Original source
Scientific opinion
Scientific Opinion on Prostaglandin Analogues: Methylamido-Dihydro-Noralfaprostal (MDN), Isopropyl Cloprostenate (IPCP), Dechloro Dihydroxy Difluoro Ethylcloprostenolamide (DDDE)
- Official date
- 2026-02-10
Unlock the official file
Business Impact stays free. Paid plans unlock the original source, official text, and Regulatory Details — plus Workbench and Verify credits.
**Instrument:** SCCS Final Opinion SCCS/1680/25**Scope:** Ethyl Tafluprostamide, Methylamido-Dihydro-Noralfaprostal, Isopropyl Cloprostenate in eyelash and eyebrow cosmetic products**Dates:** Adopted 2 February 2026; published 10 February 2026**Key Findings:**– None of the three PGAs are considered safe for use in eyelash/eyebrow growth products.– Concerns based on potent pharmacological activity and lack of acceptable reproductive/developmental toxicity data.– No genotoxicity potential, but non-genotoxic carcinogenicity cannot be excluded.**Next Steps:** The European Commission will consider this opinion in regulatory decision-making under Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009.
The EU Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) has concluded that three prostaglandin analogues used in eyelash and eyebrow growth products are not safe at the proposed concentrations. This means products containing these ingredients may face regulatory restrictions or bans in the EU. Companies using these ingredients should assess their product portfolios and prepare for potential reformulation or market withdrawal.
Official text
English translation — the official-language text prevails
Having evaluated all the evidence provided by the Applicants to support the safe use of the three prostaglandin analogues (PGAs) – Isopropyl Cloprostenate, Methylamido-Dihydro-Noralfaprostal and Dechloro Dihydroxy Difluoro Ethylcloprostenolamide – the SCCS is of the opinion that none of them can be considered safe for use in cosmetic products intended for promoting the growth of eyelashes and eyebrows. The SCCS conclusion is based on the potent pharmacological activity of the PGAs, even at low concentrations, and the lack of acceptable data that would make it possible to exclude any potential adverse effects resulting from reproductive/developmental toxicity. The latter is crucially important for PGAs in view that users of the PGA-containing cosmetic products will most likely be women of child-bearing age. More details on the SCCS concerns regarding safety of the PGAs are given in the section 8. The available evidence has shown that neither of the 3 PGAs assessed in this Opinion has a potential for genotoxicity, and hence no concern over genotoxic carcinogenicity. However, as indicated in the previous SCCS Opinion (SCCS/1635/21), in the absence of experimental data on carcinogenicity, the possibility of non-genotoxic carcinogenicity cannot be excluded.