Most Popular in Regulatory
- 1The INCI Name Game: A Commentary
- 2Into the Weeds: Walking the Regulatory Line of CBD in Cosmetics
- 3Diatomaceous Earth and Comfrey Root Catch the FDA's Eye
- 4CIR Conclusion: Parabens Are Safe
- 5EU Regulatory Update on the Future of Hair Color Warnings, Plus Brexit and Cannabis
- 6EU Effectively Bans D4 and D5 in Wash-off Products
- 7FDA Issues Warning Letter for Eyebrow/Eyelash Growth Product Claims
- 8Korean Cosmetic Regulations
- 9Shipping Cosmetics, Toiletries and Personal Care Products? Download a FREE Case Study
- 10The Least Credible Claims in Skin Care
Recent in Regulatory (page 36 of 38)
Jun 4, 2012 | David C. Steinberg, Steinberg Consultants
On March 11, 2003, the European Union (EU) published the 7th Amendment to its Cosmetic Directive 76/768/EEC. Among the changes was the addition of the 26 popular fragrance ingredients to the Annex III “List of Substances Which Cosmetic Products Must Not Contain Except Subject to the Restrictions Laid Down.” These are now commonly referred to as the EU Fragrance Allergens.
May 3, 2012 | David C. Steinberg, Steinberg Consultants
This review takes a look at updates to ingredient regulations as of the first quarter in 2012. While “the ugly” refers to the EU Chemical Agency’s (ECHA’s) release of the first ingredients to be evaluated under REACH, the good news relates to the battle in Canada to save D5. “The bad” are the state of California’s addition of three ingredients to the Proposition 65 list, as well as Health Canada’s caution against labeling using generic terms.
Apr 26, 2012
The US Food and Drug Administration has issued two new draft guidances on the use of nanotechnology by the cosmetics and foods industries.
Apr 19, 2012
The Personal Care Product's Council and the Safe Cosmetics Alliance have both announced their support for H.R. 4395, a bill introduced by Representative Leonard Lance known as the Cosmetic Safety Amendments Act of 2012.
Mar 13, 2012
The Personal Care Products Council (PCPC) has responded to a study by the Silent Spring Institute that claims to have found harmful chemicals in a variety of personal care and household products.
Mar 2, 2012
The Minister of the Environment has accepted the siloxane D5 assessment by the Siloxane D5 Board of Review, and the material will be removed from a proposed list of toxic substances under the Canadian Environment Protection Act (CEPA).
Feb 17, 2012
The Personal Care Product's Council (PCPC) has released a statement in response to the December 2011 study on lead in lipsticks conducted by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Feb 8, 2012 | Anthony J. O'Lenick Jr., Siltech LLC, and Nick Morante, Nick Morante Cosmetic Consulting
Tony O'Lenick collaborated with Nick Morante to develop a four-part series of the "Comparatively Speaking" column that focuses on color. This is the third in the series where Morante explains the difference between the FDA's regulation for coal-tar hair dyes vs. other color additives in cosmetics.
Jan 26, 2012 | Brian Diffey, PhD DSc, Newcastle University, UK
“Science Exposed” is a new column aimed at digging into industry controversies to strip them down to the scientific facts. Here, sun protection expert Brian Diffey, PhD DSc, critiques the current SPF test method.
Jan 24, 2012
In response to the suit filed against the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) by a coalition of six consumer safety and environmental groups over the FDA's lack of nanotechnology regulation, Independent Cosmetic Manufacturers & Distributors (ICMAD) has sent an exclusive response to Cosmetics & Toiletries magazine, as shown here.
Jan 23, 2012
China's State Food and Drug Administration (SFDA) sought comment regarding its recent organization of "special use cosmetics" into eight different categories. On Dec. 29, 2011, the SFDA published eight draft categories to obtain a hygienic license including: liquid, half solid, solid, cream or lotion, aerosol, organic solvent, ceryl-based and other.
Jan 12, 2012
A coalition of six consumer safety and environmental groups is suing the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over its lack of nanotechnology regulation, specifically for sunscreen.