, the
author’s published work on this subject (Trotter 2002, 2003, 2004,
2006) has led to the promotion of a ‘minimal’ approach to skincare
in the use of products described as cleansers or for skin
nourishment. In the UK, this advice is now supported by the latest
Postnatal Care guidelines (NICE 2006).
This article will focus more closely on the information supplied by
the manufacturers of skincare products. In today’s commercial world,
marketing jargon is awash with claims which attempt to persuade
consumers to part with their money. The marketing of baby products
is no exception offering even more persuasive arguments where new
parents are concerned to do ‘the best’ for their newborn. New
parents are bombarded with ever more sophisticated advertising
campaigns which can be confusing as well as inconsistent.
The majority of these products carry quite forceful messages of
beneficence where it is implied their use will benefit the baby. In
most cases, it is now clear that these claims are not really
balanced as while there might be potential short term benefit, there
might also be longer term harm (Fatter 1997, Kownatzki 2003),
Misleading labelling will only improve when manufacturers are forced
to review the information they provide as a result of robust
legislation globally.
The example of food products is a case in point. Government health
initiatives in the UK (Food Standards Agency and Healthy Living)
continually highlight the issues of safe and responsible food
labelling designed specifically to help consumers make an informed
choice on what they are buying and ultimately eating or drinking.
Consequently, the quality of the information on the labels of food
products has improved. More people now read these labels and are
becoming ‘label aware’.
What then of the personal care products we use to clean and beautify
ourselves, our babies and our children? Do we read these labels as
diligently, and if so, do we understand what they mean? What
legislation is in place to protect us, the consumers, and what are
the major corporations doing to reassure us on issues of safety?
Where are we now?
-
‘Medela® Purelan 100’ and ‘Lansinoh® Brand
Lanolin’ are among only 1% of products that have had all their
ingredients tested for safety by the Cosmetics Ingredient Review
(CIR 2004).
-
A recent independent survey carried out by
the manufacturer of ‘Ocean Pure Cleansing Spray’ (Page & Ridout
2006) found that only 34% of respondents (total of 172
participants canvassed) said they read the labels on baby
products. This was in contrast to 90% of respondents who said
they read the information labels on food products and 80% of
respondents who said they bought their baby products from major
supermarkets. It would therefore seem fair to expect these large
retailers to provide customers with helpful information to guide
them through the confusing data on baby products. This is
especially important as babies and young children are among the
most vulnerable population groups.
-
Where tests have been undertaken using patch,
stability and EpiOcular testing, whilst useful, these cannot
guarantee safety. Additionally, these tests are usually carried
on adults and bear little relevance to the effect products may
have on babies and children.
-
There are no standards or definitions to
govern the use of the term ‘hypoallergenic’. The basic
ingredients used in the manufacture of ‘hypoallergenic’ products
are the same as for standard formulations. The only difference
is marketing, both on the packaging and associated literature.
The same applies to products labelled ‘sensitive’, ‘natural’ or
‘organic’, which may also contain ingredients potentially
harmful to people with a particular sensitivity to certain
ingredients. The only way to find out if a product is safe is to
read the full list of ingredients on the label and to avoid
using products containing ingredients you know to be of concern.
Labelling
legislation
In America, legislation for labelling is the responsibility of the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) within the Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN)/Office of Cosmetics & Colors (1995).
This department regulates labelling, but has no authority to require
or approve safety testing on raw materials used in cosmetic
products. The toxicology of ingredients used in personal care
products is largely untested, although the Cosmetic Ingredient
Review (CIR) does publish annual reviews (costing $100) and a
cosmetic compendium (costing $350) available online from
www.cir-safety.org .
The CIR was established by the Cosmetic, Toiletry & Fragrance
Association (CTFA) with support from the FDA and the Consumer
Federation of America (CFA). Funded by the CTFA, CIR is an
independent body charged with reviewing and assessing the safety of
ingredients used by the cosmetics industry. The expert panels
collate results in an open peer review of scientific literature and
the final reports are published in the International Journal of the
American College of Toxicology (CIR 2004).
With 89% of ingredients still not being tested for safety, the
Environmental Working Group (EWG) decided to carry out its own
testing. This project, called ‘Skin Deep’, is now an online rating
system to assess the safety of 10,000 personal care products (www.ewg.org
). The Women’s Environmental Network, (WEN) in association with the
Swedish Society for Nature Conservation and Healthcare Without Harm,
further highlighted the issue of Phthalates in European cosmetic
products with their publication ‘Pretty Nasty (DiGangi & Norin
2002).
In Europe, the manufacture and marketing of cosmetics is regulated
by the European Cosmetics Directive (76/768/EEC). The Commission of
the European Communities established a scientific steering committee
to co-ordinate the work of the Scientific Committee on Cosmetics and
Non-Foods (SCCNFP 2002). The onus is on the cosmetics industry to
self-regulate and approximate related laws to all Member States.
In the UK, the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) is the
responsible body. The DTI publish guidelines through the Cosmetic
Product (Safety) Regulations, the most recent of which became law in
September 2004. This latest directive adds 75 substances classified
as carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic to reproduction (CMRs), to the
list of banned substances now thought to be potentially harmful and
sets a deadline for the abolition of animal testing on ingredients
used for cosmetic products.
After many years of negotiations, a more precautionary policy has
finally been adopted and will become law in June 2007. Registration,
Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals (REACH) places the
responsibility on industry to provide appropriate safety information
and replaces 40 existing pieces of legislation with a single system
for all chemicals. The day-to-day management of the new requirements
will be carried out by the new European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) in
Helsinki.
What’s
in a label?
Labels on cosmetic products destined for home or personal care use
must display:
-
A full list of ingredients (in descending
order of molecular weight) using the chemical name as defined in
the International Nomenclature of Cosmetic Ingredients (INCI).
This is a system of names based on the scientific and/or Latin
terminology which is accepted as an international standard.
-
The name and address of the manufacturer
and/or distributor statement.
-
Material facts and warnings, or cautionary
statements – specific warnings are required on bubbles baths,
feminine deodorants, coal-tar hair dyes and baby products that
have the potential to cause harm (for example, baby powder and
the associated risk of asphyxiation from inhaled particles).
Salon products used by professionals and free samples given out in
hotels are exempt from full labelling. Labels only need to provide
the name and address of the manufacturer and/or distributor and any
warnings.
Sensible precautions
for all
The cosmetics industry as a whole has a good safety record
considering the numbers of ingredients and products on offer.
However, there is no room for complacency. Ingredients which may
seem innocuous on their own have the potential to irritate sensitive
skin (specifically in babies and young children) when added to a
cocktail of other chemicals. With this in mind, it is sensible to
keep exposure to an absolute minimum and follow these simple rules:
-
Avoid using any manufactured baby skincare
products for at least the first month of life. Instead, use
plain water and cotton wool (preferably organic and unbleached).
Once introduced, opt for baby products that are free from
sulphates (SLS and SLES) as such products are less likely to
irritate.
-
Read the label of any skin product and if in
doubt contact the manufacturer
-
Stick to a few tried and tested products
-
Never mix different preparations
-
Use products before the ‘best before date’
-
Shop around for simple preparations that are
ecologically sound and contain as few preservatives as possible
-
Baby products worthy of a mention include;
Halos’n’Horns, Weleda Baby, Organic skincare by Beaming Baby,
Green Baby, Ocean Pure, SOS Barefoot Doctor, Aromababy and
Organic Babies and Children range
-
When washing baby clothes and bedding, try
not to overload your washing machine to ensure thorough rinsing
-
Opt for diluted essential oils rather than
synthetic fragrances
-
Wear less make-up and stick to products in
one range
-
Beware of marketing hype
-
Choose products that are not over packaged
from companies that have a specific policy on recycling and are
seen to be ethically aware
What is the cosmetics
industry doing to help?
For their part, it is encouraging to see that manufacturers are
working towards a more open and transparent approach to information
provision.
Examples of good practice include the Unilever Safety and
Environmental Assurance Centre (SEAC) based in Colworth, UK. In that
Centre, a group of experts work independently of the marketing and
product development teams. They concentrate on consumer safety,
occupational safety and environmental care. These experts have
forged strong links with professionals in the dermatological
community and regularly publish work, including data from research
programmes. Ongoing collaboration with other health care
professionals, as well as consumer and patient organisations, within
the field of skincare, will further help to foster good
relationships between industry and the general public.
Another interesting tool used at Colworth has been developed to
determine the potential risk of any specific chemical. This unique
knowledge base is called DEREK and stands for Deductive Estimation
of Risk from Existing Knowledge (Smith Pease et al 2003).
www.viadirekt.nu was
launched recently in Sweden. On this website, consumers can check
whether specific ingredients they are sensitive to are contained in
any Unilever products. This gives people access to information that
would otherwise be hard to find.
Likewise, the Proctor & Gamble website
www.scienceinthebox.com
is a positive way of making a huge resource of key information
accessible to a wide ranging audience. Proctor & Gamble’s scientific
publications, their methodology to assess human and environmental
safety, as well as product and safety data are available on this
site.
Consumer Carelines are another innovative way to foster good
relationships with the consumers. The speed of feedback they provide
is a quick and efficient way of identifying any potential problems
as soon as a new product is launched. Large retailers within the
supermarket sector are also devoting time and resources to new
websites and store magazines. These give parents access to useful
information and product reviews, as well as forums and online
communities they can join.
Conclusion
Ingredients alone do not tell the whole story and it is the
formulation of these ingredients that is important to skin safety.
Consequently, potentially harmful chemicals can be mixed in such a
way and in specific concentrations as to render them perfectly safe
to use. Conversely, seemingly innocuous mixtures (agglomeration or
mixed micelles as they are known) could react together causing
irritation to the skin surface. It is the responsibility of
manufacturers to get this balance right.
In this new era of openness, effective communication is vital.
Information needs to be open, accurate and in a format that is
accessible to all. Secrecy is no longer an option for multinational
companies who must be seen to work in collaboration with their
customers so that a relationship of trust and understanding can be
achieved.
Clearer labelling and better product information must go hand in
hand to enable consumers to become ‘label aware’. By providing the
public with consistent advice and commonsense precautions, the
cosmetics industry can minimise any potential problems associated
with the use of everyday personal care products.
Postscript
"A proposed motion to this years RCM Conference to stop the routine
supply of baby skincare products within UK maternity units was
recently rejected (this does not include the provision of Bounty
bags which is a separate issue).
This means that many units will continue to supply baby bath and
baby wipes, no longer recommended for neonatal use by the Postnatal
Care Guidelines, published in July 2006 by NICE (
www.nice.org.uk ). If units
are struggling to change policy on this issue it may be worth
highlighting this as a potential clinical risk. The author will be
re-submitting the motion in 2008. It is no longer relevant to use
such products on newborn skin and there exists no data to support
its use during this period".
References
Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR 2004). Annual review of cosmetic
ingredient safety assessment – 2002/3. p37-47. Washington DC: CIR.
Di
Gangi J & Norin H (2002). Pretty Nasty – Phthalates in European
Cosmetics Products. Published by Healthcare Without Harm, USA and in
association with Women’s Environmental Network and Swedish Society
for Nature Conservation.
European Directive (76/768/EEC). The rules governing cosmetics in
the European Union: Volume 1, Cosmetics Legislation, Commission,
1999 edition with February 2003 update (directive 2003/15/EC).
Fatter G, Hackl P & Braun F (1997). Effects of soap and detergents
on skin surface pH, Stratum Corneum Hydration and fat contents in
infants. Dermatology, 195:258-62.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (1995). FDA Authority over
cosmetics. Center for food safety and applied nutrition. Office of
Cosmetics and colors fact sheet. February 3rd 1995.
Healthy Living Campaign in association with NHS Health Scotland and
The Scottish Executive. Accessed on 22/01/07 at:
http://www.healthyliving.gov.uk/
Kownatzki E (2003). Hand hygiene and skin health. Journal of
Hospital Infection, 55: 239-45
Page G & Ridout P (2006). Chemicals in personal care products and
baby wipes – questionnaire/analysis from short research study.
Unpublished report. Ocean Pure Ltd, for more information contact
info@oceanpure.co.uk
Scientific Committee on Cosmetics and Non-food Products, SCCNFP/0411/01,
2002.
Smith Pease C K, Basketter D A and Patlewicz G Y (2003). Contact
allergy: the role of skin chemistry and metabolism. Experimental
dermatology, 28(2):177
Trotter S (2002). Skincare for the newborn: exploring the potential
harm of manufactured products. Royal College of Midwives Journal
5(11): 376-8.
Trotter S (2003). Management of the umbilical cord - a guide to best
care. RCM Midwives Journal 6(7): 308-11.
Trotter S (2004). Care of the newborn: proposed new guidelines.
British Journal of Midwifery 12 (3): 152-7.
Trotter S (2006). Neonatal skincare – why change is vital. RCM
Midwives Journal, 9(4):134-8.
UK
Food Standards Agency (2000). Independent Government Department set
up by an act of parliament to protect the public’s health and
consumer issues relating to food. Accessed on 22/01/07 at:
http://www.food.gov.uk/
Disclaimer
The
information contained on this website is of a general nature and is
designed for educational purposes only. The information is not meant
to replace the recommendations or advise of your midwife or doctor.
Please consult your midwife or doctor regarding your health care.
|
