New SCCS rules on spray tan solutions

[JHall]

Had an update from Suntana today saying the following ....

New EU directive following a recent report from SCCS (Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety) means spray tan solution can no longer be produced in any strength greater than 14%

Does anyone else know anything more about this?

 

[soriminah]

Did it state why no stronger than 14%? I'd be interested to hear their reasoning.

 

[JHall]

No, that is all that is wrote on the Suntana fb page, it seems it might affect booster drops too, can't find anything on google about it yet

 

[CloudNine]

Will be very interesting to see the official information on this. I will make some enquiries.

 

[soriminah]

Here it is:

http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/consumer_safety/docs/sccs_o_048.pdf

It only talks about sprays between 8-14%. This was from December 2010 so maybe they've just passed new laws based on this report...

4. CONCLUSIONS

1. Does SCCS consider the use of Dihydroxyacetone (DHA) in cosmetic products safe for
the consumers when used in a maximum concentration up to 10.0%, taking into account
the data provided?

Based upon the available data, the SCCS is of the opinion that the use of
Dihydroxyacetone as a self-tanning ingredient in cosmetic formulations up to 10% will
not pose a risk to the health of the consumer.


2. DHA may also be used in "spray cabins" in aqueous solutions in concentrations between
8 and 14%. Does the SCCS consider this use and exposure safe for the consumers?

When using DHA in spray cabins in aqueous solutions, exposure via inhalation cannot be
excluded. The exposure may be single (frequency of use less than once per month) or
‘repeated’ (e.g. in extreme cases once per week).
For the single exposure, reference is made to the presented acute inhalation study in
rats, where the animals were exposed to DHA aerosols during 4 hours to the limit dose
level of 5000 mg DHA/m³. No effects were observed on the clinical level or on
macroscopic findings related to the respiratory tract or other organs.
As far as repeated exposure to DHA-containing self-tanning formulations is concerned,
the potential systemic exposure through inhalation appears to be negligible compared to
the calculated worst-case dermal exposure levels. The calculated overall systemic
exposure level generates a sufficiently high Margin of Safety.
Therefore, based upon the available information, the SCCS considers that the use of
Dihydroxyacetone as a self-tanning ingredient in spray cabins up to 14% will not pose a
risk to the health of the consumer.

3. Does the SCCS have any further scientific concerns regarding the use of DHA in a spray
solution as a tanning agent without UV?

In light of the answer to question 2, the SCCS has no further concerns.

 

[JHall]

urgh can't open the link

 

[JHall]

Thanks for adding the info, don't think my dance clients are going to be happy :sad:

 

[CloudNine]

As far as I can see this report is nearly a year old so just wondering if anyone has had any new information?

 

[Baggybear]

This report seems to be on about spray tanning in cubicles mainly - where it does mention tanning using a turbine pistol (so a 5008 etc..) it says under protective measures to be taken 'No specific measures' . So this means we don't have to do anything and can carry on as we are.

What I read of the report does not say we cannot use above 14% solutions, just that they were only using between 8% & 14% in the spray booths so the highest solution they tested for the report was 14%. This does not mean we can't use above 14%.

TBH I think this report does not really have anything to do with tanning using a turbine gun & tent. The only reference I saw to tanning in this way seemed to say that this way gives the least exposure to breathing in the solution anyway.

 

[JHall]

Suntana said they was sent a hard copy of the new ruling saying they can no longer produce higher than a 14%, they had a new 16% about the come out on sale which has now stopped and they are producing a 14% instead.

If Suntana have been sent this then I would imaging all companies who produce spray tan solutions have been sent it too, maybe some of them could comment here so we know for sure!

 

[Baggybear]

I want to read this ruling, if Suntanna have been sent it and they were also sent the report why have they not posted the ruling just like thay have posted the report?

Without seeing this ruling I am left with lots of questions:
Who is saying not to use above 14% - what governing body?
Who would we have to answer to if we did use above 14%?
What contries does this ruling affect?

 

[Tan Envy]

I'm keeping a close eye on this thread - would like to know for certain what the situation is.

Personally, I wouldn't use anything stronger than 12% DHA on anyone (including very olive skins).

 

[Baggybear]

I'm keeping a close eye on this thread - would like to know for certain what the situation is.

Personally, I wouldn't use anything stronger than 12% DHA on anyone (including very olive skins).

So I take it you don't use a fast tan then, as these are nearly all a high DHA solution left on for a shorter length of time.

 

[CloudNine]

So I take it you don't use a fast tan then, as these are nearly all a high DHA solution left on for a shorter length of time.

I think you'll find that Tan Envy uses Vani-T Velocity which is a 12% solution. Vani-T don't 'hide' the % of their rapid tan as has been suggested about other brands :wink2:

 

[Suntana]

The SCCS (Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety) were asked to consider the use of Dihydroxyacetone (DHA) in cosmetic products and whether it was safe for consumers. Based on the available information at the time, they came to the conclusion that the use of Dihydroxyacetone as a self-tanning ingredient in spray cabins up to 14% and the use of Dihydroxyacetone as a self-tanning ingredient in cosmetic formulations up to 10% would not pose a risk to the health of the consumer.

The SCCS don't make any reccomendations within this particular report on products containing more than 14% so we shouldn't jump to the conclusions. However, with the absence of any tangeble data regarding this subject we thought it would be responsible to avoid producing anything stronger than 14%DHA until there was some sound scientific advice. If the SCCS subsequently publish a report on stronger formulations and find that they too are safe then we will reconsider our position

As far as we are aware, there are no plans to legislate in the pipeline but the SCCS are one of the bodies who advise the legislators so don't be surprised if there is a ruling in due course

 

[Baggybear]

The SCCS (Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety) were asked to consider the use of Dihydroxyacetone (DHA) in cosmetic products and whether it was safe for consumers. Based on the available information at the time, they came to the conclusion that the use of Dihydroxyacetone as a self-tanning ingredient in spray cabins up to 14% and the use of Dihydroxyacetone as a self-tanning ingredient in cosmetic formulations up to 10% would not pose a risk to the health of the consumer.

The SCCS don't make any reccomendations within this particular report on products containing more than 14% so we shouldn't jump to the conclusions. However, with the absence of any tangeble data regarding this subject we thought it would be responsible to avoid producing anything stronger than 14%DHA until there was some sound scientific advice. If the SCCS subsequently publish a report on stronger formulations and find that they too are safe then we will reconsider our position

As far as we are aware, there are no plans to legislate in the pipeline but the SCCS are one of the bodies who advise the legislators so don't be surprised if there is a ruling in due course

So as I thought after reading the report. There is no legislation that says solution above 14% can't be produced, sold or used.

So we can continue to tan as we have been using any DHA strength we want to. The report states nothing on tanning with a turbine, gun & tent other than, it subjects the client to the least chance of breathing in the solution - therefore is better for them than tanning in enclosed booths which only used up to 14% solutions.

I get that Suntanna want to bring this report to the attention of thier customers (the therapists using their solutions) but I do feel the way it's been handled is not the best.

Some people have clearly been frightened into believing any solution above 14% is unsafe. A lack of testing or information about solutions above 14% DHA does not make it unsafe to use.

Maybe Suntanna should have released the statement above to their clients from the off so that they understood why they have downgraded to a new 14% solution instead of the planned 16%. Being safe and not sorry is fine but that should have been explained to the clients.

 

[Suntana]

We reiterate, this is just our opinion but we believe the safety of our customers should be paramount and in our opinion a "better to be safe than sorry" attitude is definitely the most responsible approach.