Surfachem | Biocidal Product Regulation

Welcome Back to the BPR Series

If you've been following along, welcome back! And if you're just joining us, you're in the right place. In previous parts, we introduced the Biocidal Products Regulation (BPR), explained what defines a biocide, how Article 95 works, what a Competent Authority is, and how Product Type (PT) groups help determine product classification with a practical PT2 example to bring it to life. We then built on this foundation with case studies including hand sanitisers (PT1), dog shampoos (PT19), and pH-neutral surface cleaners preserved under PT6. We also covered regulatory borders, such as those with veterinary, medicinal, and plant protection laws and explained the role of DEFRA and the legacy COPR regulation. Lastly we focused on practical compliance: understanding biocidal product families, dossier requirements, Letters of Access (LOAs), the transition period after active substance approval (the “Big Freeze”), simplified authorisation, and labelling requirements under BPR.

If you haven’t already read Parts 1 to 7, they’re definitely worth a look - they lay the groundwork for everything we’re about to explore. Let’s dive in.

BPR Claims Best to Avoid

If you’ve ever walked down the aisles of a UK supermarket, you may have noticed a variety of biocidal products making claims about their safety, environmental impact, and efficacy. Even some of the largest multinational brands sometimes include these claims. However, a quick check against guidance from ECHA and the HSE under the Biocidal Products Regulation (BPR) Article 72 reveals that such claims should not be used.

From my experience, compliance tends to be much better in European supermarkets—something that genuinely impresses me. The level of adherence to BPR regulations is noticeably higher, ensuring that consumers are not misled by potentially non-compliant claims.

If you’re working on product development on behalf of an employer or a customer and these types of claims appear in a brief, it’s always best to have an open discussion. While the final decision lies with the brand owner, making them aware of the regulatory restrictions is crucial. Ultimately, if they choose not to follow the guidelines, they bear the risk, which could include financial penalties or even product recalls.

Your biocidal product advertisement must not be misleading regarding:

Risks to human health
Risks to animal health
Risks to the environment
Its efficacy

The following terms are considered misleading and must not be used:

Low-risk
Non-toxic
Harmless
Natural
Environmentally friendly
Animal friendly
Any similar terms

As the approval process for many active substances in the Product Type (PT) group for surface disinfection progresses and dossiers are submitted, it will be interesting to see whether brands adjust their labels to align more closely with compliance requirements.

If customers are keen on making such claims, at the very least, inform them so they can make an educated decision. Compliance is not just about avoiding fines, it’s about maintaining trust and ensuring regulatory integrity in the market.