Skip To Main Content
Canada considers restrictions on Muck Rack

Canada considers restrictions

As seen in: CosmeticOBS
Is this you? As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work. Claim your profile

Get in touch with Canada considers

Contact Canada considers, search articles and posts on X, monitor coverage, and track replies from one place.

Learn more about Muck Rack

Actions

Share this page

Is this you?

As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work.
Claim your profile

Articles

Great Britain publishes its restrictions on the use of Methyl Salicylate

|
By Laurence Wittner Verified, Canada considers restrictions, New guidelines
| CosmeticOBS Verified
Initiated following the classification of Methyl Salicylate as Repr. 2, which gave it CMR status, this new regulation adds an entry to Annex III (restricted substances) of the Cosmetics Regulations applicable in England, Wales and Scotland.
Open in Who Shared Issue with article?

12,500 dangerous cosmetic products seized by French customs

|
By welcome ANSMarticle, Canada considers restrictions, Alès Groupe, Brief cosmetics
| CosmeticOBS Verified
On 22 December, French Customs announced the seizure of 12,500 non-compliant and dangerous cosmetic products from China by customs officers in Le Havre. Among the non-conformities found, the presence of Cyclomethicone, a banned substance likely to harm fertility and harmful for the environment.
Open in Who Shared View Duplicates (2) Issue with article?

Allegations "With...": €200,000 fine for Sephora

|
By Canada considers restrictions
| CosmeticOBS Verified
As part of its controls on cosmetic claims, the DGCCRF analysed several references of Sephora branded masks in early 2020. It announced today that it has found that ingredients representing only a tiny part of the finished product were highlighted on their packaging. This is a practice that does not justify any effect on the product and is likely to mislead consumers. The company has agreed to pay a fine of €200,000.
Open in Who Shared View Duplicates (2) Issue with article?
See all 16 articles