The European Commission now officially recognizes our sector’s concerns about the TPO ban. There is a proposal on the table to adjust the regulations, including:
This is a first breakthrough thanks to hard work behind the scenes.
But of course, we will continue!
My name is Sofie Devlieger. I hold a PhD in chemistry, I’m an educator in the beauty industry and the CEO of a wholesale company in professional nail products. I work every day with professionals who practise their craft with passion, care, and expertise. People who are trained, who operate under the strictest standards, and who – like me – believe in safety, innovation, and ethics.
Yet I watch with dismay how rules that are supposed to protect us sometimes have the opposite effect.
Take, for instance, the recent decision by the European Union to ban the ingredient TPO (Trimethylbenzoyl diphenylphosphine oxide) in cosmetics. The reasoning? Results from animal testing conducted under the REACH regulation.
And that’s where it gets problematic – seriously problematic.
According to the European Cosmetics Regulation (EC 1223/2009), animal testing for cosmetics is prohibited. Not only carrying it out, but also using animal testing data as a basis for safety assessments. That ban has been in place since 2003. We use alternative testing methods, under strict supervision, within a legal and ethical framework.
But now it appears that under REACH, animal tests were still conducted on TPO – including for UV printer inks and paints – and that these results are now being used to ban TPO in cosmetics.
Let that sink in.
And if that’s not absurd enough: 30 humans were also tested who had to apply and remove TPO three times a week for a month. The result? No irritation or skin reaction whatsoever.
Still, TPO was banned for cosmetic use.
I have serious concerns about this. Not only as a chemist. Not only as a distributor. But also as a citizen, professional, and human being. Because this way of working – where a ban based on REACH animal tests is rolled out to cosmetics – undermines the animal testing ban in our industry.
It feels like a legal backdoor. A clever way to sneak animal testing into cosmetic legislation. And that’s not only legally questionable, it’s fundamentally unfair to everyone who does follow the rules.
That is why I wrote an official letter to the European Commission requesting clarification. I have also informed FPS Public Health, the relevant Flemish and federal ministers, and animal rights organisation GAIA. I attached the full animal testing report to my letter – and it is truly shocking.
Because I simply can’t do otherwise.
Every day I see colleagues and clients rebuilding their lives and careers after COVID. Investing in quality, education, and ethics. And then this measure comes along, based on a morally flawed and legally dubious precedent, shaking our industry once again.
Maybe it won’t change anything.
But maybe it will.
And if no one speaks up, nothing will ever change.
As Within Temptation sings:
“Someone has to take a stand against evil. Why should it not be me?”
I am not an activist.
I am a scientist. An entrepreneur. An educator.
But above all, I am someone who believes in justice, transparency, and responsibility.
But as long as no one stands up, nothing will change.