An analysis of skin care products for newborns and infants available on the Polish market with regard to the presence of ingredients with known sensitizing potential
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Introduction: The skin of newborns and infants is not fully developed, therefore, it seems particularly important to use in this group products that are safe and free from sensitizing ingredients.
Aim of the study: An analysis of skin care products for newborns and infants available on the Polish market with regard to the presence of ingredients with known sensitizing potential.
Material and methods: Declared contents of 106 skin care products for newborns and infants: 72 ‘leave-on’ and 34 ‘rinse-off’ cosmetics were analysed for the presence of ‘problematic’ fragrances and preservatives as listed in the Cosmetics Directive (Annex III and VI).
Results: Three hundred and sixty-five unique substances including 35 ‘problematic’ substances were identified: 15 (4.1%) fragrances and 20 (5.5%) preservatives. At least one ‘problematic’ fragrance occurred in 91 (85.8%) products, most frequent was linalool, at least one ‘problematic’ preservative occurred in 55 (51.9%), phenoxyethanol was most frequent. Fragrance compositions of undisclosed ingredients hidden under a general cryptonym ‘Parfum’/’Fragrance’ were present in 88 (83%) cosmetic products. Among the analyzed preparations, only 7 (6.6%) did not contain substance with known sensitizing potential.
Conclusions: Almost all skin care products for newborns and infants contain ingredients of known sensitizing potential. Most products also contain fragrance compositions hidden under a general cryptonym ‘Parfum’/’Fragrance’ which makes an assessment of their safety profile impossible. The presence of ‘problematic substances’ in almost all cosmetics for newborns and infants confirms the need for further analysis, preventive measures and education of parents and physicians on the dangers of cosmetics use in children.
Downloads
Article Details
Copyright: © Medical Education sp. z o.o. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0). License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.
Address reprint requests to: Medical Education, Marcin Kuźma (marcin.kuzma@mededu.pl)
References
2. Goossens A.: Contact-allergic reactions to cosmetics. J Allergy (Cairo) 2011, 2011: 467071.
3. Kieć-Świerczyńska M., Kręcisz B., Świerczyńska-Machura D.: Uczulenie na kosmetyki. I. Środki zapachowe. Med. Prakt. 2004, 55(2): 203-206.
4. Hamilton T., de Gannes G.C.: Allergic contact dermatitis to preservatives and fragrances in cosmetics. Skin Therapy Lett. 2011, 16(4): 1-4.
5. Röckl H., Müller E., Hiltermann W.: Zum Aussagewert positiver Epikutantests bei Säuglingen und Kindern. Arch. Klin. Exp. Dermatol. 1966, 226: 407-419.
6. Beattie P.E., Green C., Lowe G. et al.: Which children should we patch test? Clin. Exp. Dermatol. 2007, 32(1): 6-11.
7. Czarnobilska E., Obtulowicz K., Dyga W., Śpiewak R.: The most important contact sensitizers in Polish children and adolescents with atopy and chronic recurrent eczema as detected with the extended European Baseline Series. Pediatr. Allergy Immunol. 2011, 22(2): 252-256.
8. Śpiewak R.: Allergische Kontaktdermatitis im Kindesalter Eine Übersicht und Meta-Analyse. Allergologie, Jahrgang 2002, 25(7): 374-381.
9. Mailhol C., Lauwers-Cances V., Rancé F. et. al.: Prevalence and risk factors for allergic contact dermatitis to topical treatment in atopic dermatitis: a study in 641 children. Allergy 2009, 64: 801-806.
10. Council Directive (76/768/EEC) of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products. Official Journal L 262, 27.9.1976, 169 with amendments.
11. Blume-Peytavi U., Hauser M., Stamatas G.N. et al.: Skin care practices for newborns and infants: review of the clinical evidence for best practices. Pediatr. Dermatol. 2012, 29(1): 1-14.
12. Czarnecka-Operacz M.: Aktualne zasady i wytyczne: pielęgnacja skóry małego dziecka i noworodka. Dermatologia Dziecięca 2013, 3(2): 84-90.
13. Kanti V., Günther M., Stroux A. et al.: Influence of sunflower seed oil or baby lotion on the skin barrier function of newborns: A pilot study. J. Cosmet. Dermatol. 2017, 10 [Epub ahead of print].
14. Gao X., Simpson E.L.: Market trends in baby skin care products and implications for clinical practice. Pediatr. Dermatol. 2014, 31(6): 734-738.
15. Moszczyńska J.M., Śpiewak R.: Składniki o znanym potencjale uczulającym i drażniącym w kosmetykach sprzedawanych jako „hipoalergiczne”, „antyalergiczne” lub „0% alergenów”. Estetol. Med. Kosmetol. 2013, 3(1): online first.
16. White J.M., McFadden J.P.: Exposure to haptens/contact allergens in baby cosmetic products. Contact Dermatitis 2008, 59(3): 176-177.
17. Heisterberg M.V., Menné T., Johansen J.D.: Contact allergy to the 26 specific fragrance ingredients to be declared on cosmetic products in accordance with the EU cosmetics directive. Contact Dermatitis 2011, 65(5): 266-275. Erratum in: Contact Dermatitis 2012, 67(1): 58.
18. Buckley D.A., Rycroft R.J., White I.R. et al.: The frequency of fragrance allergy in patch-tested patients increases with their age. Br. J. Dermatol. 2003, 149(5): 986-989.
19. Bonefeld C.M., Nielsen M.M., Rubin I.M. et al.: Enhanced sensitization and elicitation responses caused by mixtures of common fragrance allergens. Contact Dermatitis 2011, 65(6): 336-342.
20. Johansen J.D., Skov L., Volund A. et al.: Allergens in combination have a synergistic effect on the elicitation response: a study of fragrance-sensitized individuals. Br. J. Dermatol. 1998, 139(2): 264-270.
21. Bojarowicz H., Wojciechowska M., Gocki J.: Substancje konserwujące stosowane w kosmetykach oraz ich działania niepożądane. Probl. Hig. Epidemiol. 2008, 89: 30-33.
22. Pokorska P., Śpiewak R.: An analysis of ingredients in cosmetics recommended by the Polish Society of Dermatology and Polish Society of Allergology with regard to the presence of substances with known sensitizing potential. Allergol. Immunol. 2012, 9(4): 227-232.
23. Kieć-Świerczyńska M., Kręcisz B., Świerczyńska-Machura D.: Contact allergy to preservatives contained in cosmetics. Med. Pr. 2006, 57(3): 245-249.
24. Travassos A.R., Claes L., Boey L. et al.: Non-fragrance allergens in specific cosmetic products. Contact Dermatitis 2011, 65(5): 276-285.
25. Lane A.T., Drost S.S.: Effects of repeated application of emollient cream to premature neonates’ skin. Pediatrics 1993, 92(3): 415-419.
26. Simpson E.L., Berry T.M., Brown P.A. et al.: A pilot study of emollient therapy for the primary prevention of atopic dermatitis. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2010, 63(4): 587-593.
27. Kordus K., Śpiewak R.: Emolienty z apteki – pomoc czy zagrożenie dla chorych na wyprysk? Alerg. Astma Immun. 2012, 17(3): 147-153.
28. Codreanu F., Morisset M., Cordebar V. et al.: Risk of allergy to food proteins in topical medicinal agents and cosmetics. Eur. Ann. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 2006, 38: 126.
29. Śpiewak R.: Eczema and food allergy – is there a causal relationship? Przegl. Lek. 2013, 70(12): 1051-1055.
30. Fukutomi Y., Taniguchi M., Nakamura H. et al.: Epidemiological link between wheat allergy and exposure to hydrolyzed wheat protein in facial soap. Allergy 2014, 69(10): 1405-1411.
31. Kobayashi T., Ito T., Kawakami H. et al.: Eighteen cases of wheat allergy and wheat-dependent exercise-induced urticaria/anaphylaxis sensitized by hydrolyzed wheat protein in soap. Int. J. Dermatol. 2015, 54(8): e302-5.
32. Lack G., Fox D., Northstone K. et al.: Factors associated with the development of peanut allergy in childhood. N. Engl. J. Med. 2003, 348: 977.
33. Voskamp A.L., Zubrinich C.M., Abramovitch J.B. et al.: Goat’s cheese anaphylaxis after cutaneous sensitization by moisturizer that contained goat’s milk. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. Pract. 2014, 2(5): 629-630.