We received a tip this morning that we would from ReachReady that included the following information we thought you would be interested in:

And by the way did we mention that REACH comes into force tomorrow…?

Nothing for you to worry about, the only thing REACH says you have to do from day one is to invert sections 2 and 3 of your Safety Data Sheets (SDS’s) and add an e-mail contact according to Annex II of REACH. However all EU Member States have agreed that this is impractical. They say they will instead expect SDS’s for all new substances and preparations brought to the market after Friday to be drawn up according to the new requirements, and that revisions to existing SDS’s made after Friday should also be made according to the new requirements, but that all SDS’s should be changed by 1 December 2010 – the first registration deadline.

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

More on REACH, this time from the RetailBulletin:

Buried within the 849 pages of the legislation, there are provisions that directly affect retailers by increasing the amount of information they will need from suppliers about the chemicals used in products.

Companies importing finished goods from outside the EU will have to work with suppliers to establish which chemicals are contained in these products. From 2011, importers of articles containing certain substances may be obliged to submit data to the authorities. Regardless of the origin of products, as early as 2009 retailers will also have an obligation to answer whether products on their shelves contain certain substances listed by authorities within 45 days.

See New legislation poses challenges for supply chains and corporate reputation for the full article.

An article from Canada on harmonization of U.S./Canada pesticide law:

The safety of pesticides in Canada is partly in the hands of U.S. regulators as the two countries forge ahead with plans to harmonize their pesticide-review processes.

News of the effort comes as a growing chorus of scientists south of the border raise the alarm about plummeting standards and rampant corporate interference in the U.S. regulatory process under the Bush administration.

Joint pesticide reviews were flagged as a “key milestone” of the 2005 Security and Prosperity Partnership, a broad-ranging plan to promote trade by streamlining regulatory protocols across North America.

For the full article see: Environmentalists baffled by pesticide-reviews process

An editorial which discusses EU REACH regulations. A great deal of information is in the article, which concludes:

Reach will have a significant impact on both the chemical industry and the downstream users of chemicals. The larger chemical companies will likely be better equipped to absorb the costs of compliance with Reach. Small firms and specialty chemical manufacturers will face a disproportionate increase in their costs.

Reach also imposes a duty of care upon producers and downstream users of a substance. However, this duty of care consideration extends beyond ‘substances’ to also include ‘preparations’. Therefore it is not only individual “substances”, but ‘preparations’ which may be comprised of many ‘substances’, where a duty of care also exists.

There will be sanctions that will be applied where there is non-compliance with the regulation. These sanctions have not yet been identified but are likely to be at the discretion of the member states.

See Engineer Live! for the full article.

We have posted about this issue before, but it is important enough that it warrants a second mention. Health Canada has available their Proposed Technical Amendments to the Consumer Chemicals and Containers Regulations, 2001 (CCCR-2001). One piece of particular interest to some of our clients is Section 5:

5. Spray Containers that have a Flashback

Spray containers that exhibit a flashback are not prohibited if they meet section 53. However, this exception does not apply to products classified by the other “very flammable” criteria, such as spray containers that have a flame projection of 100 cm or more, or that contain a liquid with a flash point of less than -18°C.

Clearer wording will lead to the appropriate restriction of very flammable products. The proposed text for item 2 to the table to section 53 (above) reflects this amendment.

This amendment would ban for sale a great number of products which are currently available at car care centers, home improvement stores, and big box retailers.

From discussions with clients, other regulatory compliance firms, and government officials, we are left with the impression that these technical amendments will be enacted very soon. We expect a great number of companies will be receiving warning letters soon, if not having their products pull from the shelf.

We are highly recommending to our clients that, if possible, they act as if these amendments are already in force. Making any necessary changes now will save a lot of headaches down the road.

Nexreg authors and reviews consumer chemical reviews for Canadian compliancy. More information is available at:

• Canadian CCCR Label Review (English)
• 加拿大消费标签检验 (Chinese – Simplified)
• Révision canadienne d’étiquettes du consommateur (French)
• カナダ 消費者向けラベルの検査 (Japanese)
• 캐나다 소비자 라벨 검토 (Korean)
• El Líder en Conformidad de Productos Químicos (Spanish)

To discuss Canadian consumer chemical labeling (CCCR) 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

An invaluable resource for anyone who sells consumer chemical products in Canada: Reference Manual for the Consumer Chemicals and Containers Regulations, 2001 of the Hazardous Products Act.

A recent update to the manual (page 25) is a section on spray containers packaged with spray tubes:

New: Tube Attachments

Certain spray containers, such as automotive lubricants, are packaged with a tube that is intended to be inserted into the nozzle to confine the application of the product. Without the tube, the spray is a mist and the product qualifies for the exemption of paragraph 40(2)(a). However, with the tube inserted, the product is released as a stream and, if the user leaves the tube in the nozzle, the contents are readily available to a child. In order to maintain the exception of paragraph 40(2)(a), the container must be designed so that the tube can stored when the lid is closed. In addition, the label should include instructions to remove the tube from the nozzle when storing. For example, the following instructions could be used:

“THIS CONTAINER IS NOT CHILD-RESISTANT WHEN THE TUBE IS USED. REMOVE AND STORE TUBE IN THE HOLDER PROVIDED.”

“AVEC LE TUBE, LE CONTENANT N’EST PLUS UN CONTENANT PROTÈGE-ENFANTS. RETIRER LE TUBE ET LE PLACER DANS LE SUPPORT FOURNI.”

Although such a regulation does not exist in Canada (as seen by the terms “should include” and “could be used”) we are recommending to our clients that they, if at all possible, follow these instructions as if they are law and include the exact phrase listed above.

Nexreg authors and reviews consumer chemical reviews for Canadian compliancy. More information is available at:

• Canadian CCCR Label Review (English)
• 加拿大消费标签检验 (Chinese – Simplified)
• Révision canadienne d’étiquettes du consommateur (French)
• カナダ 消費者向けラベルの検査 (Japanese)
• 캐나다 소비자 라벨 검토 (Korean)
• El Líder en Conformidad de Productos Químicos (Spanish)

To discuss Canadian consumer chemical labeling (CCCR) 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

The Star Bulletin discusses Food labeling in Hawaii:

The label should have indicated all the ingredients found in the product.

Based on your query, an inspector from the state Department of Health’s Food and Drug Branch visited the supermarket and the food company (although it was not the one you named), and found the choi sum with tofu product mislabeled, said Branch Supervisor Lori Nagatoshi.

Specifically, the label did not list the sub-ingredients of the bonito powder, which includes MSG, she said.

The company was cited for “misbranding” the product and ordered to redo all labels to properly state all ingredients, she said.

You did well to question the labeling.

Food inspectors do find errors in labeling, either as part of routine manufacturing inspections, which include a label review process, or while checking on a complaint like yours, Nagatoshi said.

Unless mislabeling continues, the Food and Drug Branch seeks to keep businesses in compliance mainly through education, she said.

A fair amount of detail on Hawaii’s food labeling laws available at: Labels should disclose the presence of MSG.

Might California Prop 65s warning on phthalates turn into a ban on phthalates in children’s toys?

A common chemical found in plastic ducks, teething rings and other soft, chewable baby toys would be banned in California under a bill before an Assembly committee this week.Legislation by Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, would require that all toys or child care products sold for children under 3 be free of six types of phthalates, a chemical used to soften and smooth plastics.

“The vulnerability to toxins is most prevalent in childhood,” Ma said. “It could cause harm to babies, and we should do everything we can.”

Phthalates have been banned by the European Union and at least 14 other countries after studies found that the chemical mimics the hormone estrogen and could cause developmental problems. Those could include early puberty in girls, low sperm counts, genital defects and lower testosterone in boys…

California lists the chemical as a toxin under Proposition 65, a measure passed by voters in 1986 that requires businesses to post warnings about dangerous chemicals.

See the full article here: Bill would ban chemical from plastic baby toys.

Some information from Health Canada on the Grower Requested Own Use (GROU) program:

Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) is pleased to notify Canadian growers that the Grower Requested Own Use (GROU) program will be implemented by July 2007. The identity of eligible products and the application process will be posted on this webpage and shared with grower associations in the coming weeks.

A pilot project for GROU was conducted in late 2006 where 8 products were found to be eligible after an analysis of the information provided by pesticide manufacturers. These products were part of a list of 12 priorities submitted by grower groups. It is anticipated that the 8 products from the pilot as well as other potential candidates will be eligible for importation once program processes are finalized.

The GROU program was created for the benefit of Canadian farmers. The program will allow farmers to import the US version of Canadian-registered products for their own use should they be available in that market at a lower price. The PMRA will also work with grower groups to develop a process to select and prioritize the products for consideration under GROU.

In addition, PMRA intends to implement, in July 2007, the new data protection policy which will facilitate the registration of generic pesticides (Protection of Proprietary Interests in Pesticide Data or PPIP). PMRA expects to begin accepting applications for generic pesticide registrations using the new policy in July 2007.

With this decision, the PMRA will not consider applications for new products under Own Use Import (OUI). However, products that were being contemplated for OUI could be submitted for consideration under the GROU program or the new data protection policy once these programs are in place.

PMRA will re-open the OUI process if pesticide manufacturers are not willing to provide the information necessary to process GROU applications.

More information available at Health Canada.

The Connecticut Post provides a discussion of beverage labeling in the United States:

Farrell and Blumenthal said that the company never paid a state licensing fee of $75 and was violating consumer-protection law by using the cocaine name to appeal to consumers as a “legal alternative” with 280 milligrams of caffeine per can, compared to Red Bull’s 80 mg.

Blumenthal added that the state worked with Texas and Illinois authorities to ban the beverage.

“This step will flush Cocaine out of our state and hopefully set a model for others as well,” he said. “We will now push for a nationwide ban, pulling this product off the shelves everywhere.”

“Beyond what the attorney general said, I think that there’s a simple message here that if you want to do business with the state of Connecticut you have to comply with our laws,” Farrell said, alleging that the company did not get a license from the food division of the Department of Consumer Protection.

Blumenthal said that it also violated state law. “To call a product a ‘legal alternative’ or ‘speed in a can,’ is deceptive and misleading under our consumer-protection laws,” he said.

For the full article see: Company recalls ‘Cocaine’ energy drink