Hormones — small signaling molecules like estrogens, androgens, thyroid hormones, cortisol, insulin — orchestrate development, growth, metabolism, reproduction, and homeostasis. A substance is considered an endocrine‑disrupting chemical (EDC) if it can mimic, block, or otherwise interfere with the synthesis, secretion, transport, binding, action, or elimination of natural hormones. Endocrine disruption can occur via multiple mechanisms: receptor agonism/antagonism, altered hormone synthesis or metabolism, interference with transport proteins, or epigenetic modulation.
Personal care products can contain low‑molecular‑weight, lipophilic substances that penetrate skin or that are systemically absorbed via inhalation or ingestion (e.g., hand‑to‑mouth contact). Repeated, low‑level exposures over a lifetime — including critical developmental windows such as gestation, infancy, and puberty — are central to concerns about long‑term health effects.
Common hormone‑mimicking ingredients in body products
- Phthalates Description: Phthalates are plasticizers used to increase flexibility of plastics and as solvents/fragrance carriers in cosmetics. Common phthalates include diethyl phthalate (DEP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP), and di(2‑ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP). Mechanism: Many phthalates are anti‑androgenic in animal models, reducing testosterone synthesis and disrupting male reproductive development. Some metabolites can bind to nuclear receptors or interfere with steroidogenesis. Uses in products: Fragrances, nail polishes, hair sprays, lotions, and packaging residues. Evidence summary: Animal studies demonstrate reproductive toxicity for several phthalates at high doses; human biomonitoring consistently finds phthalate metabolites in urine worldwide. Epidemiological studies link prenatal phthalate exposure to altered anogenital distance in boys, changes in male reproductive hormones, altered neurodevelopment, and associations with metabolic effects. Causality is complicated by co‑exposures and inconsistent effect sizes. Regulatory status: Some phthalates (e.g., DEHP, DBP) are restricted in the EU and in consumer products in some jurisdictions; regulators continue to evaluate DEP. The FDA currently states that phthalates as used in cosmetics do not have evidence of safety concerns but continues to monitor research.
- Parabens Description: Parabens (methylparaben, ethylparaben, propylparaben, butylparaben) are esters of p‑hydroxybenzoic acid used widely as antimicrobial preservatives. Mechanism: Parabens exhibit weak estrogenic activity in vitro and in animal models; potency is orders of magnitude less than endogenous estrogens. Uses: Preservatives in creams, lotions, shampoos, makeup. Evidence summary: Parabens are easily detected in human urine and sometimes in breast tissue samples. Laboratory studies show estrogenic binding at high concentrations; epidemiological links to breast cancer or infertility remain inconclusive. Toxicological panels have set acceptable exposure levels based on NOAELs and safety factors. Regulatory status: Many regulators (e.g., Cosmetic Ingredient Review panels, EU) have assessed parabens. Short‑chain parabens (methyl, ethyl) are generally considered safe at permitted concentrations; concerns have prompted limits or bans on some longer‑chain parabens (butyl, propyl) in certain regions or product types (e.g., products intended for children).
- Bisphenols (BPA and analogs) Description: Bisphenol A (BPA) and replacements (BPS, BPF) are used in polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins; they show up as contaminants in some packaging or formulation components. Mechanism: BPA is a known estrogen receptor agonist and can interfere with multiple hormone pathways. Uses in products: Primarily packaging and container linings; sometimes contaminant residues in formulations. Evidence summary: Widespread human exposure with measurable urinary metabolites. Animal and some human studies suggest associations with metabolic disease, reproductive outcomes, and developmental effects at low doses, but debates about low‑dose extrapolation continue. Regulatory status: BPA is restricted in baby bottles and some food contact materials in many countries; cosmetics regulators focus on preventing contamination.
- Triclosan and Triclocarban Description: Antimicrobial agents formerly common in antibacterial soaps and some toothpastes. Mechanism: May interfere with thyroid hormone pathways and estrogen/androgen signaling in animals. Uses: Historically in antibacterial soaps and personal care; many uses phased out. Evidence summary: Concerns about endocrine activity and antibiotic resistance; regulatory actions have limited or banned triclosan in certain rinse‑off products. Regulatory status: Phased out in many consumer wash products and removed from many formulations.
- UV filters (oxybenzone, octinoxate, homosalate, octocrylene) Description: Organic (chemical) sunscreen filters absorb UV radiation; some are systemically absorbed. Mechanism: Some organic UV filters have shown estrogenic or anti‑androgenic activity in vitro and in certain animal studies. Uses: Sunscreens, daily moisturizers with SPF, makeup with SPF. Evidence summary: Detection of certain UV filters (notably oxybenzone) in blood, urine, breast milk, and amniotic fluid has raised concern; however, human evidence linking typical sunscreen use to adverse endocrine outcomes is limited and conflicting. The protective public‑health benefits of sunscreen against UV damage complicate risk–benefit assessments. Regulatory status: Some UV filters are under review; certain jurisdictions have restricted specific filters for environmental reasons (coral reef impacts) or recommended mineral sunscreens for pregnant women.
- Botanical estrogens and phytoestrogens Description: Plant‑derived compounds (e.g., soy isoflavones, hops phytoestrogens) included for marketing or therapeutic claims. Mechanism: Many bind to estrogen receptors with variable agonist/antagonist activity. Uses: ‘Natural’ creams, anti‑aging serums, hormone balance products. Evidence summary: Effects depend on dose, route, and receptor subtype; topical exposure typically yields lower systemic absorption than dietary intake, but high‑concentration formulations may deliver significant exposure. Regulatory status: Generally allowed but marketing claims are regulated to prevent disease claims.
Mechanisms of endocrine disruption: how small doses matter
Hormonal systems are highly sensitive during certain windows (fetal development, infancy, puberty). Small perturbations during these windows can have outsized developmental effects. Mechanisms include:
• Receptor binding: A chemical mimics estrogen and binds to estrogen receptors (ERα/ERβ), producing estrogenic effects. • Receptor antagonism: A chemical blocks androgen receptors, reducing androgenic signaling. • Enzyme interference: Chemicals alter aromatase, 5α‑reductase, or steroidogenic enzymes, changing hormone levels. • Thyroid disruption: Some chemicals bind to transport proteins or enzymes affecting thyroid hormone availability. • Epigenetic changes: EDCs can cause methylation or histone changes that modify gene expression long term.
Dose–response complexities
Traditional toxicology relies on the dose makes the poison. Endocrine disruption challenges this: nonmonotonic dose–response curves mean low doses can have different (sometimes stronger) effects than high doses. Timing and chronicity of exposure are as important as absolute dose.
Evidence from human studies and limitations
Biomonitoring demonstrates near‑ubiquitous exposure to many suspect chemicals. Human studies show associations between exposure biomarkers and outcomes (reproductive development, altered sperm parameters, earlier puberty, metabolic changes, neurodevelopmental effects). However, limitations include:
• Confounding and co‑exposures: People are exposed to mixtures; isolating single‑chemical effects is hard. • Reverse causation and measurement error: Single urine samples may poorly represent long‑term exposure for non‑persistent chemicals. • Small effect sizes and inconsistent replication: Different cohorts and exposure windows yield variable results. • Extrapolation from high‑dose animal studies to low‑dose human exposures remains a major scientific debate.
Benefits and trade‑offs: why these ingredients are used
Preservation and product safety: Parabens and some biocides prevent microbial growth; removing effective preservatives can increase risk of contaminated products, which can cause infections and spoilage. Functional performance: Phthalates help fragrances stay on skin; UV filters protect from UV radiation and prevent skin cancer and photoaging; formulation chemistries often rely on specific classes of molecules to achieve stability, texture, and efficacy. Consumer preference and marketing: “Paraben‑free” and “phthalate‑free” labels have commercial value. Manufacturers sometimes replace an ingredient with an alternative that is less studied, which may or may not be safer (the regrettable substitution problem).
Regulatory frameworks and risk assessment
Regulatory approaches to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) in personal care products vary significantly across jurisdictions. In the European Union (EU), the regulatory framework is more precautionary and centralized, with the EU Cosmetics Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 requiring pre-market safety assessment of all cosmetic ingredients. The EU maintains a list of prohibited substances and restricts use of specific EDCs based on hazard identification and risk assessment. Chemicals identified as carcinogenic, mutagenic, or toxic to reproduction (CMRs) — including certain phthalates and parabens — are automatically banned unless a specific exemption is granted, and endocrine activity is explicitly considered in safety evaluations. Furthermore, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) coordinate on endocrine disruptor criteria, aiming for harmonized evaluation across product categories.
In contrast, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates cosmetics under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), which does not require pre-market approval for most cosmetics (with the exception of color additives). Manufacturers are responsible for ensuring product safety, but no centralized ingredient approval process exists. The FDA can take enforcement action if products are found to be adulterated or misbranded, but the burden of proof is generally higher than in the EU. For EDCs, the FDA often defers to broader toxicological literature and collaborates with the National Toxicology Program (NTP) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has more explicit authority over chemical hazard evaluation.
Other jurisdictions fall somewhere between these approaches. Canada uses a risk-based system under the Food and Drugs Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) to review cosmetic ingredients for potential harm, sometimes aligning with EU restrictions. Japan and Australia maintain positive and negative ingredient lists, with specific limits for certain EDCs. Many developing countries rely on international guidance (such as WHO or OECD testing protocols) but may lack enforcement resources.
Risk assessment for suspected EDCs typically follows a multi-step process:
- Hazard identification – Determining whether a substance has the potential to disrupt endocrine function based on in vitro, in vivo, and epidemiological data.
- Dose–response assessment – Establishing the relationship between exposure and effect, accounting for non-monotonic curves when relevant.
- Exposure assessment – Estimating realistic consumer exposure through dermal absorption, inhalation, or incidental ingestion, considering product use patterns.
- Risk characterization – Integrating hazard and exposure data to determine whether the chemical poses a risk under actual conditions of use.
The challenge lies in translating mechanistic or high-dose animal data to real-world human exposures, especially when effects are subtle, delayed, or occur at critical developmental stages.
Industry trends and reformulation challenges
Growing consumer awareness of EDCs has spurred a wave of reformulation in the personal care industry. “Free-from” labeling — such as paraben-free, phthalate-free, or BPA-free — has become a marketing mainstay. However, replacing well-characterized ingredients with novel substitutes can present regrettable substitution risks, where alternatives are later found to have similar or greater hazards due to inadequate pre-market testing.
For example, BPA has been replaced in some packaging with bisphenol analogs like BPS or BPF, which share structural similarities and may have comparable estrogenic potential. Similarly, parabens have been replaced with preservatives such as methylisothiazolinone (MIT) or phenoxyethanol — both of which have their own toxicological concerns (e.g., skin sensitization for MIT). Reformulation can also alter product stability, texture, or shelf life, potentially impacting consumer safety in other ways.
Large manufacturers often have in-house toxicology teams that conduct risk assessments and work with ingredient suppliers to identify safer alternatives. Smaller brands may rely heavily on third-party certifications (e.g., ECOCERT, EWG Verified, COSMOS Standard) to guide formulation choices, although these certifications vary in scientific rigor and often emphasize natural origin rather than comprehensive safety assessment.
Practical guidance for consumers
Navigating personal care product safety requires balancing potential risks with the proven benefits of hygiene, skin care, and sun protection. Practical tips include:
- Prioritize essential products: Focus on items with demonstrated health benefits, such as sunscreen for UV protection, but consider mineral-based formulations (zinc oxide, titanium dioxide) if you wish to reduce exposure to certain chemical UV filters.
- Read ingredient lists: Look for recognized names of EDCs (e.g., oxybenzone, propylparaben, triclosan) and decide if you want to avoid them.
- Be cautious with “natural” claims: Natural ingredients can also have endocrine activity (e.g., phytoestrogens) and are not inherently safer.
- Use fewer products: Reducing the number of daily products can lower cumulative exposure.
- Avoid fragranced items if concerned about phthalates: Choose fragrance-free or naturally scented products with transparent labeling.
- Stay updated: Follow reputable sources such as the FDA, ECHA, or WHO for changes in safety assessments.
Recommendations for industry and policymakers
For manufacturers:
- Conduct comprehensive pre-market testing of alternatives, including endocrine activity screening.
- Disclose all fragrance and preservative components to improve transparency.
- Avoid regrettable substitutions by considering structural analogs’ potential hazards.
For regulators:
- Harmonize global definitions and testing criteria for endocrine disruption.
- Expand biomonitoring programs to track exposure trends.
- Encourage data sharing between jurisdictions and agencies to accelerate hazard identification.
- Consider cumulative risk assessment for chemical mixtures rather than single-substance evaluations.
For researchers:
- Focus on longitudinal human studies capturing early-life exposures and long-term outcomes.
- Develop better in vitro and computational models to predict low-dose, chronic effects.
- Investigate the toxicology of replacement chemicals before they become widespread.
Conclusion
Endocrine-disrupting chemicals in personal care products represent a complex intersection of chemistry, human biology, toxicology, public health, and consumer behavior. While the presence of a chemical with endocrine activity in a product does not automatically mean it poses a health risk, the potential for subtle, long-term effects — especially during vulnerable developmental stages — justifies continued research, monitoring, and precautionary approaches. The science is nuanced: laboratory evidence often shows biological plausibility, but translating these findings to human health impacts requires careful interpretation of exposure levels, timing, and individual variability.
From a public health perspective, the challenge is twofold: protecting people from possible harms while ensuring access to effective, safe, and affordable personal care products. Regulation, industry innovation, and informed consumer choice must work together to achieve this balance. Ultimately, the goal is not to induce fear but to foster transparency, accountability, and evidence-based decision-making in a market that touches billions of lives every day.
SOURCES
Darbre, P. D. (2006). Environmental oestrogens, cosmetics and breast cancer. Best Practice & Research Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 20(1), 121–143.
Diamanti-Kandarakis, E., Bourguignon, J. P., Giudice, L. C., Hauser, R., Prins, G. S., Soto, A. M., Zoeller, R. T., & Gore, A. C. (2009). Endocrine-disrupting chemicals: An Endocrine Society scientific statement. Endocrine Reviews, 30(4), 293–342.
Gore, A. C., Chappell, V. A., Fenton, S. E., Flaws, J. A., Nadal, A., Prins, G. S., Toppari, J., & Zoeller, R. T. (2015). EDC-2: The Endocrine Society’s second scientific statement on endocrine-disrupting chemicals. Endocrine Reviews, 36(6), E1–E150.
Koniecki, D., Wang, R., Moody, R. P., & Zhu, J. (2011). Phthalates in cosmetic and personal care products: Concentrations and possible dermal exposure. Environmental Research, 111(3), 329–336.
Philippat, C., Bennett, D., Calafat, A. M., Picciotto, I. H., & Swan, S. H. (2015). Exposure to select phthalates and phenols through use of personal care products among Californian adults and their children. Environmental Research, 140, 369–376.
Rodricks, J. V., Swenberg, J. A., & Borzelleca, J. F. (2010). Triclosan: A critical review of the experimental data and development of margins of safety for consumer products. Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 40(5), 422–484.
SCCS (2021). Opinion on the safety of benzophenone-3 (oxybenzone) in cosmetic products. Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety. European Commission.
Tavares, R. S., Martins, F. C., Oliveira, P. J., Ramalho-Santos, J., & Peixoto, F. P. (2009). Parabens in male infertility — is there a mitochondrial connection? Reproductive Toxicology, 27(1), 1–7.
Vandenberg, L. N., Colborn, T., Hayes, T. B., Heindel, J. J., Jacobs, D. R., Lee, D. H., Shioda, T., Soto, A. M., vom Saal, F. S., Welshons, W. V., Zoeller, R. T., & Myers, J. P. (2012). Hormones and endocrine-disrupting chemicals: Low-dose effects and nonmonotonic dose responses. Endocrine Reviews, 33(3), 378–455.
WHO/UNEP (2013). State of the science of endocrine disrupting chemicals – 2012. World Health Organization & United Nations Environment Programme.
HISTORY
Current Version
Aug 12, 2025
Written By:
SUMMIYAH MAHMOOD