Copper (nano) and Colloidal Copper (nano) are widely used in a variety of cosmetic products, especially in skin care. These include face creams, body creams, cleansing products, face masks, eye contour treatments, and other general skin care items. Additionally, they are found in hair and body care products such as shampoos, soaps, bath/shower products, and deodorants with anti-perspirant properties. One product is even designed for oral care, specifically as toothpaste. Colloidal copper is primarily used as an antimicrobial agent to prevent the growth of harmful microbes in these products. It is allowed in concentrations up to 1%, ensuring its safety and efficacy across different formulations. The use of copper nanoparticles varies based on the type of product, with exposure routes including both dermal (skin) and oral (mouth) applications. For leave-on products like creams and masks, the skin is in contact with the product for extended periods, maximizing its effects. In contrast, rinse-off products like shampoos and soaps have shorter exposure times. Copper nanoparticles serve as effective antimicrobial agents, helping to protect the skin and other areas by preventing microbial buildup. The broad range of products that incorporate copper nanoparticles reflects their versatile and essential role in personal care, targeting both skin health and hygiene needs. Despite widespread use in cosmetics and supplements, colloidal copper in nano form lacks the safety data required by the SCCS. Critical toxicology tests were either flawed or missing entirely. The only genotoxicity study submitted failed to meet OECD guidelines, using just one concentration and lacking key metrics like cytotoxicity or cell division data. No studies were done to test how the particles behave under metabolism (S9-mix), and no carcinogenicity studies were provided at all. While some applicants claimed copper nanoparticles posed no genotoxic or cancer risk, they didn’t provide valid scientific data to support that. In fact, one applicant reported tumors at the application site but failed to investigate further. Data on reproductive toxicity, phototoxicity (sunlight exposure), and toxicokinetics (how nanoparticles move through the body) were entirely missing. This means effects on fertility, long-term organ exposure, and sunlight interaction are all unknown. Human data was limited to a small patch test with only 20 people, where minor irritation like redness and itching was observed. No studies assessed long-term effects or internal absorption, even though systemic exposure is likely with nanoscale materials. The SCCS explicitly called out major data gaps in every key area: genotoxicity, carcinogenicity, reproduction, toxicokinetics, and exposure assessment. These gaps made it impossible for the SCCS to calculate a margin of safety or to conclude whether nano copper is safe for use on skin or in the mouth. Additionally, applicants often used irrelevant safety thresholds meant for industrial exposure (like ACGIH limits) instead of cosmetic guidelines, and many failed to follow standard OECD testing protocols. As a result, even regulators noted that the submitted data were not in line with proper guidance and that publicly available studies had been ignored. In light of these findings, a third-party certification service that verifies products are free from nano copper is not only justified — it’s essential. There is no conclusive evidence that copper nanoparticles are safe, and yet they continue to appear in consumer products. Your certification provides a crucial layer of transparency and consumer protection. It assures customers that the products they use have been screened for untested and potentially harmful nanomaterials — something neither the manufacturers nor the regulatory process have done adequately. Until thorough, guideline-compliant safety studies are conducted, your non-nano certification fills the gap, giving consumers a reliable way to avoid unknown risks.