Chemical Substances and Their Effects: What’s Hidden Behind Cosmetic Labels?

When choosing everyday cosmetic and hygiene products, we often focus on the balance between price and quality, as well as the claims printed on the packaging promising younger and smoother skin or other benefits. But do we ever stop to consider the impact that the ingredients and even the packaging of these products have on our bodies and the environment? Dr Jūratė Jonikaitė-Švėgždienė, a researcher at the Faculty of Chemistry and Geosciences of Vilnius University (VU), discusses the increasingly strict regulations around cosmetic and hygiene products, their ingredients, and the presence of microplastics and synthetic substances.

Stricter regulations as a tool to combat microplastics

Microplastics and synthetic polymers, now widespread and even found in the human body, can also be detected in cosmetic and hygiene products. However, Dr Jonikaitė-Švėgždienė reassures us that these substances do not enter our bodies.

‘Synthetic polymers that make up microplastics are high-molecular-weight compounds, and our skin serves as an excellent protective barrier. Therefore, microplastics won’t enter our bodies unless we ingest these products directly. Such substances cannot be absorbed through healthy and intact skin. So, rather than worrying about microplastics or synthetic polymers, we should be more sceptical of exaggerated claims – most creams that promise to penetrate deep into the skin and restore youth usually act only on the surface. Unless they contain highly active ingredients, like vitamin A, their effect tends to be superficial,’ said the chemist.

Microplastics are thought to pose a greater risk to the environment; it is estimated that around 3,800 tons of microplastics from cosmetics and household chemicals alone end up in nature and water bodies each year. Though these products are not the biggest polluters and account for only about 2% of all microplastics found in water, the European Union has set an ambitious goal of cutting microplastic emissions by 30% by 2030. This effort is part of Europe’s broader aim to become the world’s first climate-neutral continent by 2050.

‘Although cosmetic products typically contain relatively small amounts of microplastics or synthetic polymers – from 0.5% to 10% – it is still important to reduce their use, seek alternatives, and help decrease environmental pollution. That’s because it is through the environment that these particles eventually make their way into the human body, through the food and water we consume. So microplastics don’t reach us directly through cosmetic products but rather from the environmental traces they leave behind,’ explained Dr Jonikaitė-Švėgždienė.

Along with the tightening environmental standards, restrictions are being applied not only to microplastics but also to other compounds, such as silicones D4, D5, and D6. These low-molecular-weight substances with strictly regulated structures are commonly used in moisturising or texture refining creams. However, their persistence and ability to accumulate in living organisms pose serious environmental concerns. As a result, these substances will be banned from all cosmetic products starting in 2027.

Microplastic restrictions: misleading claims and greenwashing?

Microplastics are typically imagined as tiny solid particles that do not dissolve in water. It is precisely these synthetic polymer microparticles – abrasive granules and powders used in toothpastes and body scrubs – found in cosmetic and hygiene products intended for scrubbing and polishing surfaces, that have been banned since October 2023. The EU regulation provides a transitional period for other cosmetic products before their use is entirely prohibited.

‘These particles don’t dissolve in water; when washed off, they don’t break down – they accumulate and pollute the environment. That’s why microbeads in hygiene products or, for example, glitter in cosmetics have been banned. However, synthetic polymers can also be water-soluble or partially soluble, and can come in liquid form; these are often used as stabilisers, thickeners, or to maintain the consistency of cosmetic products. You won’t see such ingredients with the naked eye, but you might feel their presence – for instance, when a cream leaves a smooth, protective film on your skin.

These polymers used in cosmetics are not officially categorised as microplastics and, therefore, are not included in the list of banned substances. This has drawn sharp criticism from various environmental organisations, which argue that these synthetic polymers still meet the structural definition of microplastics and may harm both the environment and human health,’ explained the VU researcher.

According to her, stopping the use of microplastics for these purposes often means the whole product formula has to be changed, which is why the transition is given more time: ‘However, the use of certain polymers, both synthetic and natural, is not prohibited, so manufacturers are not always motivated to seek more sustainable alternatives. Replacing exfoliating microbeads with natural ingredients is relatively easy: sugar, coffee grounds, ground nutshells, coconut shells, or olive pits are all suitable substitutes. But in some cases, using microplastics or synthetic polymers is cheaper and more convenient.’

The regulations on microplastic use also include many exceptions. For instance, transparent and water-soluble synthetic polymers such as polyvinyl alcohol, which is used in laundry detergent pods, are not restricted. Similarly, non-carbon-based polymers like polysilane (an inorganic silicon polymer) that give cosmetics specific texture and moisturising or protective properties are not subject to prohibitions. Because of this, the researcher also draws attention to another side of the regulation issue – greenwashing, when marketing misleads the public with seemingly eco-friendly claims. Labels like ‘microplastic-free’ or ‘biodegradable ingredients’ (often found on more expensive products) can create a false belief that the products contain no synthetic polymers.

‘Moreover, these polymers still end up in the environment. This is why organisations fighting environmental pollution often criticise regulatory exemptions that allow manufacturers to continue to use microplastics or synthetic polymers while marketing their products as free of such substances,’ emphasised the chemist.

Is natural always better?

Dr Jonikaitė-Švėgždienė has noticed a prevailing opinion that natural products or substances are always better than their synthetic alternatives. People tend to believe such materials can be recycled or are environmentally harmless and are, therefore, sustainable. However, this prevailing assumption often overlooks the production stage, which frequently involves extremely high CO₂ emissions and significant energy consumption. The production and life cycle of natural products often turn out to be more expensive, both for manufacturers and the environment.

‘When studying the human body’s response, it was found that the origin of the material makes no difference – natural inorganic substances, dust, silicates, and textile fibre microparticles like cotton or viscose can cause the same inflammatory reactions. In some cases, the use of natural oils and extracts is associated with an increased incidence of contact dermatitis. So, while searching for natural alternatives is always a good step, it would be wrong to claim that everything natural is inherently better,’ stated the scientist.
When discussing natural alternatives, Dr Jonikaitė-Švėgždienė also emphasises the importance of the packaging of cosmetic and hygiene products. It is better to opt for recyclable plastic: ‘There is a common myth that replacing a plastic bag with a paper or reusable cotton one is better for the environment. But growing cotton and producing cotton bags requires vast amounts of water and significant CO₂ emissions. Cotton is also heavily sprayed with pesticides, which are harmful to the environment and those who wear items produced from pesticide-contaminated cotton.’

‘The same applies to cosmetic products in paper packaging – it’s often marketed as more sustainable or eco-friendly. Still, in reality, the paper is usually printed with dyes, covered with plastic stickers, and then wrapped in a protective plastic layer to keep it from getting wet, and so on. We’re seeing excessive packaging that is actually more environmentally harmful than properly sorted and recycled plastic.

Moreover, people tend to forget that paper production is also an energy-intensive process, and its main raw material is coniferous wood. Logging, of course, also raises environmental concerns. If the paper production process is not properly managed, it becomes highly polluting and environmentally unfriendly. Glass packaging isn’t a better solution either – glass manufacturing and recycling require even more energy resources and emit large amounts of CO₂ and other greenhouse gases. Additionally, glass containers are fragile and unsafe to use in bathrooms.’

According to the VU scientist, polyethylene terephthalate (PET), which is widely sorted and recycled in Lithuania and commonly used in food and beverage packaging, is also suitable for cosmetic and hygiene products. Whether made from virgin PET or 100% recycled plastic, this type of packaging is far more sustainable than both new and recycled paper, and certainly more so than glass.

 

More conscious consumption encourages change

Although the cosmetics industry is not the largest environmental polluter, the direct use of its products encourages people to choose manufacturers, packaging, and ingredients more responsibly, both with regard to microplastics and other substances. Various mobile apps are being developed that allow users to scan a product’s ingredient list to assess its quality, and consumers can also contact relevant institutions to evaluate product safety.

‘The European Commission’s ‘Safety Gate’ system receives reports from European consumers and investigates various products for potentially unsafe substances or their quantities. In 2022, 10% of all inquiries were related to cosmetic products, while in 2023, that number rose to 32%. This increase indicates that people are becoming more conscious and paying more attention to the safety of the products they use. The same organisation notes that most reports concern unsafe cosmetic (and other) products manufactured in China,’ said the researcher.

Shifting consumer habits are also driving regulations on other materials, not just microplastics. For example, in May 2025, a limit will be introduced on the concentration of vitamin A in cosmetic products to ensure that the total safe intake of vitamin A is not exceeded.

‘Vitamin A concentration in cosmetic products ranges from 0.05% to 0.3%, depending on the product. Accordingly, the labelling requirements for products containing vitamin A and its derivatives are also becoming stricter, so that people can make informed choices about their intake, since we already get a significant amount of vitamin A from food and supplements. Although the levels mentioned here are quite small, it is often only the dose that distinguishes a medicine from a poison,’ added Dr Jonikaitė-Švėgždienė, a chemist at Vilnius University.