Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download
ePaper created 2015-04-07, 08:37:00 | version 1.37.0
German consumer association for product testing] in 2009, 34% of con- sumers welcomed the idea of preser- vatives being banned from cosmet- ic products. In view of the fact that some preservatives are regarded with suspicion (with justifica- tion in some cases, less justifi- ably in others), the percentage could be significantly higher today. Article Two of the KMVO de- fines preservatives as ’substances exclusively or principally intended to check the development of micro-or- ganisms’. Based on the type and the quantity, they are regulated by The Whitelist in Appendix V. In formal and judicial terms, then, the situation is clear. If a substance is used both for purposes of preservation and for other purposes, it depends on the principal end envisaged in the con- crete individual case. What is crucial here is not the subjective notion of the person who uses the substance, but rather intended use that may be de- rived from objectively detectable circumstances. A great majority of substance class- es (like perfume oils, solvents, surfac- tants and humectants) which, for the most part, feature in formulations that are intended for purposes other than preservation, do nonetheless also have preserving properties (even if at a low level). It therefore follows that the call for a ’complete absence of any kind of preservation substance’ is altogether too absolute and cannot possibly be realised in practice. As multifunctional substances gen- erally have much weaker preservation effects than authorised preservatives, in the individual case it is ultimately down to the skill and knowledge of the person writing the formula to decide whether it is microbiologically safe and stable, even without preservatives as defined by the EU Cosmetics Regula- tion. This calls for a high measure of expertise and is therefore an expensive procedure. In light of this, the question that needs to be asked is the following: “How do the relevant sectors of the public understand the expression ‘free from preservatives’?” Opinion-formers in the camp of the supervisory author- ities, in particular, like to argue that consumer expectations are geared to- PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT MARKETING COSSMA 4I2015 37 wards ‘the absence of any kind of pre- serving substance’. This position pres- ents practical advantages for supervi- sory purposes and is not in line with what your average end-consumer – who, as defined by EU legislation, is “reasonably well-informed and reason- ably observant and circumspect” (cf. Appendix to EU Regulation no. 655/2013) – expects of a cosmetic sub- stance. A ‘reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circum- spect average end user’ does not just read the statement ‘free from preserva- tives’*. At the same time he/she takes note that the product does indeed have a certain shelf life, in view of the specified sell-by date or period of use stated, and is capable of drawing the correct conclusions. The well-informed ‘average end user’ is aware that cosmetics must be protected against microbial decay, and is also aware of alternative methods of preservation from his or her daily life. So the legally clear definition ‘free from preservatives’ is not associated with deception or discrimination. It rather reflects the vital and legitimate consumer wish for products that have been preserved by alternative methods. Planned extension of market supervision According to the expressed intent of the regulatory authorities (Cosmet- ics Regulation Recital3 ), an extension of ’in-market control’ is called for, with Dr. Rainer Wohlfart Head of Research & Development Kneipp, Würzburg, Germany rainer.wohlfart@kneipp.de www.kneipp.de a view to ensuring a high level of pro- tection of human health’. A milestone date in this process will be 11.07.2016. This is when the Com- mission is due to present its re- port on the use of advertising for the promotion of cosmetics to the Parliament and the Council. ‘Appropriate measures’ will then be taken, based on their find- ings. Among these measures there might well be a ‘free from’ ruling in the form of a Regulation – with an appropriate transition peri- od allowed and (hopefully!) with a due sense of proportion. A precipitate ‘free from’ ruling – in the form of a Guideline – would have the consequence, as an interpretation of already applicable law, that it must be implemented immediately. This would, on the one hand, result in considerable economic damage, but, on the other, there would be the risk of a wave of litigation, as mere Guidelines are not legally bind- ing. Such a development would in no way represent an appropriate response to the present state of affairs. 1 German Food and Feed Code* Conservation sub- stances, as understood by the EU Cosmetics Regulation. 2 Act Against Unfair Competition 3 Commission Regulation (EU) lay down common criteria for the justification of claims that are used in relation to cosmetic products) *Bibliographical references may be found online (see Internet panel). The average well-informed consumer is aware that cosmetics must be protected against microbial decay photo: Grebcha, Shutterstock.com Products completely without preservatives are not a feasible prospect photo:NataliiaMelnxchuk,Shutterstock.com COS1504_36_Kneipp_COS1406_22_Imogen_D 26.03.15 13:09 Seite 37 COS1504_36_Kneipp_COS1406_22_Imogen_D 26.03.1513:09 Seite 37