SCCS/1680/25: Prostaglandin Analogues in Eyelash Serums Deemed Not Safe

The EU Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) has assessed three prostaglandin analogues for eyelash and eyebrow products. The result is unambiguous: none of the substances is considered safe. The opinion SCCS/1680/25 was adopted on 2 February 2026 and published on 10 February 2026.

What it is about

Prostaglandin analogues (PGAs) are synthetic replicas of the body's own messenger substances. In eyelash serums, they are intended to promote the growth of eyelashes and eyebrows. At the request of the European Commission, the SCCS examined three of these substances:

• Methylamido-Dihydro-Noralfaprostal (MDN)
• Isopropyl Cloprostenate (IPCP)
• Dechloro Dihydroxy Difluoro Ethylcloprostenolamide (DDDE)

The assessment builds on an earlier opinion (SCCS/1635/21), in which the Committee had already raised concerns. The current request addressed, among other things, the question of whether certain maximum concentrations could be classified as safe: MDN up to 0.03 percent and IPCP up to 0.005 percent. The same request also referred to Ethyl Tafluprostamide up to 0.018 percent.

The result of the assessment

After evaluating all data submitted by the applicants, the SCCS concludes that none of the three assessed prostaglandin analogues (IPCP, MDN and DDDE) can be considered safe for use in cosmetic products intended to promote the growth of eyelashes and eyebrows.

The Committee cites two main reasons for this:

• Strong pharmacological effect: The substances show significant pharmacological activity even at low concentrations.
• Lack of data on reproductive and developmental toxicity: There is insufficient data available to rule out possible harmful effects on reproduction and the development of the unborn child.

The SCCS emphasizes that this last point carries particular weight. Users of eyelash serums are highly likely to be women of childbearing age. The Committee therefore attaches decisive importance to the absence of robust data on reproductive toxicity.

Genotoxicity and carcinogenicity

Regarding genotoxicity, that is, possible damage to genetic material, the Committee gives the all-clear. The available data show no genotoxic potential for any of the three assessed PGAs. There is therefore no suspicion of genotoxic carcinogenicity.

However, one point remains open: as already noted in the previous opinion SCCS/1635/21, the SCCS points out that experimental data on carcinogenicity are lacking. As a result, non-genotoxic carcinogenicity cannot be ruled out. The Committee does not provide a final conclusion on this point but explicitly flags this gap.

The SCCS also does not answer the alternative maximum concentrations mentioned in the request with a specific safe value. Since the substances are fundamentally not classified as safe, the Committee does not name a safe maximum concentration for MDN, IPCP or Ethyl Tafluprostamide.

Who is affected by the opinion

Manufacturers and distributors of eyelash and eyebrow serums whose formulations rely on prostaglandin analogues are affected. This applies in particular to products containing the ingredients Isopropyl Cloprostenate, Methylamido-Dihydro-Noralfaprostal or Dechloro Dihydroxy Difluoro Ethylcloprostenolamide.

Important for classification purposes: an SCCS opinion is a scientific assessment, not yet a legal provision. However, it regularly forms the basis for subsequent amendments to the annexes of Regulation (EU) No 1223/2009 on cosmetic products. The opinion does not specify a concrete date or transitional period for any possible regulatory implementation. For the manufacturer's own safety assessment under Annex I, however, the scientific findings are already relevant now, since the safety assessor must take into account the current state of scientific knowledge.

What manufacturers should check now

Manufacturers should first clarify whether their formulations contain any of the prostaglandin analogues mentioned. A review of the INCI names of growth and care products provides clarity. The following steps are recommended:

• Review formulations for IPCP, MDN, DDDE and related prostaglandin analogues.
• Have the existing safety assessment (CPSR, Cosmetic Product Safety Report, safety report under Annex I) reviewed in light of the new opinion.
• Critically assess claims regarding eyelash and eyebrow growth.
• Examine alternative formulation approaches without pharmacologically active prostaglandin analogues.

The full text of the opinion is provided by the European Commission. You can find the document SCCS/1680/25 in the publication on the Commission's website as well as in the overview of all SCCS opinions.

If you would like to check whether your eyelash or eyebrow products are affected by this assessment, our team can support you with the safety assessment and the maintenance of the product information file. Learn more via our request page.