The changing lifestyles and the increasing spendable income have been the major considerable factors for the shift in customer’s increased interest towards non-toxic cosmetic products and the growing preference for natural ingredients to be included. That made manufacturers across the globe to come up with more innovative products adhering to safety and efficacy regulations. In a time-critical health authority approval processes, there might be instances that cosmetic manufacturers with an aim to overcome the competition may miss-out some of the Cosmetic Regulatory trends which might affect their compliance efforts. To assist the manufacturers to be up to date, here we provide the current market updates of some of the regions to give a heads-up on upcoming compliance processes.

To start with, cosmetic manufacturers who are willing to enter the Australian market need to know about the new anti-animal testing regulation which is expected to be in effect from July next year. In a view to phasing out the cruel cosmetics, the Federal government starting July next year is expected to ban the testing of cosmetics ingredients on animals and is also set to ban the sale of cosmetic products which are tested on animals elsewhere. The new regulation, however, won’t affect the existing products and won’t apply to medicinal clinical trials and drug development. Therefore, to plan ahead the Cosmetics regulatory roadmap for Australia in the next year, manufacturers should go all clear without animal testing.

Looking over China, the China Food and Drug Administration (CFDA) on June 1, 2016, has announced labeling requirements for Sunscreens. In the earlier regulation, the indication for Sun Protection Factor (SPF) and Protection Factor (PFA) markings on the cosmetics labels were not aligned with that of the international standards, revising which the CFDA has announced and implemented a new mandate named – Requirements for Sunscreen Labeling.

The new cosmetics labeling regulation revolves around the indication of SPF and PFA values on over-labels. It suggests, the new labeling claims for imported cosmetics can be updated on over-labels without a need to modify the info on original packaging. In addition, due to this deviation, it is expected that the SPF value might appear different on over-labels and original packaging which might sound confusing for manufacturers. Thus, it is recommended to take precautionary steps in advance.

Apart from the new labeling requirements, going by the secondary research of ChemLinked reports, we can presume that the CFDA is expected to prohibit the sale of repackaged cosmetics. Generally, the need for repackaging is to reduce the costs. But the expected regulation may impact the cause and may hit hard on the third party manufacturer’s efforts. Coming as part of the ongoing movement towards the new licensing system, i.e. the Cosmetics Manufacture License, the cosmetic brands may no longer be able to repackage cosmetics if at all the new regulation implemented. However, there are no set guidelines yet.

To conclude, the Cosmetics Regulatory Landscape around the world is expected to see many more updates in near future. As a specialized cosmetics regulatory partner, we are here to feed you the info. To buckle up your preparations for aforementioned regulations, you may wish to scroll through our services right here.

In case you have missed our webinar on “demystifying cosmetics compliance”, you can download the full session for an in-depth understanding of the Cosmetics Regulatory landscape, the Evolving Regulatory Challenges and an Effective Roadmap for the US, EU, China and ASEAN markets.