Market surveillance - Harmonized methods, prevent intended fraud

Two main problems are frequently discussed with law enforcements of tattoo legislations (market surveillance):

1. Use of harmonized method: Experts rate them only necessary with ingredients were a release needs/should to be quantified, e.g. polyaromatic hydrocarbons, cleavage of aromatic amines (next to the quantification of free amines), copper. These methods are necessary, so that manufactures can test their products to be sure they are safe and enforcement is equal in whole Europe.

2. Many tattoo inks are labelled wrong or many ingredients are missing - some manufacturers do this with clear intention (hide a non-allowed pigment). Also, some manufactures continuously sell inks that contain toxic ingredients over the given limits. Even when proven year by year by market surveillance, limited intention to change are noticeable.

For which substances would you propose harmonized methods? What are your wishes to improve market surveillance / law inforcement? Where do you see problems and what would be a solution?