GLOBAL REGULATIONS With technology, formulators can

verify material origins while developing new products. This helps to validate claims of natural, vegan, and organic in products, speeding up regulatory checks. PLM solutions help manufacturers measure

the percentage of natural ingredients in a formula, making it possible to make natural claims based on the relative number of ingredients. Not only does this make labelling clear but helps to unwind the differing views based on market requirements.

Staying compliant while staying local Like the rise in natural ingredients, locally sourced materials have become increasingly attractive to consumers. Brands frequently reference and highlight local materials, calling attention to cultural associations and the company’s support of regional communities. Sourcing is a challenge in and of itself, especially when regionality is valued. Consistency must be maintained between

the product and the label information, assuring consumers the country of origin and ingredient names line up with marketing messages. Cosmetic companies can use PLM solutions

to store information on a product and its materials. Once this data is integrated into product development, it is easier for teams, including formulators and Regulatory Affairs, to verify natural and regional claims. Regionality attribution and country of origin can be added to ingredient sourcing. This data and intelligence shorten product lifecycle timelines and gives product managers a consistent database to rely on. Additionally, a good PLM solution

translates formulas and materials into clear labels, keeping consumers safe and preserving a truthful and consistent branding message.

The product still has to be proven safe It is not enough to know limits on regulated ingredients, you still need to demonstrate the safety of the overall product. Assessing the product as a whole requires

companies to outline specific details about the manufacturing process, the results of several testing, including certain toxicology considerations, such as the Systemic Exposure Dose and the Margin of Safety for each ingredient. These steps exist to recognise different

exposure levels based on usage. A hairdresser, for example, comes into contact with shampoos and other cosmetic products at a much greater frequency than the average consumer. To keep these users safe, manufacturers must

calculate a large amount of information based on varying exposures. Oftentimes this results in a large dossier for each product, listing the different exposure routes and tests done on the product. The Product Information File (PIF) is one

of the most important legal requirements for bringing a cosmetic product to the European market. When a cosmetic product is placed on the EU market, the responsible person shall keep a Product Information File that must be available on request. The PIF offers visibility into product July 2021 PERSONAL CARE Failing to include an accurate ingredient

statement on the label will prevent the product from being market ready. A PLM system can evaluate formulas and

generate an accurate INCI statement, adjusted for the target market. By retrieving all of this information and correctly listing it, cosmetic companies gain assurance that their products are accurately representing themselves in different markets.

details, including manufacturing process and ingredients. Certain PLM systems have the ability to

automatically perform exposure calculations and generate compliance documentation. Not only does this improve review efficiencies, it reduces human error and gives peace of mind. Moreover, maintaining updated dossiers for each product placed on a specific market can be a very time- consuming activity. Technology simply speeds up and streamlines these recurring tasks.

Clearly labelling your product is the name of the game Having reviewed regional requirements, mapped ingredients to different regulators, evaluated limits, benchmarked against industry’s standards, and performed analysis on the final product, it is still possible to be non-compliant due to one major hurdle—labelling. You probably rely on the INCI, or the

International Nomenclature of Cosmetic Ingredients, to identify ingredients. Unfortunately, not all INCI names have universal recognition. As an example, the aforementioned “water”,

the most common ingredient in cosmetics, is listed differently depending on region: ■ In the United States, it is simply “water”. ■ In the EU, it is “aqua”. ■ In Canada, it presents as “eau/ water”, which is then transliterated for Japan and China.

The answers can be found in technology The lack of consensus across regions means regulation will always be a sore spot for cosmetic companies, but having the right tools makes it easier. Cosmetic companies can use technology

to store information on a product and its materials. Once this data is integrated into product development, it is easier for teams, including Formulators and Regulatory Affairs, to verify a variety of claims, including natural and regionality. PLM systems make it possible to manage

ingredient limits in a formula for a target market, facilitating development strategies and compliance steps. Beauty manufacturers seek any

advantage they can to stand out in competitive markets. Local and natural ingredients continue to be popular with both formulators and consumers. Technology assures that everyone is protected Technology can be a single source of truth. This helps carve through the confusion around cosmetics and their ingredients, speeds up time to market, and helps companies create safe products with clear, transparent labels.


Dr. Zaffino is a Chemist who helps personal care and beauty companies find digital solutions to streamline their innovation processes.



Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84