CIR Panel Throws Up Hands At Airbrush Ingredient Safety, Defers To FDA On Eyelash ‘Enhancers’
The US-based Cosmetic Ingredient Review’s independent experts finalized four ingredient safety reports at its 7-8 March meeting, advanced nine tentative assessments, and issued two insufficient data announcements. The panel continues to face challenges in assessing ingredients used in airbrush applications and decided against prioritizing review of eyelash-"enhancing" prostaglandin analogues.
You may also be interested in...
CIR’s 161st Expert Panel Meeting: Much Ado About Airbrush Cosmetics; Prostaglandins Make 2023 Priorities
Exactly what is in airbrush-delivered cosmetics, and how they are used by consumers, are not well understood by Cosmetic Ingredient Review, its expert panel, or the US FDA. At their June meeting, CIR’s independent experts debated who should be responsible for assessing airbrush cosmetics and how safety unknowns should be communicated.
Just because the use of a substance in a cosmetic product, in this case prostaglandin-derivative methylamide-dihydro-noralfaprostal, has a physiological effect does not mean it's a medicinal product by function, advises the Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the EU in a recent opinion. While the opinion does not bind the CJEU to any decision, it may impact discussions elsewhere with regards to these substances, for example in the US.
Expect new faces in coming meetings of the US-based CIR’s Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety, which may tackle reviews of prostaglandin analogs and skin-lightening kojic acid on top of its usual slate of programmed safety assessments.