Most Popular in:
New in Regulations (page 16 of 17)
Illuminating statistics and data shed more light on the connection between the sun and skin care.
By Imogen Matthews
Ingredient lists and labels are facing more and more scrutiny as consumers, unwilling to accept cosmetics and toiletries at face value, seek purer, more natural alternative formulations, leading to significant growth in alternative ingredients in new launches.
The European Commission (EC) is requesting opinions from its Scientific Committee on Consumer Products (SCCP) on benzophenone-3 and toluene.
Organic Monitor is predicting 2008 to be defining year in the adoption of natural and organic standards in the skin care industry, possibly affecting a range of products and treatment options.
The Personal Care Product Council (PCPC) has released a statement on phthalate exposure in baby care products.
By Rachel Chapman
In the consumer’s world, natural means safer, greener, better for the environment, etc. And although this belief may not entirely be grounded in reality, the fact remains that products labeled as natural have been the force behind a major trend in cosmetics and personal care for years.
By Jeff Falk
Beauty industry bigwigs discuss the greening revolution.
By Rick Van Arnam, Esq.
Failing to understand the distinction between the legal definition of cosmetics and drugs, and subsequent improper labeling or promotional claims, can be a costly error.
The Personal Care Products Council recently voiced its approval of Congress' plan to increase the funding for the review of cosmetics by the FDA.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently proposed a new regulation that sets standards for formulating, testing and labeling over-the-counter (OTC) sunscreen drug products with ultraviolet A (UVA) and ultraviolet B (UVB) protection.
Because sunlight is composed of both UVA and UVB rays, the organization proposes the creation of a consumer-friendly rating system for UVA products designed to help consumers identify the level of UVA protection offered by a product, instead of only the level of UVB protection identified through SPF values.
The proposed four-star ratings system works with one star representing low UVA protection, two stars, medium; three stars, high; and four stars the highest UVA protection available in an OTC sunscreen product. If it doesn't provide at least a one-star protection rating, the FDA is proposing to require the product to bear a "no UVA protection" marking on the front label near the SPF value.
These ratings would be derived from two tests to assess the UVA deflection effectiveness. The first measures a product's ability to reduce the amount of UVA radiation that passes through it. The second measures its ability to prevent tanning.
Also, a "Warnings" statement in the Drug Facts box will be required from all sunscreen manufacturers that will say: "UV exposure from the sun increases the risk of skin cancer, premature skin aging and other skin damage. It is important to decrease UV exposure by limiting time in the sun, wearing protective clothing and using sunscreen."
When finalized, the regulation would amend the existing OTC sunscreen rule published in 1999. It will also revise the existing SPF (UVB) testing procedures, allow new combinations of active ingredients and ask for comments of the issue of nanoparticles.
Comments of the new rule will be accepted until November 26, 2007. These must be identified with Docket No. 1978N-0038 and can be submitted electronically or in written form.
Division of Dockets Management
Food and Drug Administration
5630 Fishers Lane, Room 1061
Rockville, MD 20852
Electronic submissions can be made at: www.regulations.gov or www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments.