ICCR Addresses Cosmetic Labeling, Nanotechnology At First Meeting

The International Cooperation on Cosmetics Regulation invites the cosmetics industry to generate and submit data showing that U.S. consumers understand the meaning of "trivial names" on product labeling.

The data will be used to assist the project in considering a harmonized approach to labeling cosmetic ingredients in the U.S., Canada, the EU and Japan, according to FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, which attended ICCR's first meeting in Brussels Sept. 26-28 and posted a summary of the meeting Oct. 10.

Currently, all four regions use International Nomenclature Cosmetic Ingredient names in labeling products containing waxes, oils, pigments and other chemicals. However, some products in the U.S. such as botanicals and colorants use trivial names on labels due to regional sensitivity to the INCI name.

In addition to taking data from industry, ICCR will consider input on the issue from consumer groups, CFSAN notes.

Labeling harmonization was one of the primary discussion points during the ICCR meeting, which provided a forum for discussing strategic guidance, subject areas and policies intended to remove market barriers between countries.

Though regulators and industry associations such as the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association were allowed to attend, the public and some advocacy groups were excluded, a point criticized in a letter Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) recently sent to FDA (¹ (Also see "Effort To Harmonize Cosmetics Regs Should Include Public Input – Sen. Kerry" - HBW Insight, 1 Oct, 2007.), p. 3)

ICCR also discussed a coordinated approach to defining and managing the use of nanotechnology in cosmetics.

The coalition is soliciting input from cosmetic stakeholders to "develop a common definition of nanotechnology in the field of cosmetics," and "set up an inventory of current application of nanotechnology in this field," CFSAN notes.

"ICCR will use this information in order to determine the path forward in this area," according to the group.

In the U.S., FDA formed the Nanotechnology Task Force last year to identify policy gaps related to nanotechnology and to identify potential adverse effects of products that contain nano-materials.

In July, the task force recommended that FDA consider on a case-by-case basis whether products containing nanomaterials, or those measured at 100,000 the width of human hair, should alert consumers to the use of the materials (² , p. 4).

ICCR also discussed the alignment of Good Manufacturing Practices for cosmetics among the regions, recognizing "the importance of GMP and the need to work towards a common approach," according to CFSAN.

ICCR is committed to taking International Standards Organization recommendations into consideration when developing or updating guidelines or other measures addressing GMPs.

However, while the EU will adopt a European standard modeled after the ISO recommendation, the U.S., Canada and Japan will take a voluntary approach, according to CFSAN.

"The U.S. will take into consideration the availability of the ISO standard as voluntary guidelines," the agency says. Many cosmetics firms in the U.S. base their GMP guidelines on CTFA's Quality Assurance & Good Manufacturing Practices guidelines.

ICCR also addressed each region's efforts in developing and validating scientific alternatives to animal testing for cosmetics, noting that "intensive collaboration and communication in the design, execution, and peer review of validation studies should be further strengthened."

In the U.S., the National Institutes of Health's Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods is working toward replacing animal tests. The issue is especially important in light of upcoming regulations in the EU that will ban the sale of any products tested on animals.

Finally, ICCR touched on the possible alignment of risk assessments for authorized substances and market surveillance to ensure ingredient safety.

- Eileen Francis ([email protected])