Pink Sheet is part of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC’s registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

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
UsernamePublicRestriction

California Exempts Trace Contaminants In Green Reg Draft

This article was originally published in The Tan Sheet

Executive Summary

Under the proposed reg, firms marketing products with “chemicals of concern” would need to explore alternative ingredients and possibly reformulate or remove the products from the market. But when a trace contaminant is unintentional, the marketer would not be subject to the requirements.

You may also be interested in...



California Green Chemistry Draft Narrows “Concern” List

California’s latest draft of the Safer Consumer Products regulations cuts the possible universe of “chemicals of concern” from 4,000 to 1,200. The state’s Department of Toxic Substances Control will select the first five chemical/product category combinations up for review 180 days after the regulation takes effect.

California Green Chemistry Reg Prompts Compliance Burden/Cost Estimates

Firms that will need to conduct analyses to find alternatives to potentially hazardous ingredients in consumer products under California’s Safer Consumer Products Regulation will likely have a challenging, expensive journey. Attorneys from Alston + Bird LLC estimate the price tag could range from $500,000 to $6,000,000 to conduct an analysis.

OTC Sunscreen Ingredients’ Environmental Impacts Likely To Be Growing Discussion, Including At US FDA

Designating new “critical habitats” off US shores, as proposed by the National Marine Fisheries Service, would require federal agencies “to ensure that actions they plan to undertake, fund, or authorize do not destroy or adversely modify that habitat.” That could factor in the US FDA’s OTC sunscreen review program and potential follow-up on a 2018 citizen petition calling for a ban on "coral-killing" UV filters.

Topics

UsernamePublicRestriction

Register

LL1126230

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