Solar creams, makeup, facial care … octocrylene is hidden everywhere. Today, France pushes Brussels to decide to protect the environment and, perhaps, our health. Back on an investigation that could change the cosmetic shelves.
A widespread ingredient … with worrying impact
Invisible on a daily basis, octocrylene is however everywhere. Formula stabilizer, solar filter and UV absorber, it appears in thousands of cosmetic products. “”Over 1,500 tonnes of octocrylene are used in cosmetic products in Europe“, Specifies the ANSES.
But behind this industrial success, scientists draw a worrying observation. “”The uses of octocrylene contaminate aquatic environments and soils“, Underlines the agency, recalling that the substance goes through wastewater, purification sludge, then finds itself in rivers, lakes and agricultural land.
In its technical report (Reach 2023-ast-0220), ANSES goes further: “The octocrylene is stable in contact with water and mineralizes very slowly in aquatic and terrestrial compartments with a DT50 more than 1000 days“. In other words, he persists in the environment for years. It is found fixed to the sediments, the soils, and accumulated in living organisms.
On the human health side, doubt remains but signals accumulate: possible toxicity for thyroid, suspicion of toxicity for reproduction and endocrine disturbing potential.
ANSES has even ordered a specific test on amphibians (LAGDA), to verify the effects on growth and larval development. The conclusions have not yet been rendered. But already, for the agency, the risks are deemed “unacceptable” in dispersive uses such as cosmetics.
A radical restriction … but technically feasible
Faced with these observations, ANSES offers a radical measure: limit octocrylène to a concentration less than 0.001 % m/mor 10 ppm. At this threshold, the molecule becomes simply unusable as a UV or stabilizing filter. “”The implementation of this restriction meets the criteria of efficiency and feasibility “says the agency.
For industrialists, two scenarios are on the table: a transition in two years or in five years. According to handles, the first option is enough, even if the second would leave more margin to manufacturers.
The cost? Valued at 353.7 million euros over ten years, including 352 million only for solar, much more concerned than other cosmetic products. For other cosmetics, above solar, the cost is estimated modest, even negligible.
But the agency highlights key data: there are already octocrylene products on the European market. Reformulation is therefore possible, even if it represents an investment.
And above all, the socio-economic study conducted with 7,200 European consumers shows that environmental profits-more protected ecosystems, less pollution of soil and water-would largely exceed the costs of restriction. A clear signal sent to political decision -makers and to the general public: the measure is hard, but it is profitable for society.
A European verdict expected from 2027
The ball is now in the Brussels camp. The restriction proposal was filed with the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). Public consultation runs until March 24, 2026. The risk assessment and socio-economic analysis committees will make their opinions in September 2026. Then the European Commission, with the Member States, will decide.
If the calendar is respected, the prohibition could come into force from 2027with the transition period chosen (two or five years).
The file remains open, however. The LAGDA test, still in progress, must clarify the potential role of the octocrylene as an environmental endocrine disruptor. But for handles, the urgency is there. His message is unambiguous: to continue to disperse this molecule, it is to worsen diffuse but persistent pollution.
Beyond the figures, it is therefore a question of collective choice: do we want to keep a few years of cosmetic comfort … or ensure the sustainable protection of our soils, our rivers and future generations?