Build a solid foundation in science, formulation and product development—find out more!
Most Popular in:
The EU's Proposed 8th Amendment
By: David C. Steinberg, Steinberg & Associates
Posted: June 3, 2008, from the June 2008 issue of Cosmetics & Toiletries.
Purchase This Article
- From Cosmetics & Toiletries
- June 2008 issue, pg 36
- 7 pages
- Adobe PDF for download
- Printed copies mailed to you
From $9 an article
Just as the industry began to comply with the 7th Amendment to the Cosmetic Directive, the European Union (EU) Commission proposed the new 8th Amendment. After confusion surrounding the old rules, the commission attempted to correct matters, only making them worse. Governments seem to continually make life more complicated for citizens by “simplifying” everything.
Before headway can be made on the proposed 8th Amendment, attention should first be turned to the damage caused by the 7th Amendment. The 7th Amendment was necessary because under Article 4, Section 1, Part I of the 6th Amendment, the marketing of cosmetics incorporating ingredients or combinations of ingredients that were tested on animals was prohibited after June 30, 2000, in order to meet the safety requirements for cosmetics. If alternative methods were not available by Jan. 1, 2000, an “escape” clause required the EU Commission to submit draft measures by that date. No alternative methods were available by that date; thus arose the need for the 7th Amendment.
This is only an excerpt of the full article that appeared in Cosmetics & Toiletries, but you can purchase the full-text version.