CIR’s 161st Expert Panel Meeting: Much Ado About Airbrush Cosmetics; Prostaglandins Make 2023 Priorities
Exactly what is in airbrush-delivered cosmetics, and how they are used by consumers, are not well understood by Cosmetic Ingredient Review, its expert panel, or the US FDA. At their June meeting, CIR’s independent experts debated who should be responsible for assessing airbrush cosmetics and how safety unknowns should be communicated.
You may also be interested in...
Just because the use of a substance in a cosmetic product, in this case prostaglandin-derivative methylamide-dihydro-noralfaprostal, has a physiological effect does not mean it's a medicinal product by function, advises the Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the EU in a recent opinion. While the opinion does not bind the CJEU to any decision, it may impact discussions elsewhere with regards to these substances, for example in the US.
The Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act, part of must-pass FDA user-fee legislation, aligns with a number of the Personal Care Products Council’s key principles for federal cosmetics reform. Preemption provisions could be stronger, but the bipartisan bill represents “a pivotal moment,” the trade association says.
Expect new faces in coming meetings of the US-based CIR’s Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety, which may tackle reviews of prostaglandin analogs and skin-lightening kojic acid on top of its usual slate of programmed safety assessments.