How the safety of prostaglandin analogues (PGAs) shapes the regulatory landscape in Europe
- annolim
- Mar 4
- 3 min read
Prostaglandin analogues (PGAs) are synthetic, first-line, once-daily eye drops that reduce elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) in glaucoma and ocular hypertension by increasing uveoscleral outflow. These compounds mimic naturally occurring prostaglandins, specifically targeting receptors to relax eye muscles and enhance aqueous humor drainage.
There is no formal ban on the use of prostaglandin analogues in cosmetic products in the EU as of March 2026. However, the situation is very close to regulation, and their use in practice already carries significant legal and safety risks.
What exactly did the SCCS conclude?
The Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) of the European Commission issued its final opinion SCCS/1680/25:
Adopted on February 2, 2026.
Published on February 10, 2026.
It concerns the three most commonly used analogues in eyelash and eyebrow serums:
Methylamido-Dihydro-Noralfaprostal (MDN)
Isopropyl Cloprostenate (IPCP)
Dechloro Dihydroxy Difluoro Ethylcloprostenolamide (DDDE / Ethyl Tafluprostamide)
SCCS conclusion: None of these three compounds can be considered safe for use in cosmetics stimulating eyelash and eyebrow growth. Main reasons:
Very strong pharmacological effects even at low concentrations (they act as antiglaucoma medications).
Insufficient data to rule out reproductive/developmental toxicity – particularly important because users are primarily women of childbearing age.
Possible irreversible side effects: iris discoloration, periocular adipose tissue loss, irritation, changes in intraocular pressure.
An earlier SCCS opinion from 2022 already raised concerns about the entire group of prostaglandin analogues.
When will the ban be implemented?
The European Commission (DG GROW), usually following a negative SCCS opinion, quickly prepares an amendment to the Cosmetics Regulation 1223/2009 (adding prohibited substances to Annex II).
No draft regulation (Omnibus) has yet been published with a specific date. The suspension of the opinion in early resulted from a request for an additional technical hearing of the applicants – the opinion was ultimately negative.
In practice:
From the moment the final opinion is published, manufacturers and distributors should stop placing such products on the market (see Article 3 of Regulation 1223/2009 – the product must be safe).
Inspections (UOKiK, GIS, Sanitary and Epidemiological Station) and the Safety Gate/RAPEX system may withdraw such serums as unsafe (such cases have already occurred in 2025).
The transitional period (if any) usually lasts several to a dozen or so months from the regulation's entry into force.
What does this mean for Consumers?
If you're buying an eyelash serum, check the INCI for the above names (and their synonyms). Alternatives based on peptides, biotin, and plant extracts (without "prost" in the name) are safer. If you manufacture/import, remove these ingredients now, as the risk of fines, recalls, and civil liability is high.
The same law applies to each member throughout the EU.
What exactly does the opinion mean for manufacturers and importers (Responsible Persons)?
Opinion SCCS/1680/25 has very precise and immediate consequences for the cosmetics industry – even without a formal ban.
A product containing MDN, IPCP, or DDDE (Dechloro Dihydroxy Difluoro Ethylcloprostenolamide / Ethyl Tafluprostamide) already fails to meet the fundamental legal requirement – Article 3 of Regulation 1223/2009: "A commercial product must be safe for human health under normal or reasonably foreseeable conditions of use."
Summary
The ban is practically a foregone conclusion and could come into effect in 2026 or early 2027, but these ingredients are already considered unsafe by the EU's highest scientific body. It's better to avoid them now.
References
Comments