Public Consultation
On Labelling Fragrance Allergens
In cosmetic products
Factual summary report
Results
Table of Contents
1
Overview
1.1
Background
4
1.2
Overview of respondent groups
4
2
Responses by consumers
7
3
Responses by businesses and industry associations
13
4
Other stakeholder groups
25
4.1
National authorities
25
4.2
Academic and research institutions
25
4.3
Environmental organisations
25
4.4
Non-governmental organisations (NGOs)
25
4.5
Trade unions
26
4.6
Consumer organisations
26
4.7
Other stakeholders
26
List of Figures
Figure 1 Public consultation respondents by country of origin
Figure 2 Respondents by stakeholder group
5
Figure 3 Position in the value chain
6
Figure 4 Consumers with allergies
7
Figure 5 Frequency of consulting the list of ingredients
8
Figure 6 Sources of information on cosmetic allergens
8
Figure 7 Share of consumers who carry a mobile device when shopping for cosmetic products
9
Figure 8 Access to internet
9
Figure 9 Access to scanning tools
9
Figure 10 Importance of packaging attractiveness
10
Figure 11 The level of difficulty to read the list of ingredients on cosmetic products
10
Figure 12 Consumer preference for method of labelling if additional fragrance allergens were to be labelled
11
Figure 13 First preferences for e-labelling methods
11
Figure 14 Preference for supplementary methods of informing consumers without internet
12
Figure 15 Strong preferences for labelling options by all industry stakeholders (businesses and business associations)
13
Figure 16 Strong preferences for labelling options by EU industry stakeholders (businesses and business associations)
14
Figure 17 Strong preferences for e-labelling options by industry stakeholders (businesses and business associations)
14
Figure 18 Strong preferences for e-labelling options by EU industry stakeholders (businesses and business associations)
15
Figure 19 Supplementary methods for providing information on fragrance allergens to consumers without internet access by industry stakeholders (businesses and business associations)
15
Figure 20 Supplementary methods for providing information on fragrance allergens to consumers without internet access by EU industry stakeholders (businesses and business associations)
16
Figure 21 Share of businesses reporting a more than 8% cost increase on total operating costs under a two-year transition period
17
Figure 22 Impact of recurring costs on total operating costs (on the basis of one-year costs)
18
Figure 23 Change of cosmetic products formulas due to additional labelling
19
Figure 24 Change of cosmetic products formulas due to additional labelling (EU responses only)
19
Figure 25 Impact of policy options on packaging attractiveness
20
Figure 26 Impact of policy options on packaging attractiveness (EU responses only)
21
Figure 27 Impact on transparency of information
22
Figure 28 Impact on consumer trust
22
Figure 29 Environmental impact of policy options
23
Figure 30 Environmental impact of policy options (EU responses only)
24
Disclaimer: This document should be regarded solely as a summary of the contributions made by stakeholders to the public consultation on the labelling of fragrance allergens in cosmetic products. It cannot in any circumstances be regarded as the official position of the Commission or its services.
1Overview
1.1Background
This present report provides an overview of the key results of the online public consultation accompanying the impact assessment study on fragrance labelling on cosmetic products.
In line with the Better Regulation Guidelines, a public consultation must form part of the consultation strategy of impact assessments. The questionnaire for the consultation was prepared in line with the requirements of the European Commission, translated into all EU languages and was available on the Commission EUSurvey tool during the period between 12 December 2019 and 13 February 2020.
The aim of the public questionnaire was to target a wide range of stakeholders to collect general feedback on the socio-economic impact of fragrance allergens and to complement the impact assessment study.
1.2Overview of respondent groups
Questions in the Public Consultation (PC) focused primarily on the feasibility of the individual options, including the costs of adaptation, uptake by consumers and other relevant impacts. Additional specific questions were put forth for consumers, academic/research institutions, companies and business associations as well as public authorities, NGOs, environmental organisations, trade unions and others. The public consultation received in total 218 results.
Companies, business associations and business organisations including trade unions, were the most represented stakeholder groups, making up 47% (n=103) of answers, followed by citizens (EU and non-EU) with 44% (n=96). Roughly one third of citizens (n=31) reported to have an allergy. Companies represented 40% (n=88) of all respondents, out of which 55% were SMEs (n=49).
All respondents were asked to identify whether they are medical professionals, to which out of all respondents, 20 identified themselves as such. Twelve of these respondents were citizens making up about 12% of responses in that category. The remaining eight medical professionals represented businesses (n=1), academics (n=4), consumer organisation (n=1) and other stakeholder categories (n=2). Despite their background as medical professionals, these stakeholders responded to the questionnaire in their capacity as citizens or an affiliate of an organisation. Consequently, we have found that within the stakeholder group of citizens (the only group where medical professionals made up a statistically relevant percentage of the overall replies) their responses were aligned with the general trend of the specific group.
Third countries were represented by 21 industry representatives, 8 consumers, 2 academic/research institutions, 1 public authority and 1 consumer organisation. Among these, UK was represented by 12 industry representatives, 6 consumers, 1 academic/research institution and 1 consumer organisation. In terms of country of origin, most respondents came from France (25%, n=54), Poland (18%, n=40) and Spain (16%, n=35). Moreover, 20 responses were received from the UK. Respondents from outside of the EU originated from: Antarctica (1), Norway (1), Saint Berthelemy (1), Saudi Arabia (1), South Africa (1), Switzerland (6), United States (2).
Figure 1 Public consultation respondents by country of origin
Source: PC (n=218)
Figure 2 Respondents by stakeholder group
Source: PC (n=218)
Regarding the value chain, most companies and business organisations represented the manufacturing sector (63%, n=65).
Figure 3 Position in the value chain
Source: PC
In addition to the above displayed responses from EU stakeholders, 12 responses were received from UK businesses and industry associations, out of which seven were representing the manufacturing sector. Eight other responses came from outside the EU (Switzerland, United States, St. Barthelemy and South Africa) six of whom represented manufacturing companies.
2Responses by consumers
With regards to consumer impact, EU and non-EU citizens were consulted about their allergies, direct and indirect costs caused by allergies, purchasing behaviour and consumer friendliness of proposed policy options. There were altogether 96 responses, 88 came from EU citizens (these are analysed below), six from UK based stakeholders and two from other non-EU countries (United States and Saudi Arabia). While the limited number of responses does not allow for a separate non-EU analysis, it has been noted that the responses from non-EU citizens generally fell in line with the majority of EU responses.
Half (n=49) of the EU consumers who participated in the consultation indicated having a type of allergy, 32% of all citizens that responded (n=31) had a contact allergy. 61% (n=19) of those with contact allergies reported a cosmetic allergy.
Figure 4 Consumers with allergies
Source: PC (n=88)
As for the relative importance of costs that contact allergy causes, consumers (n=96) in majority (60%) pointed at the negative impact on quality of life as most important source of costs, followed by direct medical costs which 32% considered most important. Among consumers with contact allergy (n=31), 71% indicated loss of quality of life as most important costs incurred, followed by direct medical costs (32%).
With regards to consumer behaviour, a large majority of consumers (84%, n=815) indicated checking the list of ingredients either every time or almost every time. This practice is reported by 94% (n=46) of consumers with contact or other allergies.
Figure 5 Frequency of consulting the list of ingredients
Source: PC (n=29, multiple answers)
Regarding the consumers allergic to cosmetics (n=19) 89% of them (n=17) said they consulted the product packaging to inform themselves about allergens. Other sources of information mentioned were; pharmacy or other website (2), phone app (1) or Facebook group (1), asking doctor or store staff (1), calling the producer (1). While these figures may not be representative of European consumer behaviour as a whole, they fall in line with the findings of a 2011 Eurobarometer survey, which found that 66% of consumers read the label and instructions of chemical products.
Figure 6 Sources of information on cosmetic allergens
Source: PC (n=29, multiple answers)
A large share of all consumers 90% (n=86) and consumers allergic to cosmetics (89%, n=19) indicated having a smartphone when shopping for cosmetic products. Majority of them (73%, n=70) further said that they always or usually have access to the internet. Furthermore, 58% (n=56) of consumers indicated having access to a scanning tool: either a QR code or barcode scanning app, or both. However, 40% (n=38) had none of the mentioned tools on their mobile devices. For consumers allergic to cosmetics, these numbers are the same.
Figure 7 Share of consumers who carry a mobile device when shopping for cosmetic products
Source: PC (n=88)
|
Figure 8 Access to internet
|
Figure 9 Access to scanning tools
|
Source: PC (n=88)
When asked about the importance of the appearance of cosmetics packaging when choosing cosmetics, 65% (n=62) of consumers said it was either very or somewhat important. The appearance was not very important to a third of consumers (30%, n=2=29), while it was not important at all to 5% of consumers (n=5).
Figure 10 Importance of packaging attractiveness
Source: PC (n=88)
Regarding consumer friendliness of cosmetic products, the consumers were asked whether it was easy or difficult to read the list of ingredients in the current form (including tags and leaflets). 60% (n=58) indicated that it was difficult or very difficult, compared to 24% (n=23) who thought it was easy or very easy.
Figure 11 The level of difficulty to read the list of ingredients on cosmetic products
Source: PC (n=88)
Consumers were asked to express their preference for the method of labelling if the list of ingredients would get longer, as a result of the obligation on labelling additional fragrance allergens. Consumers were asked to rate their preferences (strong, moderate or no preference) between the various labelling options. In their response 57% (n=55) of consumers said that they would strongly prefer on-pack labelling, whereas 40% (n=38) had strong preferences for e-labelling while 3% showed strong preference for additional fragrance allergens not to be labelled at all. In contrast to consumer opinions, businesses favoured e-labelling (52%) versus on-pack labelling (28%) for the extended list of allergens, see figure 15 below.
Figure 12 Consumer preference for method of labelling if additional fragrance allergens were to be labelled
Source: PC (n=88)
In case of e-labelling, 54% (n=52) of consumers would opt for QR code on package as their first preference, followed by 26% (n=25) for website address on package. Businesses on the other hand favoured websites (45%) as e-labelling methods over QR codes (20%) and other options (33%).
Figure 13 First preferences for e-labelling methods
Source: PC (n=88)
Moreover, when asked about additional information tool for consumers with no internet access, consumers indicated strong preference for in-store leaflets (45%, n=43) and in-store screens (39%, n=37), while free of charge phone calls and return messages would not be preferred by 57% (n=53) and 55% (n=37) of consumers, respectively. Opinions of businesses were aligned with those of the consumers insofar as they have also favoured in-store leaflets and screens (39%) with other options marked as the second most preferable (33%), see figure 19.
Figure 14 Preference for supplementary methods of informing consumers without internet
Source: PC (n=88)
3Responses by businesses and industry associations
As mentioned above 103 responses from industry representatives had been received, out of these 12 were from UK-based stakeholders, nine were from other non-EU countries (one from the United States, one from Norway, one from St. Barthelemy, five from Switzerland and one from South Africa). Altogether 88 businesses submitted responses out of which small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) made up more than half (n=49) of the responses. Responses received from SMEs had not differed from those of large companies. The analysis of responses showed that the size of a business was not a key factor in determining the response. On the whole, it seemed that responses received from businesses reflected the opinions of a wide-range of enterprises in the sector. There were also no discrepancies noted between the responses of non-EU and EU representatives, they have generally shown similar patterns of preferences as the responses of EU stakeholders. As not all stakeholders responded to all questions, in multiple cases the response rate from non-EU stakeholders was too low to provide an analysis.
The industry was consulted regarding the preferences for the proposed policy options. Overall, strong preference was expressed towards e-labelling of all 87 allergens (68%, n=70) compared to 15% (n=15) for combination of on-pack labelling of 26 allergens and e-labelling for 62 allergens. Among those who chose “other” (40%, n=41), the majority (n=25) indicated that the producer/manufacturer should be given the right to choose the labelling method for all fragrance allergens, while others (n=6) noted that they would welcome Option 1: No changes to the current rules (labelling of 26 fragrance allergens).
Figure 15 Strong preferences for labelling options by all industry stakeholders (businesses and business associations)
Source: PC (n=103, multiple answers)
Figure 16 Strong preferences for labelling options by EU industry stakeholders (businesses and business associations)
Source: PC (n=82, multiple answers)
Moreover, the industry was asked about preference for type of e-labelling method. From the following choices – website address, QR code, barcode, or combinations of options - most respondents (45%, n=46) expressed strong preference for “website address”. Among those who answered “combination of options”, many commented that a combination of options should be a possibility as long as the provision of more than one option is not mandated, as companies should be allowed freedom to choose an e-labelling option, or combination of them. Respondents who answered “other” commented that the choice of technology should not be imposed as to ensure that the regulation remains technology-neutral and future-proof, taking into consideration the rapid innovation developments in the field of labelling technology and consumer communication and access to information. An example of other method of providing information was digital watermarking.
Figure 17 Strong preferences for e-labelling options by industry stakeholders (businesses and business associations)
Source: PC (n=103, multiple answers)
Figure 18 Strong preferences for e-labelling options by EU industry stakeholders (businesses and business associations)
Source: PC (n=82, multiple answers)
The industry was also asked about the best way to provide supplementary method to provide information on fragrance allergens for consumers without internet access. The following choices were available: free of charge calls, return text messages, in-store leaflets or screens, or other, which had to be specified. In-store leaflets or screens was the most opted for (36%, n=37). Similar to the preferences described above, the stakeholders who answered “other” specified that the companies should maintain the flexibility to choose between different options of providing alternative access to information in case of e-labelling, depending on the distribution channel, as well as existing communication methods.
Figure 19 Supplementary methods for providing information on fragrance allergens to consumers without internet access by industry stakeholders (businesses and business associations)
Source: PC (n=103)
Figure 20 Supplementary methods for providing information on fragrance allergens to consumers without internet access by EU industry stakeholders (businesses and business associations)
Source: PC (n=82)
The industry was moreover asked about the impact of one-off costs on the total operating costs assuming the transition period of two years for placing compliant products on the market and three-year transition period for withdrawing if the e-labelling option was implemented. Stakeholders were asked to indicate the foreseeable cost increases in a number of predetermined categories including the creation of a publicly available database, development of a new analytical method, production of in-store leaflets etc. An increase of more than 8% on operating costs was estimated to take place due to withdrawing non-compliant packages for 20% of industry stakeholders (n=21), followed by developing acquiring new analytical methods for identification and quantification of additional fragrance allergens in the cosmetic products for 19% of respondents (n=14), and redesigning of packing to include “new allergens” for 14% of them (n=14).
Figure 21 Share of businesses reporting a more than 8% cost increase on total operating costs under a two-year transition period
Source: PC (n=103)
Moreover, some stakeholders (n=5) indicated that the price of raw materials such as fragrances, extracts and essential oils would also increase because their producers and suppliers would be obliged to identify and quantify additional 62 allergens, resulting in higher costs for production and the finished cosmetic products. In addition, some stakeholders (n=3) commented that the European industry has been developing analytical methods to identify and quantify fragrance additional fragrance allergens, which are now undergoing CEN validation and certification. According to estimates, the process has cost over 500,000€. These methods will be available to the industry and national authorities.
The industry was furthermore asked about the impact of different recurring costs that the e-labelling option would have on total operating costs (on the basis of one-year costs). The highest increase on operating costs was estimated to take place due to providing access to allergen information for consumers without internet access via return text messages (48%, n=49), followed by the provision of information via free-of-charge calls (45%, n=45).
Figure 22 Impact of recurring costs on total operating costs (on the basis of one-year costs)
Source: PC (n=103)
To the question whether the obligation of labelling additional fragrance allergens would result in the change of cosmetic products formulas, majority of industry said “yes” (53%, n=48), compared with 25% (n=23) who said that the formulas would not change. This response is consistent with the findings of the stakeholder interviews, where manufacturers indicated that changing product labels and extending the list of product ingredients could negatively impact consumer trust. Consequently, some manufacturers indicated they would prefer to reformulate their products in such a way as to minimize labelling changes.
There were no statistical differences between EU and non-EU responses as most (n=7) non-EU stakeholders responded with I don’t know/it doesn’t concern me regarding the question of recurring cost while another 2-3 stakeholders noted no impact and some stakeholders marked minimal cost increases (0-3%).
Figure 23 Change of cosmetic products formulas due to additional labelling
Source: PC (n=103)
Figure 24 Change of cosmetic products formulas due to additional labelling (EU responses only)
Source: PC (n=82)
Concerning the packaging, the industry was asked about the extent to which policy options would impact the attractiveness of cosmetic packaging in comparison to the present labelling practice. 92% (n=95) of respondents indicated that the on-pack labelling would decrease attractiveness, with 78% (n=80) thinking that it would decrease it significantly. In comparison, majority of respondents answered that attractiveness would be increased with the use of any of the e-labelling options. Specifically 50% (n=51) expect an increase in case of QR code, compared to 46% (n=47) for barcode.
Figure 25 Impact of policy options on packaging attractiveness
Source: PC (n=103)
Figure 26 Impact of policy options on packaging attractiveness (EU responses only)
Source: PC (n=82)
Businesses were asked about the extent to which policy options would impact transparency of information and consumer trust in cosmetic products. While majority of industry stakeholders assessed that Option 1 with no changes to the current rules will have no impact on transparency (81% =83) majority of stakeholders believed that all other labelling options would increase transparency, regardless of being on-pack or off-pack. Non-EU responses fell in line with that of the EU stakeholders and there were no statistically relevant differences in percentages of opinions.
Figure 27 Impact on transparency of information
Source: PC (n=103)
Regarding consumer trust, industry expects option 1 to have no impact on consumer trust (84, n=87). Whereas 61% (n=63) of stakeholders believe that on-pack labelling of all allergens would decrease consumer trust, with 42% saying it would decrease it significantly (n=43), consumer trust is foreseen to be increased with e-labelling, regardless of the method. There were no statistically relevant differences in terms of percentages between the opinions of EU and non-EU stakeholders.
Figure 28 Impact on consumer trust
Source: PC (n=103)
Finally, regarding the environmental concerns, the industry was asked about the impact that the policy options would have assuming a two-year transition period for placing compliant products on the market and a three-year transitional period for withdrawing products from the market. Both on-pack and e-labelling are expected to have negative impacts on the environment, although on-pack labelling is expected to have a more negative impact. In both cases environmental costs would be linked (although to a different extent) to withdrawal of incompliant packages and bigger size of packages.
Comparatively more stakeholders (86%, n=89), expect on-pack labelling of additional fragrance allergens to have negative impact than in the case of e-labelling options (63%, n=65). Moreover, e-labelling is foreseen to bring positive impact by more stakeholders than in case of the on-pack labelling, indicated by 20% against 6% of stakeholders respectively.
Figure 29 Environmental impact of policy options
Source: PC (n=103)
Figure 30 Environmental impact of policy options (EU responses only)
Source: PC (n=87)
4Other stakeholder groups
4.1National authorities
In addition to industry stakeholders and consumers, national authorities have also been provided with a specific set of questions. However, despite continuous engagement by the consultant during the project only four responses were received.
While the limited number of responses does not allow us to break down specific patterns relating to consumer behaviour and safety aspects, a brief overview is provided on some of the key questions. When asked about best ways for providing consumer information, on-pack labelling of an extended list of allergens was favoured over keeping the status quo. However, on the question of e-labelling in general, opinions were split even between ‘consumers being somewhat able to inform themselves’ or ‘not inform themselves at all’.
In terms of the e-labelling options the national authorities noted that consumers would best be able to inform themselves via a website. As regarding questions on possible costs of enforcement two respondents gave answers, which indicated that a cost increase or decrease of 0-3% can be estimated at this point. It is believed that more information regarding possible administrative cost increases can be collected at a later stage, when changes in national legislative and surveillance practices have been defined.
4.2Academic and research institutions
The consultation received five responses from academic and research institutions. One of the respondents was based in the United Kingdom, three others were from the EU and the fifth one marked Antarctica as its location. Questions for these stakeholders focused on the health impacts of contact dermatitis. The respondent found that all listed categories of impacts e.g. medical costs, over-the-counter hypoallergenic creams, loss of personal welfare, loss of productivity are significant impacts of contact dermatitis.
Four of the respondents noted that patients often complain about the lack of information on cosmetic allergens on the products. Four respondents identified on-pack labelling of an extended list of allergens as options by which consumers would be able to inform themselves and all said that on pack labelling would greatly facilitate diagnosis. With regard to e-labelling, two of the respondents said that it would allow consumers to inform themselves and four of them noted that it would facilitates diagnosis.
4.3Environmental organisations
Only one environmental organization began completing the questionnaire but it did not provide any responses beyond identifying itself.
4.4Non-governmental organisations (NGOs)
NGOs were directed an open ended-question as a way to share their views on the topic. Two responses were received both emphasizing the importance of safety and consumer health.
4.5Trade unions
One response was filed from a trade union representative in an EU member state. Trade Unions were provided with the same line of questions as businesses and business associations and as they also represent industry interests; their responses were included in the industry segment. In terms of the general pattern of responses the trade union respondent’s answers was generally in line with the responses of businesses and in response to the question on labelling scheme preference the respondent had shown strong preferences for both on-pack and e-labelling and stated that companies should have the choice between these two options.
4.6Consumer organisations
Four consumer organisations participated in the online consultation; three of them from the European Union and one respondent was based in the United Kingdom. Three organisations gave responses. One supported both on-pack labelling and e-labelling, where e-labelling would be specifically for products where there is a lack of space for an extended, well readable label. Another stakeholder favoured on-pack labelling only and the third (UK-based) stakeholder supported both on-pack and e-labelling.
4.7Other stakeholders
Three responses came from stakeholders identifying themselves as belonging to an additional category not listed among the respondent options. One stakeholder represented a medical laboratory, while the other two were representing research projects. Only two out of the three respondents provided answers. They both confirmed that patients often complain about the lack of information being displayed on cosmetic products on allergens and identified on-pack labelling of an extended list of allergens as the most suitable way to improve accurate diagnosis.
