By the time you have certainty, millions have already been exposed.
TPO and DMTA, petroleum-derived photoinitiators in gel nails, are classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic, and reprotoxic—banned immediately across EU salons. Spanish women use ~14 cosmetics daily containing 38+ components each; disruptors are also found in toothpaste, shampoos, and sunscreen—totaling 500+ chemicals.
- TPO and DMTA banned immediately across EU; no stock depletion allowed
- Spanish women use ~14 cosmetics daily with 38+ components each; 500+ total chemicals yearly
- Chemicals classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic, and reprotoxic
- 30+ years often pass between toxicity detection and market removal
The EU has banned two toxic compounds (TPO and DMTA) used in gel nail polish due to reproductive and endocrine-disrupting risks. Experts warn of slow regulatory timelines despite widespread chemical exposure in cosmetics.
The European Union has moved to eliminate two chemicals from gel nail polish that scientists say pose serious risks to pregnancy and reproductive health. The compounds—Trimethylbenzoyl Diphenylphosphine Oxide, known as TPO, and Dimethyltolylamine, or DMTA—have been used for years to harden and bind nail gel under ultraviolet light. As of now, they are banned entirely across the EU. Salons cannot sell through existing stock. The products must be removed from shelves completely. There are no exceptions and no phase-out period.
Both chemicals are petroleum derivatives classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic, and reprotoxic—meaning they can damage fertility and reproduction. They also function as endocrine disruptors, substances that interfere with the body's hormone messaging system once absorbed. Nicolás Olea, a professor emeritus at the University of Granada and coordinator of the Endocrinology and Environment group at Spain's Society of Endocrinology and Nutrition, explained to the news agency EFE that these are the latest in a long line of toxic cosmetic ingredients to be banned, but the regulatory pace remains troublingly slow.
The scale of chemical exposure in everyday life is staggering. The average Spanish woman uses about fourteen cosmetic products daily. Each product contains roughly thirty-eight different components. Across a year, that adds up to more than five hundred distinct chemicals entering the body through skin and inhalation. And cosmetics are only part of the picture. Pesticides on food, chemicals in textiles, plastics in packaging—the cumulative load is enormous. Endocrine disruptors lurk in toothpaste, shower gels, shampoos, detergents, facial creams, and sunscreen. They are everywhere.
Olea stressed that endocrine disruptors work by hijacking the body's chemical messaging system. Hormones are messengers that allow organs to communicate. These disruptors intercept those messages, dampening them or amplifying them, throwing the system into chaos. The danger is particularly acute for pregnant women and women of reproductive age, whose bodies are most sensitive to hormonal interference.
What troubles experts most is the glacial pace of regulation. Sometimes more than thirty years pass between the first scientific evidence of a chemical's toxicity and its removal from the market. By then, millions of people have been exposed. Olea argued for the precautionary principle—the idea that if there is reasonable suspicion of harm, exposure should be avoided immediately, not after proof is absolute. "It is good that these measures are being taken," he said, "but it is a shame they take so long. The industry has safer alternatives available."
The EU has signaled that more bans are coming. In 2025 and 2026, microplastics and nanoparticles of silver, gold, and copper used in cosmetics and ultraviolet filters will be prohibited. Yet even as these decisions move forward, the regulatory machinery grinds slowly. The question hanging over the conversation is whether caution will ever move fast enough to protect people before they are harmed.
Citas Notables
It is good that these measures are being taken, but it is a shame they take so long. The industry has safer alternatives available.— Nicolás Olea, professor emeritus at University of Granada
When we have complete proof of toxicity, it will be too late. The precautionary principle tells us we must avoid exposure if we have reasonable suspicion of risk.— Nicolás Olea
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why does it take so long to ban something once scientists know it's dangerous?
Because the burden of proof is set very high. Regulators want absolute certainty before they act. But by the time you have that certainty, millions of people have already been exposed. It's a system built for caution about industry, not caution about harm.
So the ban on TPO and DMTA—does that mean gel nails are suddenly safe now?
Not entirely. It means two specific chemicals are gone. But gel nails still involve ultraviolet light exposure, and the replacement chemicals haven't been studied as thoroughly. We're always one step behind.
You mentioned five hundred chemicals from cosmetics alone. How does a person even begin to reduce that?
Most people can't, realistically. You'd have to stop using almost everything. What matters more is pressure on manufacturers to reformulate and on regulators to move faster. Individual choice has limits when the chemicals are this pervasive.
Is pregnancy the only time this matters?
No. Endocrine disruptors affect everyone—children, men, women. But pregnancy is when the damage is most visible and most consequential. A disrupted hormone signal during fetal development can affect a person for life.
What would faster regulation actually look like?
It would mean banning chemicals on suspicion of harm, not waiting for proof. It would mean the precautionary principle becomes law, not just an idea. And it would mean the industry bears the burden of proving safety, not the public bearing the burden of proving danger.