New UK Cosmetic Portal (OPSS) up and running today

Submit cosmetic product notifications

Create an account or sign in to the OPSS if you have used this service before

Notify the Office for Product Safety and Standards (OPSS) about cosmetic products available to consumers in Great Britain (GB).

What you need to do

You need to notify OPSS about every cosmetic product available to consumers in GB.

What you will need to tell OPSS

You will need to tell OPSS:

  • what is in the cosmetic product, including certain nanomaterials
  • the name and details of a contact person for the National Poisons Information Service, or Trading Standards, to get in touch with
  • who the ‘responsible person’ is

The ‘responsible person’ is the individual or company responsible for ensuring the regulations are followed. Every cosmetic product placed on the GB market must have a responsible person.

How to tell the OPSS what’s in the cosmetic product

How you do this depends on whether the product was notified with the EU.

Cosmetic products notified with the EU before 1 January 2021

You can upload the data from your EU notification. You’ll need to:

  • export your data as a ZIP file for each notification – the EU’s Cosmetic Products Notification Portal (CPNP) allows you to do this
  • upload the ZIP files – you can upload 100 files at a time

The ZIP files will not include:

  • the formulation of the product if it was an attached document – you must provide this separately as a PDF, RTF or TXT file
  • any images – you’ll need to provide them for products notified after 31 December 2020
  • details of any nanomaterials in the product

Cosmetic products not notified with the EU

You’ll need to enter information about the product manually.

Posted in Regulatory

COVID-19 Update

I want to reassure you that Oxford Biosciences remains operational, with our business continuing to support all our clients. We are continuing to certify vital hand sanitiser and cleansing products for our clients in the UK, and throughout the world.

The protection of our staff, colleagues and clients is uppermost in our minds during this challenging period for us all.

We do not currently foresee any impact on the continuity of our service, but should the situation change we will post an update immediately. Although we believe the actions we have put in place are appropriate for the current levels of risk, they are under constant review.

To minimise any health risk, we are complying with government guidelines on reducing the spread of COVID-19. Based on the latest information, we are taking the following actions:

  • Providing all staff with sanitisers and other cleaning equipment necessary to ensure safety at workplace.
  • Strictly abiding the government’s advice on social distancing.
  • Encouraging all staff to follow precautionary health measures, including frequent hand washing.  
  • Travelling to and from work but only if it is absolutely necessary and cannot be done from home.

Working from home
All our client files are strictly confidential. GDPR regulations prohibit any of us from working from home.

Limiting non-essential interaction and travel
We are following all Government guidelines with respect to non-essential interactions. We suspended internal meetings and social events several weeks ago. We are also not attending any industry events. These precautions will remain in place for the foreseeable future.

Self-isolation in the event of any symptoms
Staff have been asked to follow Government advice and self-isolate for 7 days should they feel symptoms of this coronavirus, or 14 days if they live in a household with an infected individual.

There are, however, amendments to our services.

  • A few staff members are out of the office so completion of CPSRs may take longer than our normal quoted turnaround times.
  • As Royal Mail is fully operational our post is going out as usual.
  • Our microbiology lab is operational and accepting products for microbial testing. 

We are taking this day by day and we will let you know if anything changes.

We will continue to update our policies as the national and global situation progresses. 

I hope you and your loved ones are healthy and safe. It has been a tough few weeks for all of us as we try adjusting to the new normal. 

Please be mindful, look after yourself and your loved ones. You are not alone. We are in this together.

With my very best wishes,

Allison Wild

Managing Director

Posted in Regulatory

Status of COVID-19

From our government’s website:

High consequence infectious diseases (HCID)

Guidance and information about high consequence infectious diseases and their management in England.

As of 19 March 2020, COVID-19 is no longer considered to be a high consequence infectious diseases (HCID) in the UK.

The 4 nations public health HCID group made an interim recommendation in January 2020 to classify COVID-19 as an HCID. This was based on consideration of the UK HCID criteria about the virus and the disease with information available during the early stages of the outbreak. Now that more is known about COVID-19, the public health bodies in the UK have reviewed the most up to date information about COVID-19 against the UK HCID criteria. They have determined that several features have now changed; in particular, more information is available about mortality rates (low overall), and there is now greater clinical awareness and a specific and sensitive laboratory test, the availability of which continues to increase.

The Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens (ACDP) is also of the opinion that COVID-19 should no longer be classified as an HCID.

The need to have a national, coordinated response remains, but this is being met by the government’s COVID-19 response.

Cases of COVID-19 are no longer managed by HCID treatment centres only. All healthcare workers managing possible and confirmed cases should follow the updated national infection and prevention (IPC) guidance for COVID-19, which supersedes all previous IPC guidance for COVID-19. This guidance includes instructions about different personal protective equipment (PPE) ensembles that are appropriate for different clinical scenarios.

Read more here.

Posted in Regulatory

J&J ordered to pay US$750M in punitive damages over talc

Johnson & Johnson was ordered by a New Jersey jury to pay an additional US$750 million in punitive damages to a group of former Baby Powder users who had already been awarded US$37.2 million as compensation for cancers they blamed on asbestos in the talc-based product.

After the verdict Thursday in New Brunswick, the judge indicated she may reduce the punitive award to US$186.5 million, as per state law, an amount equaling five times the compensatory damages awarded to the plaintiffs last year.Jurors in J&J’s hometown concluded after about two hours of deliberation that the company’s conduct in manufacturing and marketing the product warranted punishment. A separate jury in September found the company liable for the cancers claims and made the initial award for actual damages.

The September verdict was one of five talc cases J&J lost last year, though it prevailed in eight others. J&J, which denies its 135-year-old baby powder line is contaminated with asbestos, still faces more than 16,000 suits from women who mostly say they used the talc-based product for genital hygiene and later developed cancer. Nearly a third of those suits were filed in the last year.

Read more here.

Posted in Regulatory

Coronavirus hit to beauty sector will be worse than SARS

Estee Lauder and L’Oreal lower profit outlook

Cosmetics companies Estee Lauder and L’Oreal said they’ve taken financial hits because of the outbreak. Estee Lauder lowered its profit outlook fiscal 2020 from between $5.85 and $5.93 per share to between $5.60 and $5.70 per share, citing reduced travel and sales in important tourist and shopping areas. L’Oreal said the outbreak has temporarily hurt sales in Asian airports.The companies have previously seen sales thrive in China as wealthy customers purchase luxury products at beauty stores and duty-free shops.

Read more here

Posted in Skincare business

Lyral® banned this month

Hydroxyisohexyl 3-Cyclohexene Carboxaldehyde (HICC) – Lyral® fragrance ingredient banned 23 August 2019.

INCI: 3- and 4-(4-Hydroxy-4-methylpentyl) cyclohex-3-ene-1-carbaldehyde

CAS: 31906-04-4 / 51414-25-6

Also: HICC – Lyral – Hydroxymethylpentylcyclohexenecarboxaldehyde – Kovanol – Mugonal – Landolal

From August 23, 2019, only cosmetic products which comply with the Regulation shall be placed on the Union market.

From August 23, 2021, only cosmetic products which comply with the Regulation shall be made available on the Union market.

For more information click here.

Tagged with:
Posted in Ingredients, Regulatory

Common hair dye 2-Chloro-p-phenylenediamine, its sulphate and dihydrochloride salts banned

The chemical 2-Chloro-p-Phenylenediamine will be prohibited in the EU, along with its sulphate and dihydrochloride salts, in all hair, eyebrow and eyelash dye products, as of 22 November this year.

The chemical has now been added to the list of prohibited substances in Annex II of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009.

The ban applies to new products from November, but in order to give retailers time to shift stock, it will not apply to products already on the market until 22 February 2020.

2-Chloro-p-phenylenediamine is used at concentrations of up to 4.6% in hair, eyebrow and eyelash dyes and prior to use is mixed 50:50 with a 3% hydrogen peroxide solution. It results in red and violet colours.

The ban is the culmination of a procedure that has been in train since 2013 when the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) gave its opinion that it could not be considered safe for consumers due to a lack of available data.

The chemical was tested following user reports of skin sensitisation, particularly after repeated use.

The SCCS concluded that it is “at least a ‘strong’ sensitiser”, although animal tests to evaluate if the substance was carcinogenic or caused gene mutations proved inconclusive. The EU notified the WTO in July last year that it was likely to face a ban.

Partly in light of EU concerns, Australia made an interim decision in February to strengthen packaging warnings on products containing 2-Chloro-p-Phenylenediamine, stating: “2-chlorophenylenediame and its sulfate are strong skin sensitisers and there is evidence of severe allergic reactions when used in humans as a dye for eyebrows and eyelashes, with symptoms of itchy dermatitis on eyebrows, itchy dermatitis on the eyelids and swollen eyelids, watering, itchiness and redness in both eyes, followed by severe inflammation of eyelids and conjunctival chemosis.”

For more information click here.

Posted in Ingredients, Regulatory

EU finds teeth whitening product ingredients ‘non-compliant’

The regulatory study found some products contained carcinogens and toxic ingredients.

Nearly 300 samples of tooth whitening products have been found to be non-compliant with European Union cosmetic regulations.

The tooth whiteners and whitening strips were assessed in a Market Surveillance Study by the European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines and HealthCare (EDQM).

According to the survey, nearly 80% of brush-on whiteners and more than 50% of tray-based teeth whiteners were at fault.

The issues concerned included hydrogen peroxide content, which was higher than permitted and the presence of a CMR substance, which was classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction.

As well as non-compliant ingredients, several products tested were found not to be registered in the Cosmetics Products Notification Portal (CPNP) and some were incorrectly labelled, despite most products being manufactured in European countries.

Read more here.

Tagged with: , ,
Posted in Ingredients, Regulatory

Advertising watchdog rules Candy Coat’s website ‘misrepresented’

The professional nail care and subscription box brand argued its reviews were genuine.

Nail polish brand Candy Coat has lost an ASA ruling after its self-appointed ‘five star’ rating could not be substantiated.

The British regulator found that the brand deliberately did not include negative reviews into its rating system and therefore misled customers.

In response to the complaint, the professional nail care and subscription box brand argued that the reviews with images are displayed at the top of the website and are generally positive.

According to the ASA, Candy Coat said: “The star ratings related specifically to the product on that page and the rating for one product would not affect the rating for another.

“They said that they had chosen to display reviews with images towards the top of the page and that, generally, negative reviews did not have photos, so were more likely to be displayed towards the bottom of the page.

The advertising watchdog said: “Candy Coat said that both positive and negative reviews were featured across the website and that the star rating was a true reflection of their customers’ experiences.

“However, they did not provide any data showing how they had calculated the aggregate star rating for the advertised product nor documentary evidence to show that the reviews or scores which accompanied it on the page were genuine, such as comprehensive list of all reviews considered.”

Read more here.

Posted in Advertising claims, Regulatory

Carcinogen asbestos found in Claire’s cosmetics

US regulators, the FDA, have warned people not to use certain makeup products from Claire’s after samples tested positive for cancer-causing asbestos.

The US regulator conducted the tests after learning of reports of asbestos in products sold by retailers Claire’s and Justice in 2017.

The company has disputed the findings and refused to comply with the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) request for a recall.

In its safety alert, the FDA identified the products as Claire’s eye shadows, contour palette and compact powder and cited the talc used in the products.

Read more here.

Tagged with: ,
Posted in Regulatory