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

California’s Prop 65 List Grows With Addition Of Beta-Myrcene

This article was originally published in The Rose Sheet

Executive Summary

California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has added beta-myrcene, a fragrance component, to its Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer following an NTP report’s finding linking the substance to carcinogenic activity in rats and mice. A group of industry associations strongly opposed the listing.

You may also be interested in...



CIR Nearly Finished Assessing Citrus Component Safety

Three years after initiating safety reviews of citrus substances, the Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel is on the verge of wrapping its work in the area. At its Sept. 19-20 meeting in Washington, the expert panel issued final safety assessments for six ingredient groups in total.

Preemption In Cosmetics Bill Would Offset Burden, But To What Degree?

States would be barred from establishing cosmetic ingredient restrictions that conflict with final FDA review determinations, as well as requirements related to cosmetics registration, good manufacturing practices or adverse-event reporting, under a preemption clause in the Personal Care Products Safety Act, introduced April 20. The bill would help address the growing problem of inconsistent regulations from one state to the next, but exceptions and potential gray areas raise questions about how effective the provision would be.

Brace For Impact: Lawsuit Challenges Prop 65 Safe Harbor For Lead

Environmental nonprofit contends there is no safe exposure level for lead in a lawsuit challenging the Prop 65 safe harbor for the substance, which has enabled many cosmetics firms to forgo warning labeling in California to date. Attorneys and regulatory experts discuss the suit’s potential large-scale impact while identifying diethanolamine as potentially the cosmetics industry’s next major headache under Prop 65.

Related Content

Latest Headlines
See All
UsernamePublicRestriction

Register

RS019422

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