Another recent release by the OEHHA:

The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) of the California Environmental Protection Agency is adding di-isodecyl phthalate (DIDP) (CAS No. 68515-49-1 and 26761-40-0) to the list of chemicals known to the state to cause reproductive toxicity for purposes of the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Health and Safety Code section 25249.5 et seq., commonly known as Proposition 65). The listing of di-isodecyl phthalate (DIDP) is effective April 20, 2007.

Di-isodecyl phthalate (DIDP) (CAS No. 68515-49-1 and 26761-40-0) is being listed as a chemical known to the State of California to cause developmental toxicity. The listing of this chemical is based on formal identification by an authoritative body, in this case, the National Toxicology Program, in final reports of the National Toxicology Program’s Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (“NTP-CERHR”) which conclude that the chemical causes developmental toxicity. The criteria used by OEHHA for the listing of chemicals under the “authoritative bodies” mechanism can be found in Title 22, Cal. Code of Regs., section 12306.

For the full release, see here.

A recent notice from the OEHHA:

The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) of the California Environmental Protection Agency is making a correction to the listings of the chemical doxorubicin hydrochloride (Adriamycin) (CAS No. 23214-92-8).

Doxorubicin hydrochloride (Adriamycin) was listed as a chemical known to cause cancer on July 1, 1987. It was also listed as known to cause developmental and male reproductive toxicity on January 29, 1999. It was recently brought to the attention of OEHHA that the chemical was listed with the wrong Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) number, (CAS No. 23214-92-8) for each endpoint, cancer and reproductive toxicity. Accordingly, OEHHA revises both listings of the chemical, doxorubicin hydrochloride (Adriamycin), as known to cause cancer and known to cause developmental and male reproductive toxicity, with the correct CAS number, which is 25316-40-9. The effective dates of the chemical listings under the two endpoints remain the same.

For the full release, see here

Businessweek discussed the EU crackdown on non-compliant consumer products:

The European Commission on Thursday credited better market monitoring for a 32 percent rise in 2006 in withdrawals of unsafe consumer goods in Western Europe, nearly half of which came from China.

The EU head office said it was working with Beijing to improve product standards, focusing particularly on safer toys, a category that overtook electrical appliances to top the EU’s list of problem products for the first time.

In 2006, 924 products — from unsafe lighters to wonky strollers to short-circuiting kettles — were identified as too dangerous to be sold in the 27 European Union nations, plus Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway.

For the full article, see: EU: Spotting of unsafe products on rise.

Nexreg Compliance provides a full range of EU compliance services for consumer and industrial chemicals and cosmetics, including REACH registrations and translations. For more information see:

European Regulatory Compliance Services
欧洲服务
Nexreg Compliance – Europe (Français)
ヨーロッパサービス
유럽서비스
Nexreg Compliance – Europa (Español)

To discuss EU compliancy issues please call or e-mail Nexreg at:
Nexreg Canada: (519)488-5126 (London, ON)
Nexreg UK: +44 020 7993 5893 (London, UK)
Nexreg USA: (206)418-6663 (Seattle, WA)
E-mail:info@nexreg.com

Agcanada.com discusses pesticide labels and maximum residue limits and their impact on exporters/importers:

We all know what happened to the Canadian beef industry when BSE was discovered in Canada. Canadian grain producers could face the same consequences if they ignore their customer’s limitations on pesticide residues.

Most countries have set maximum residue limits (MRLs) for pesticides on agricultural products and for unapproved genetically-modified seed. The MRL for malathion on canola seed in Japan is 0.5 parts per million (ppm), for example. As with BSE control measures, these may seem extreme. The health risks of having a sample of canola with one ppm instead of 0.5 ppm of malathion is minute, but 0.5 ppm is the allowable limit Japan has instituted and unless the exporter can provide canola within that MRL, Japan is not interested in purchasing.

The costs of exceeding the MRL for any agricultural product can be huge. First, the sale of the product is lost. Second, all costs of finding a new market or disposing of the product must be borne by the seller. Third, and most costly, future sales of the product are jeopardized. The world grain trade is extremely competitive and other countries are eager to gain a foothold in a new market should another country fail to meet the buyer’s requirements. The Japanese market is our number one export market for canola, importing about $450 million worth of canola a year. It is a market we cannot afford to lose.

This is not just scary talk. Chris Anderson, program manager for the Canola Council of Canada, says Japan has rejected 2 recent shipments because the canola exceeded an MRL. In 2003, a French shipment of canola to Japan was rejected because MRL testing revealed the presence of an unapproved insecticide. Japan refused to take the $6 million shipment and it cost the shipper another $2 million in demurrage, shipping, and handling fees to find an alternative market. French farmers have lost millions more because Japan no longer has the confidence that French canola will meet its standards. Australia has also suffered under Japan’s close scrutiny. Just last year, part of a cargo of Australian canola had levels of fenitrothion insecticide that exceeded Japanese limits and had to be destroyed. The cost to the Australian shippers amounted to $11 million, and all future canola shipments from Australia will be subject to increased testing.

Since “the customer is always right”, it is up to Canadian farmers to make sure the agricultural products we sell do not exceed MRLs of the importing country. It is virtually impossible for a farmer to know the MRL for all pesticides for every importing country. After all, the U.S. regularly tests imported grains for 396 different pesticides. The U.K. conducts tests on foods for 28,000 additives. The only way farmers can prevent accidentally exceeding a pesticide MRL is to strictly follow the pesticide label as per use, timing, and withdrawal period. Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency has tested all pesticides registered for use in Canada and has made sure that by following the label directions, pesticide residues will be below MRLs of importing nations.

The Farm & Ranch guide links the tainted pet food scandal with country of origin labeling:

Country of Origin Labeling passed several years ago but USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service has yet to implement the law.

Now, it looks like the United States may accept this legislation. Unfortunately, that acceptance may come about because of what happened to some family pets.

Country of Origin Labeling, or COOL, is an initiative of the 2002 farm bill. It requires country of origin labeling for beef, lamb, pork, fish, perishable ag products and peanuts.

President Bush signed a public law on Jan. 27, 2004, that called for a delay in implementing COOL for all commodities except wild and farm-raised fish and shellfish until Sept. 30, 2006.

Then on Nov. 10, 2005, the President signed another public law delaying the implementation until Sept. 30, 2008.

See the full article here.

A lengthy article in Canada’s Globe and Mail newspaper on cosmetics labeling. Here’s a snippet:

Aside from labelling, Health Canada does maintain a hot list of more than 500 banned and restricted chemicals. Companies selling cosmetics here are also required to disclose the ingredients contained in their products to Ottawa.

In the United States, ingredients have been listed on cosmetics for years. But there are loopholes that allow companies to conceal some suspect chemicals under the vague title of “fragrance” or refuse to name ingredients that are claimed to be trade secrets.

“There are some ingredients that have benefits and some risk as well,” says Carl Carter, director of the Canadian Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association. “But our feeling is that under the Canadian regulatory system, we are very confident about the safety of the substances that are used.”

The full article is available here. It goes on to discuss some of the Proposition 65 issues we’ve been discussing at some length on this site.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest discusses labels on “Spykes, the controversial shot-sized malt liquor drinks produced by Anheuser-Busch”:

In a letter to John J. Manfreda, the administrator of the Treasury Department’s Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), the agency that regulates alcohol labeling, CSPI said that the warning label on Spykes doesn’t meet the government’s clear-cut standards for readability, which include minimum font sizes, a maximum number of characters per inch, and a contrasting background. The text on Spykes’ “Spicy Lime” warning label is in “nearly invisible silver lettering on a non-contrasting, light lime-green background,” according to CSPI, and has too many characters per inch…

Violations of the Alcohol Beverage Labeling Act and TTB regulations are punishable by civil penalties of up to $10,000 a day. Since four versions of the product are all in violation, and have been on the market since January, Anheuser-Busch should be assessed more than $3 million if future labeling violations are to be deterred, according to CSPI. And, since TTB inspectors missed the violations when reviewing the label, the agency should either discipline or retrain the individuals who signed off on the Spykes label.

See the full release here. We’re watching this one very closely. A three million dollar fine will cause many in the food and beverage industry to double check to see if their labels are indeed compliant.

A press release at Chemie.DE discusses REACH compliance:

The registration process requires the manufacturers and importers to generate data for all chemicals substances produced or imported into the European Union above one tonne per year. The registrants must also identify appropriate risk management measures and communicate them to the users. Amongst the myriad of controls and regulations facing chemical companies will be a requirement to take cognisance of the multiple language dimension of the European Union.

For the full press release click here.

Nexreg Compliance provides a full range of REACH compliance services, including registrations and translations. For more information on REACH compliancy, please call or e-mail Nexreg at:

Nexreg Canada: (519)488-5126 (London, ON)
Nexreg UK: +44 020 7993 5893 (London, UK)
Nexreg USA: (206)418-6663 (Seattle, WA)
E-mail:info@nexreg.com

Position: Canadian Regulatory Assistant (Entry Level Position)

Nexreg Canada is rapidly expanding and is looking to add members to our Canadian team in London, Ontario, Canada. Our ideal candidate is an intelligent, personable, highly motivated individual that is looking to begin a lucrative career in the regulatory compliance industry.

Location: London, ON.

Salary: Negotiable.

Hours: Either full or part-time.

Primary Duties:

• Assist regulatory consultants with authoring Canadian and/or Canadian/U.S.compliant MSDSs using Nexreg’s proprietary MSDS authoring system.
• Assist regulatory consultants with authoring Canadian compliant product labels for the industrial, consumer chemical, and cosmetics markets.

Qualifications:

• This is an entry level position – no experience is necessary.
• A minimum of a Bachelor degree in a science related field is required.
• Experience with Microsoft Office, particularly Word and Excel required.
• Visual Basic programming experience an asset, but not required.
• Knowledge of WHMIS an asset, but not required.
• Second-language ability an asset, but not required.

Nexreg offers a highly competitive salary with the potential for significant career advancement. If interested, please e-mail cover letter and current resume ATTN: Jeff Burns, Canadian Regulatory Manager to info@nexreg.com.

Additional Nexreg Job Postings:

• Canadian Regulatory Consultant
• Sales Representative for China

Last week we discussed the use of dibutyl phthalate in California. This week the LA Times discusses it’s use in nail polish:

A San Fernando Valley nail polish maker that is a major supplier to salons across the country said that it had removed the chemical toluene from its products.

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics had asked OPI Products Inc. to remove toluene, formaldehyde and dibutyl phthalate, or DBP, from its products.

In a letter to an activist group, OPI also said it had stopped using DBP and was looking for alternatives to formaldehyde.

A founding member of the campaign, Women’s Voices for the Earth of Missoula, Mont., on Thursday released news of OPI’s formula change. That group, along with a California state senator who has worked to regulate chemicals in cosmetics, hailed OPI’s move as an important step in worker safety.

See here for the full article.

Nexreg can ensure that your company’s cosmetics, and their labels, are legally compliant. More information on Nexreg’s services to the cosmetics industry:

• Cosmetics Services
• 化妆品
• Services de Conformité Réglementaire pour les Entreprises Cosmétiques
• 化粧品サービス
• 화장품 서비스
• Cosméticos

To speak to a Nexreg representative about cosmetic compliance and labeling, please call or e-mail Nexreg at:

Nexreg Canada: (519)488-5126 (London, ON)
Nexreg UK: +44 020 7993 5893 (London, UK)
Nexreg USA: (206)418-6663 (Seattle, WA)
E-mail:info@nexreg.com