The Experts below are selected from a list of 75 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Eirini Panteri - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
SCCS OPINION on Titanium dioxide (TiO2) used in cosmetic products that lead to Exposure by Inhalation - SCCS/1617/20, Final Opinion
2020Co-Authors: Ulrike Bernauer, Pieter Jan Coenraads, L. Bodin, Q. Chaudhry, Maria Dusinska, Janine Ezendam, Eric Gaffet, C L Galli, Berit Granum, Eirini PanteriAbstract:SCCS OPINION on TTitanium dioxide (TiO2) used in cosmetic products that lead to Exposure by Inhalation - SCCS/1617/20, Final Opinion U. Bernauer, L. Bodin, Q. Chaudhry, (SCCS Chair), P.J. Coenraads (SCCS Vice-Chair and Chairperson of the WG), M. Dusinska, J. Ezendam, E. Gaffet, C. L. Galli, B. Granum, E. Panteri, V. Rogier (SCCS Vice-Chair), Ch. Rousselle, M. Stepnik, T. Vanhaecke, S. Wijnhoven (Rapporteur), A. Koutsodimou, A. Simonnard, W. Uter, N. von Goetz The SCCS adopted this document by written procedure on 6 October 2020 (67 Pages) Mise en ligne le 8 Octobre 2020 https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/scientific_committees/consumer_safety/docs/sccs_o_238.pdf Conclusion of the opinion: 1. In light of the data provided and of the possible classification as Carcinogen Cat. 2 (Inhalation) in Annex VI to Regulation (EC) n.1272/2008, does the SCCS consider Titanium dioxide safe when used as a UV-filter (entry 27 Annex VI) in cosmetic products up to a maximum concentration of 25 %, as a colorant (entry 143 Annex IV) and as an ingredient in all other cosmetic products? On the basis of safety assessment, the SCCS is of the opinion that the use of pigmentary titanium dioxide (TiO2) up to a maximum concentration of 25% in a typical hair styling aerosol spray product is not safe for either general consumers or hairdressers. The safety assessment has shown that the use of pigmentary TiO2 in loose powder up to a maximum concentration of 25% in a typical face make-up application is safe for the general consumer. It needs to be noted that these conclusions are based on safety assessment of TiO2 in the context of possible classification as category-2 carcinogen (via Inhalation). This means that the conclusions drawn in this Opinion are applicable to the use of pigmentary TiO2 in a cosmetic product that may give rise to consumer Exposure by the Inhalation route (i.e. aerosol, spray and powder form products). As such, the Opinion is not applicable to any pearlescent pigment because of the composite nature of such materials, of which TiO2 is only a minor constituent. 2. Alternatively, if up to 25% use is not considered safe, what is according to the SCCS, the maximum concentration considered safe for use of Titanium dioxide as an ingredient in cosmetic products? In the SCCS’s opinion, the use of pigmentary TiO2 in a typical hair styling aerosol spray product is safe up to a maximum concentration of 1.4 % for general consumers, and 1.1 % for hairdressers. 3. Does the SCCS have any further scientific concerns with regard to the use of Titanium dioxide in cosmetic products? It needs to be emphasised that the SCCS conclusions have been drawn from a very selected group of cosmetic products based on only one type of TiO2 material (pigmentary, anatase, surface-treated). In the absence of more information, it may not be clear whether these conclusions would be applicable to the use of pigmentary TiO2 materials in other similar types of cosmetic applications that may be on the market. In this regard, the SCCS is of the opinion that other applications of pigmentary TiO2 materials can also be considered safe if the MoS calculation is performed as detailed in the current Opinion, and if the resultant MoS for the combined use of different products is above 25 for general consumers and for hairdressers. Keywords: SCCS, scientific opinion, Titanium dioxide (TiO2), Regulation 1223/2009, CAS/EC numbers 13463-67-7/236-675-5, 1317-70-0/215-280-1, 1317-80-2/215-282-2 Opinion to be cited as: SCCS (Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety), Opinion on Titanium dioxide (TiO2), preliminary version of 7 August 2020, final version of 6 October 2020, SCCS/1617/20
-
sccs opinion on titanium dioxide tio2 used in cosmetic products that lead to Exposure by Inhalation sccs 1617 20 final opinion
2020Co-Authors: Ulrike Bernauer, Pieter Jan Coenraads, L. Bodin, Q. Chaudhry, Maria Dusinska, Janine Ezendam, Eric Gaffet, C L Galli, Berit Granum, Eirini PanteriAbstract:SCCS OPINION on TTitanium dioxide (TiO2) used in cosmetic products that lead to Exposure by Inhalation - SCCS/1617/20, Final Opinion U. Bernauer, L. Bodin, Q. Chaudhry, (SCCS Chair), P.J. Coenraads (SCCS Vice-Chair and Chairperson of the WG), M. Dusinska, J. Ezendam, E. Gaffet, C. L. Galli, B. Granum, E. Panteri, V. Rogier (SCCS Vice-Chair), Ch. Rousselle, M. Stepnik, T. Vanhaecke, S. Wijnhoven (Rapporteur), A. Koutsodimou, A. Simonnard, W. Uter, N. von Goetz The SCCS adopted this document by written procedure on 6 October 2020 (67 Pages) Mise en ligne le 8 Octobre 2020 https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/scientific_committees/consumer_safety/docs/sccs_o_238.pdf Conclusion of the opinion: 1. In light of the data provided and of the possible classification as Carcinogen Cat. 2 (Inhalation) in Annex VI to Regulation (EC) n.1272/2008, does the SCCS consider Titanium dioxide safe when used as a UV-filter (entry 27 Annex VI) in cosmetic products up to a maximum concentration of 25 %, as a colorant (entry 143 Annex IV) and as an ingredient in all other cosmetic products? On the basis of safety assessment, the SCCS is of the opinion that the use of pigmentary titanium dioxide (TiO2) up to a maximum concentration of 25% in a typical hair styling aerosol spray product is not safe for either general consumers or hairdressers. The safety assessment has shown that the use of pigmentary TiO2 in loose powder up to a maximum concentration of 25% in a typical face make-up application is safe for the general consumer. It needs to be noted that these conclusions are based on safety assessment of TiO2 in the context of possible classification as category-2 carcinogen (via Inhalation). This means that the conclusions drawn in this Opinion are applicable to the use of pigmentary TiO2 in a cosmetic product that may give rise to consumer Exposure by the Inhalation route (i.e. aerosol, spray and powder form products). As such, the Opinion is not applicable to any pearlescent pigment because of the composite nature of such materials, of which TiO2 is only a minor constituent. 2. Alternatively, if up to 25% use is not considered safe, what is according to the SCCS, the maximum concentration considered safe for use of Titanium dioxide as an ingredient in cosmetic products? In the SCCS’s opinion, the use of pigmentary TiO2 in a typical hair styling aerosol spray product is safe up to a maximum concentration of 1.4 % for general consumers, and 1.1 % for hairdressers. 3. Does the SCCS have any further scientific concerns with regard to the use of Titanium dioxide in cosmetic products? It needs to be emphasised that the SCCS conclusions have been drawn from a very selected group of cosmetic products based on only one type of TiO2 material (pigmentary, anatase, surface-treated). In the absence of more information, it may not be clear whether these conclusions would be applicable to the use of pigmentary TiO2 materials in other similar types of cosmetic applications that may be on the market. In this regard, the SCCS is of the opinion that other applications of pigmentary TiO2 materials can also be considered safe if the MoS calculation is performed as detailed in the current Opinion, and if the resultant MoS for the combined use of different products is above 25 for general consumers and for hairdressers. Keywords: SCCS, scientific opinion, Titanium dioxide (TiO2), Regulation 1223/2009, CAS/EC numbers 13463-67-7/236-675-5, 1317-70-0/215-280-1, 1317-80-2/215-282-2 Opinion to be cited as: SCCS (Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety), Opinion on Titanium dioxide (TiO2), preliminary version of 7 August 2020, final version of 6 October 2020, SCCS/1617/20
Robert Gelein - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Developmental neurotoxicity of methanol Exposure by Inhalation in rats.
Research report (Health Effects Institute), 1996Co-Authors: Bernard Weiss, Sander Stern, Sidney C. Soderholm, Christopher Cox, Archana Sharma, Geoffrey B. Inglis, Ray A. Preston, Marlene Balys, Kenneth R. Reuhl, Robert GeleinAbstract:The possibility of widespread methanol Exposure via Inhalation stemming from its adoption as an automotive fuel or fuel component arouses concerns about the potential vulnerability of the fetal brain. This project was designed to help address such concerns by studying the behavior of neonate and adult rats following perinatal Exposure to methanol vapor. Four cohorts of pregnant Long-Evans hooded rats, each cohort consisting of an Exposure and a control group, were exposed to 0 parts per million (ppm) (control) or 4,500 ppm methanol vapor for six hours daily beginning on gestation day (GD) 6 with dams and pups then being exposed postnatal day (PND) 21. Exposures took place in 2-m3 Rochester-type Inhalation chambers while the animals remained in their plastic breeder cages. Prenatal and postnatal blood methanol concentrations were determined by gas chromatography. Blood methanol concentrations of the dams, measured immediately following a six-hour Exposure, were approximately 500 to 800 micrograms/mL throughout gestation and lactation. Average blood methanol concentrations of the pups were about twice those of the dams. Because such results appeared consistently across the other cohorts, we decided to obtain additional data with Cohort 4. Once it had undergone the standard Exposure protocol, we selected sets of extra pups from those that had not been assigned previously to the adult phase of behavioral testing. Each set was exposed once, at ages that extended out to PND 52, for one additional six-hour session of Exposure to 4,500 ppm methanol. The blood methanol concentrations of these pups declined until about PND 48, at which time they approximated those of the dams. These findings might be accounted for by a process of metabolic maturation in the pups that remains to be identified.
Bernard Weiss - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Developmental neurotoxicity of methanol Exposure by Inhalation in rats. Research report, June 1990-June 1994
1996Co-Authors: Bernard Weiss, Sander Stern, Sidney C. Soderholm, Christopher Cox, Archana SharmaAbstract:The possibility of widespread methanol Exposure via Inhalation stemming from its adoption as an automotive fuel or fuel component arouses concern about the potential vulnerability of the fetal brain. This project was designed to help address such concerns by studying the behavior of neonate and adult Long-Evans hooded rats following perinatal Exposure to methanol vapor at 4,500 ppm for six hours daily beginning on gestation day 6 with both dams and pups then being exposed through postnatal day (PND) 21. Blood methanol concentrations of the dams, measured immediately following a six-hour Exposure, were approximately 500 to 800 micrograms/milliliter. Average blood methanol concentrations in the pups were about twice those of the dams. Neurotoxicity was assessed by behavioral tests used previously to reveal adverse effects following developmental Exposures to ethanol, cocaine, heavy metals, and other agents. Exposure of neonates to methanol did not affect suckling latency and attachment on PND 5, or performance on the conditioned olfactory aversion test on PND 10. Exposure to methanol did alter performances in the motor activity tests. Methanol-exposed neonates were less active on PND 18, but more active on PND 25 than the equivalent control-group pups. Schedule-controlled running in adults displayed a complex interaction withmore » treatment. Changes in performance over the course of training differed between males and females depending on Exposure to methanol. The results of the complex stochastic reinforcement schedule revealed behavioral differences due to methanol Exposure in adults that were relatively subtle in nature and appeared after a new pattern of contingencies was introduced.« less
-
Developmental neurotoxicity of methanol Exposure by Inhalation in rats.
Research report (Health Effects Institute), 1996Co-Authors: Bernard Weiss, Sander Stern, Sidney C. Soderholm, Christopher Cox, Archana Sharma, Geoffrey B. Inglis, Ray A. Preston, Marlene Balys, Kenneth R. Reuhl, Robert GeleinAbstract:The possibility of widespread methanol Exposure via Inhalation stemming from its adoption as an automotive fuel or fuel component arouses concerns about the potential vulnerability of the fetal brain. This project was designed to help address such concerns by studying the behavior of neonate and adult rats following perinatal Exposure to methanol vapor. Four cohorts of pregnant Long-Evans hooded rats, each cohort consisting of an Exposure and a control group, were exposed to 0 parts per million (ppm) (control) or 4,500 ppm methanol vapor for six hours daily beginning on gestation day (GD) 6 with dams and pups then being exposed postnatal day (PND) 21. Exposures took place in 2-m3 Rochester-type Inhalation chambers while the animals remained in their plastic breeder cages. Prenatal and postnatal blood methanol concentrations were determined by gas chromatography. Blood methanol concentrations of the dams, measured immediately following a six-hour Exposure, were approximately 500 to 800 micrograms/mL throughout gestation and lactation. Average blood methanol concentrations of the pups were about twice those of the dams. Because such results appeared consistently across the other cohorts, we decided to obtain additional data with Cohort 4. Once it had undergone the standard Exposure protocol, we selected sets of extra pups from those that had not been assigned previously to the adult phase of behavioral testing. Each set was exposed once, at ages that extended out to PND 52, for one additional six-hour session of Exposure to 4,500 ppm methanol. The blood methanol concentrations of these pups declined until about PND 48, at which time they approximated those of the dams. These findings might be accounted for by a process of metabolic maturation in the pups that remains to be identified.
Archana Sharma - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Developmental neurotoxicity of methanol Exposure by Inhalation in rats. Research report, June 1990-June 1994
1996Co-Authors: Bernard Weiss, Sander Stern, Sidney C. Soderholm, Christopher Cox, Archana SharmaAbstract:The possibility of widespread methanol Exposure via Inhalation stemming from its adoption as an automotive fuel or fuel component arouses concern about the potential vulnerability of the fetal brain. This project was designed to help address such concerns by studying the behavior of neonate and adult Long-Evans hooded rats following perinatal Exposure to methanol vapor at 4,500 ppm for six hours daily beginning on gestation day 6 with both dams and pups then being exposed through postnatal day (PND) 21. Blood methanol concentrations of the dams, measured immediately following a six-hour Exposure, were approximately 500 to 800 micrograms/milliliter. Average blood methanol concentrations in the pups were about twice those of the dams. Neurotoxicity was assessed by behavioral tests used previously to reveal adverse effects following developmental Exposures to ethanol, cocaine, heavy metals, and other agents. Exposure of neonates to methanol did not affect suckling latency and attachment on PND 5, or performance on the conditioned olfactory aversion test on PND 10. Exposure to methanol did alter performances in the motor activity tests. Methanol-exposed neonates were less active on PND 18, but more active on PND 25 than the equivalent control-group pups. Schedule-controlled running in adults displayed a complex interaction withmore » treatment. Changes in performance over the course of training differed between males and females depending on Exposure to methanol. The results of the complex stochastic reinforcement schedule revealed behavioral differences due to methanol Exposure in adults that were relatively subtle in nature and appeared after a new pattern of contingencies was introduced.« less
-
Developmental neurotoxicity of methanol Exposure by Inhalation in rats.
Research report (Health Effects Institute), 1996Co-Authors: Bernard Weiss, Sander Stern, Sidney C. Soderholm, Christopher Cox, Archana Sharma, Geoffrey B. Inglis, Ray A. Preston, Marlene Balys, Kenneth R. Reuhl, Robert GeleinAbstract:The possibility of widespread methanol Exposure via Inhalation stemming from its adoption as an automotive fuel or fuel component arouses concerns about the potential vulnerability of the fetal brain. This project was designed to help address such concerns by studying the behavior of neonate and adult rats following perinatal Exposure to methanol vapor. Four cohorts of pregnant Long-Evans hooded rats, each cohort consisting of an Exposure and a control group, were exposed to 0 parts per million (ppm) (control) or 4,500 ppm methanol vapor for six hours daily beginning on gestation day (GD) 6 with dams and pups then being exposed postnatal day (PND) 21. Exposures took place in 2-m3 Rochester-type Inhalation chambers while the animals remained in their plastic breeder cages. Prenatal and postnatal blood methanol concentrations were determined by gas chromatography. Blood methanol concentrations of the dams, measured immediately following a six-hour Exposure, were approximately 500 to 800 micrograms/mL throughout gestation and lactation. Average blood methanol concentrations of the pups were about twice those of the dams. Because such results appeared consistently across the other cohorts, we decided to obtain additional data with Cohort 4. Once it had undergone the standard Exposure protocol, we selected sets of extra pups from those that had not been assigned previously to the adult phase of behavioral testing. Each set was exposed once, at ages that extended out to PND 52, for one additional six-hour session of Exposure to 4,500 ppm methanol. The blood methanol concentrations of these pups declined until about PND 48, at which time they approximated those of the dams. These findings might be accounted for by a process of metabolic maturation in the pups that remains to be identified.
Ulrike Bernauer - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
SCCS OPINION on Titanium dioxide (TiO2) used in cosmetic products that lead to Exposure by Inhalation - SCCS/1617/20, Final Opinion
2020Co-Authors: Ulrike Bernauer, Pieter Jan Coenraads, L. Bodin, Q. Chaudhry, Maria Dusinska, Janine Ezendam, Eric Gaffet, C L Galli, Berit Granum, Eirini PanteriAbstract:SCCS OPINION on TTitanium dioxide (TiO2) used in cosmetic products that lead to Exposure by Inhalation - SCCS/1617/20, Final Opinion U. Bernauer, L. Bodin, Q. Chaudhry, (SCCS Chair), P.J. Coenraads (SCCS Vice-Chair and Chairperson of the WG), M. Dusinska, J. Ezendam, E. Gaffet, C. L. Galli, B. Granum, E. Panteri, V. Rogier (SCCS Vice-Chair), Ch. Rousselle, M. Stepnik, T. Vanhaecke, S. Wijnhoven (Rapporteur), A. Koutsodimou, A. Simonnard, W. Uter, N. von Goetz The SCCS adopted this document by written procedure on 6 October 2020 (67 Pages) Mise en ligne le 8 Octobre 2020 https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/scientific_committees/consumer_safety/docs/sccs_o_238.pdf Conclusion of the opinion: 1. In light of the data provided and of the possible classification as Carcinogen Cat. 2 (Inhalation) in Annex VI to Regulation (EC) n.1272/2008, does the SCCS consider Titanium dioxide safe when used as a UV-filter (entry 27 Annex VI) in cosmetic products up to a maximum concentration of 25 %, as a colorant (entry 143 Annex IV) and as an ingredient in all other cosmetic products? On the basis of safety assessment, the SCCS is of the opinion that the use of pigmentary titanium dioxide (TiO2) up to a maximum concentration of 25% in a typical hair styling aerosol spray product is not safe for either general consumers or hairdressers. The safety assessment has shown that the use of pigmentary TiO2 in loose powder up to a maximum concentration of 25% in a typical face make-up application is safe for the general consumer. It needs to be noted that these conclusions are based on safety assessment of TiO2 in the context of possible classification as category-2 carcinogen (via Inhalation). This means that the conclusions drawn in this Opinion are applicable to the use of pigmentary TiO2 in a cosmetic product that may give rise to consumer Exposure by the Inhalation route (i.e. aerosol, spray and powder form products). As such, the Opinion is not applicable to any pearlescent pigment because of the composite nature of such materials, of which TiO2 is only a minor constituent. 2. Alternatively, if up to 25% use is not considered safe, what is according to the SCCS, the maximum concentration considered safe for use of Titanium dioxide as an ingredient in cosmetic products? In the SCCS’s opinion, the use of pigmentary TiO2 in a typical hair styling aerosol spray product is safe up to a maximum concentration of 1.4 % for general consumers, and 1.1 % for hairdressers. 3. Does the SCCS have any further scientific concerns with regard to the use of Titanium dioxide in cosmetic products? It needs to be emphasised that the SCCS conclusions have been drawn from a very selected group of cosmetic products based on only one type of TiO2 material (pigmentary, anatase, surface-treated). In the absence of more information, it may not be clear whether these conclusions would be applicable to the use of pigmentary TiO2 materials in other similar types of cosmetic applications that may be on the market. In this regard, the SCCS is of the opinion that other applications of pigmentary TiO2 materials can also be considered safe if the MoS calculation is performed as detailed in the current Opinion, and if the resultant MoS for the combined use of different products is above 25 for general consumers and for hairdressers. Keywords: SCCS, scientific opinion, Titanium dioxide (TiO2), Regulation 1223/2009, CAS/EC numbers 13463-67-7/236-675-5, 1317-70-0/215-280-1, 1317-80-2/215-282-2 Opinion to be cited as: SCCS (Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety), Opinion on Titanium dioxide (TiO2), preliminary version of 7 August 2020, final version of 6 October 2020, SCCS/1617/20
-
sccs opinion on titanium dioxide tio2 used in cosmetic products that lead to Exposure by Inhalation sccs 1617 20 final opinion
2020Co-Authors: Ulrike Bernauer, Pieter Jan Coenraads, L. Bodin, Q. Chaudhry, Maria Dusinska, Janine Ezendam, Eric Gaffet, C L Galli, Berit Granum, Eirini PanteriAbstract:SCCS OPINION on TTitanium dioxide (TiO2) used in cosmetic products that lead to Exposure by Inhalation - SCCS/1617/20, Final Opinion U. Bernauer, L. Bodin, Q. Chaudhry, (SCCS Chair), P.J. Coenraads (SCCS Vice-Chair and Chairperson of the WG), M. Dusinska, J. Ezendam, E. Gaffet, C. L. Galli, B. Granum, E. Panteri, V. Rogier (SCCS Vice-Chair), Ch. Rousselle, M. Stepnik, T. Vanhaecke, S. Wijnhoven (Rapporteur), A. Koutsodimou, A. Simonnard, W. Uter, N. von Goetz The SCCS adopted this document by written procedure on 6 October 2020 (67 Pages) Mise en ligne le 8 Octobre 2020 https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/scientific_committees/consumer_safety/docs/sccs_o_238.pdf Conclusion of the opinion: 1. In light of the data provided and of the possible classification as Carcinogen Cat. 2 (Inhalation) in Annex VI to Regulation (EC) n.1272/2008, does the SCCS consider Titanium dioxide safe when used as a UV-filter (entry 27 Annex VI) in cosmetic products up to a maximum concentration of 25 %, as a colorant (entry 143 Annex IV) and as an ingredient in all other cosmetic products? On the basis of safety assessment, the SCCS is of the opinion that the use of pigmentary titanium dioxide (TiO2) up to a maximum concentration of 25% in a typical hair styling aerosol spray product is not safe for either general consumers or hairdressers. The safety assessment has shown that the use of pigmentary TiO2 in loose powder up to a maximum concentration of 25% in a typical face make-up application is safe for the general consumer. It needs to be noted that these conclusions are based on safety assessment of TiO2 in the context of possible classification as category-2 carcinogen (via Inhalation). This means that the conclusions drawn in this Opinion are applicable to the use of pigmentary TiO2 in a cosmetic product that may give rise to consumer Exposure by the Inhalation route (i.e. aerosol, spray and powder form products). As such, the Opinion is not applicable to any pearlescent pigment because of the composite nature of such materials, of which TiO2 is only a minor constituent. 2. Alternatively, if up to 25% use is not considered safe, what is according to the SCCS, the maximum concentration considered safe for use of Titanium dioxide as an ingredient in cosmetic products? In the SCCS’s opinion, the use of pigmentary TiO2 in a typical hair styling aerosol spray product is safe up to a maximum concentration of 1.4 % for general consumers, and 1.1 % for hairdressers. 3. Does the SCCS have any further scientific concerns with regard to the use of Titanium dioxide in cosmetic products? It needs to be emphasised that the SCCS conclusions have been drawn from a very selected group of cosmetic products based on only one type of TiO2 material (pigmentary, anatase, surface-treated). In the absence of more information, it may not be clear whether these conclusions would be applicable to the use of pigmentary TiO2 materials in other similar types of cosmetic applications that may be on the market. In this regard, the SCCS is of the opinion that other applications of pigmentary TiO2 materials can also be considered safe if the MoS calculation is performed as detailed in the current Opinion, and if the resultant MoS for the combined use of different products is above 25 for general consumers and for hairdressers. Keywords: SCCS, scientific opinion, Titanium dioxide (TiO2), Regulation 1223/2009, CAS/EC numbers 13463-67-7/236-675-5, 1317-70-0/215-280-1, 1317-80-2/215-282-2 Opinion to be cited as: SCCS (Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety), Opinion on Titanium dioxide (TiO2), preliminary version of 7 August 2020, final version of 6 October 2020, SCCS/1617/20
