HBW Insight is part of Pharma Intelligence UK Limited

This site is operated by Pharma Intelligence UK Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 13787459 whose registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. The Pharma Intelligence group is owned by Caerus Topco S.à r.l. and all copyright resides with the group.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use. For high-quality copies or electronic reprints for distribution to colleagues or customers, please call +44 (0) 20 3377 3183

Printed By

UsernamePublicRestriction

TiO2 Still A California Prop 65 Target; EU Commission Returns To SCCS With New Safety Questions

Executive Summary

Titanium dioxide use in cosmetic products is getting another look by the EU’s Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety, with a focus on genotoxicity and exposure via inhalation and oral routes. Stateside, potentially respirable TiO2 continues to be the focus of Prop 65 lawsuits in California.

You may also be interested in...



Beauty Firms Hit With Prop 65 Notice: Don’t Ignore Or Retailers May ‘Blackball’ You

Ballard Spahr attorney Brendan Collins warned attendees to take Prop 65 violation notices seriously and address them in a timely manner, speaking at the Independent Beauty Association’s 2022 Technical Regulatory Forum.

Future Use Of Titanium Dioxide In Spray And Powder Cosmetics Hinges On SCCS Review

As of 5 February, the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety is evaluating use of titanium dioxide – now officially classified as a Category 2 carcinogen in the EU – in cosmetic products that can expose consumers by way of inhalation. Without a favorable SCCS opinion, the ingredient’s use in those contexts will be banned under Article 15 of the Cosmetics Regulation.

TiO2 Prop 65 Dismissal Offers Lessons, Renews Hope For Industry

A win for industry in California Prop 65 litigation targeting titanium dioxide-containing cosmetics illustrates the importance of getting involved early in the listing process and challenging the factual basis for exposure claims. Morrison & Foerster attorney Michael Steel discusses the case and its takeaways.

Related Content

Topics

Latest News
See All
UsernamePublicRestriction

Register

RS152999

Ask The Analyst

Ask the Analyst is free for subscribers.  Submit your question and one of our analysts will be in touch.

Your question has been successfully sent to the email address below and we will get back as soon as possible. my@email.address.

All fields are required.

Please make sure all fields are completed.

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please enter a valid e-mail address

Please enter a valid Phone Number

Ask your question to our analysts

Cancel