Recent ATPs and the 8th Amendment

Feb 1, 2010 | Contact Author | By: David Steinberg, Steinberg & Associates
Your message has been sent.
(click to close)
Contact the Author
Save
This item has been saved to your library.
View My Library
(click to close)
Save to My Library
Title: Recent ATPs and the 8th Amendment
ATPsx 8th Amendmentx
  • Article
  • Media
  • Keywords/Abstract

Keywords: ATPs | 8th Amendment

Abstract: Why does the Cosmetic Directive need the 8th Amendment? Some feel it is necessary since the directive has been changed 55 times, including seven amendments and 48 Adaptations to Technical Progress (ATPs). While the industry waits to see what this new amendment will bring, more ATPs have been published, as are described here. Science moves on contrary to political wishes.

View citation for this article

DC Steinberg, Recent ATPs and the 8th Amendment, Cosm & Toil 125(2) 34-39 (Feb 2010)

Excerpt Only This is a shortened version or summary of the article you requested. To view the complete article, please log in or create an account. Registration is Free!

In March 2009, the 8th Amendment to the Cosmetic Directive was approved by the European Parliament and the EU Council of Ministers. This approval is called a recast, as it changes the directive to a regulation. A directive must be incorporated into member state legislation in order to become a regulation, at which point it becomes binding as law in Europe. Since the amendment was approved, several presentations have been made on the regulation, which have raised a number of questions. However, to quote Yogi Berra, “It ain’t over ‘til it’s over.”

The 8th Amendment is not official until it is published in the Official Journal of the European Union and as of this writing, it has not. Reasons for the delay include the time it takes to translate the amendment into 22 official languages; however, the length of time the EU has taken to publish the amendment raises this author’s suspicion, since the EU publishes approximately 3–5 changes in other industries per day, many occurring in a short period of time. Therefore, this author will not comment on the recast until it is official.

[Editor’s note: The official publication of the new Cosmetic Regulations for the EU was issued on Dec. 22, 2009. Future columns will focus on this regulation in greater detail].

On Nov. 25, 2009, the EU Council of Ministers gave its final approval of the amendment. During the approval, the major dissent was from Germany, which objected to the requirement for the word nano to appear in brackets in the ingredient declaration for materials smaller than 100 nanometers.

Why does the Cosmetic Directive need the 8th Amendment? Some feel it is necessary since the directive has been changed 55 times, including seven amendments and 48 Adaptations to Technical Progress (ATPs). While the industry waits to see what this new amendment will bring, more ATPs have been published, as are described here. Science moves on contrary to political wishes.

Excerpt Only This is a shortened version or summary of the article you requested. To view the complete article, please log in or create an account. Registration is Free!

 

Close

Table 1. Restricted ingredients added to Annex III

Table 1. Restricted ingredients added to Annex III

On Feb. 4, 2009, an ATP was issued making changes to Annex II (the prohibited list) and Annex III (the restricted list). In Annex II, item number 1,370 was added, banning diethylene glycol except in trace amounts. Also, item 1,371 was added, banning phytonadione, also known as vitamin K1. These four restricted ingredients added to Annex III are shown here.

Table 2. Hair dye substances added to the restricted list

Table 2. Hair dye substances added to the restricted list

On April 16, 2009, an ATP was published adding 17 hair dye substances to the restricted list. These substances are shown here (continued in Table 2, part 2 PDF). It should be noted that the use of INCI names rather than CI numbers is required for hair dyes in the EU. This ATP also deleted Annex III, part b, entry 55, columns c and d, as well as Part 2 of Annex III, numbers 7, 9, 14, 28, 47 and 58.

Table 3. Hair dye chemicals changed in Annex III

Table 3. Hair dye chemicals changed in Annex III

On Oct. 12, 2009, two changes were made to Annex III, again involving hair dye chemicals. These changes are shown here.

Figure 1. Warning for hair dyes

Figure 1. Warning for hair dyes

In Part 1 under references 8 and 8a, in column f, points (a) and (b), the text can cause an allergic reaction is replaced by the warning shown here.

Biography: David C. Steinberg, Steinberg & Associates

David C. Steinberg founded Steinberg & Associates, a consulting firm based in Plainsboro, NJ, USA, in 1995. Co-founder of the graduate program in cosmetic sciences at Fairleigh Dickinson University, where he lectured for 18 years on cosmetic chemistry, Steinberg has more than 35 years of experience in marketing, technical service and regulatory affairs in the personal care industry. In addition, he was president of the Society of Cosmetic Chemists in 1991. Steinberg is a frequent speaker worldwide on cosmetic regulations and preservation as well as sunscreen and cosmetic ingredient chemistry. In 2009, he was honored as the first regulatory expert in personal care to be granted fellow status by the Regulatory Affairs Professional Society. He wrote the Alluredbook, Preservatives for Cosmetics, Third Edition. 

Next image >

 
 

Close

It's Free...

Register or Log in to get full access to this content

Registration includes:

  • Access to all premium content
  • One click ingredient sample requests
  • Save articles in the My Library tool

Create an Account or Log In