PDF printable version of Cosmetic Toiletry and Fragrance Association of NZ Inc submission (PDF 671 KB)
Submission for the National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme (NICNAS)
To NICNAS REVIEW—Department of Health and Ageing
By: Cosmetic Toiletry and Fragrance Association of New Zealand Inc.
Submitted on: 27 July 2012 Cosmetic Toiletry and Fragrance Association of New Zealand Inc.
1. Contact Details
2. Summary Statements
3. Detailed submission
4. Background Details
Cosmetic Toiletry and Fragrances Association of New Zealand Inc
Private Bag 92-066 Auckland 1142 New Zealand
The CTFA New Zealand supports a principles based regulatory system for Cosmetics and Cosmetic ingredients in all markets
We submit that products available and legal for sale in New Zealand should be both legal and able to be sold in Australia and vice versa under the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Agreement without additional regulatory hurdles.
We believe that the regulatory model used for regulation of Cosmetics and Cosmetic Ingredients in Europe and adopted by New Zealand and the ASEAN group of Countries provides a robust principle based regulatory system but with moderate compliance costs for cosmetic products and that Australia should consider adoption of the same model for the regulation of Cosmetics.
The current Australian model for Cosmetic Products regulation has high compliance costs and appears slow to respond to international best practice regulatory changes and adoption of product innovation.
The current Australian regulatory model places Australian cosmetics manufacturers at a disadvantage when exporting to New Zealand and Europe due to differing ingredient regulation for some ingredients, the lack of opportunity to use new and innovative ingredients due to the high assessment costs of those ingredients within Australia.
This model does not achieve the intent under the Closer Economic Relations Agreement with New Zealand and the subsequent Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Agreement nor does it fit with the intent statements of both countries leaders on closer harmonisation.
The current Australian model does not provide for harmonisation or any form of mutual recognition of cosmetic products with the ASEAN countries where the ASEAN Cosmetic Directive (aligned to the EU model) is in force. A move to harmonise with New Zealand using the Cosmetic Products Group Standard would provide this and enable opportunities to enhance Australian cosmetic manufacturers’ access to those markets as well as providing an internationally recognised platform for access into Europe.
The current Australian regulatory model restricts products timely availability in the Australian market and in the case of New Zealand manufacturers or exporters incentivises them to export to Europe or ASEAN countries as a preference due to the ASEAN alignment with both the EU/New Zealand regulatory models.
We would strongly commend consideration by Australia to adopt the structure and perhaps harmonisation with the New Zealand Cosmetic Products Group Standard to reduce Australian manufacturing costs and assist Australian manufacturers to access export markets without needing to reformulate and with confidence that this alignment is international best practice.
The CTFA New Zealand has chosen to comment only on that area of Cosmetics and not across all sections of the discussion paper. All points submitted on are in the order they appear in the discussion paper.
Part 6 C1 to C6
It is clear that non-PEC’s should be treated differently and that in doing so alignment with international best practice such as the EU model adopted in New Zealand and ASEAN countries should be looked at.
Treatment of cosmetic chemicals in the same rigid structures as PEC’s is regulation out of proportion to the risks associated with those chemicals and the finished products. We submit that legislative change is necessary and a serious look to harmonise with the New Zealand Cosmetic Products Group Standard should be a priority for cosmetic chemicals and finished products.
The CTFA New Zealand does not wish to recommend how enforcement should be pursued in Australia however we do observe that enforcement of Australian law should fall to an enforcement agency.
By example in New Zealand, the EPA does not directly pursue enforcement of the Cosmetic Products Group Standard but instead refers the enforcement to the appropriate agency such as the Department of Labour or the Ministry of Health or the Commerce Commission. Enforcement is also available under Customs, Police and local council health officials should that be necessary. The EPA is the conduit for action to be taken.
Part 8 (General)
Treatment of cosmetics under the PEC structure is not appropriate and given the wide and in many instances internationally aligned regulation of cosmetics to the EU model, serious consideration must be given to international acceptance of finished articles and adopting the exclusion and restrictions of ingredients model that the EU operates.
Part 8 H1
This option does not address the fundamental issue of the structure however it does move enforcement to an appropriate enforcement body.
The key issue is that the Cosmetic Standard should be modelled on the New Zealand Cosmetic Products Group Standard or at the very least on the EU Group Standard which sets down principles for guidance.
Labelling is already enforced by the ACCC and broadly speaking this is aligned to that of the New Zealand Cosmetic Products Group Standard which provides an exemption for cosmetic products labelled for Australia. Ideally this should be reciprocated should a company label for New Zealand and negate the need for Australian specific labelling.
Acceptance of international labelling such as the EU within this would address many of the concerns about international cosmetic products coming into Australia but does not address the issues that need to be addressed under H2 of this document.
Part 8 H2
If an exclusion and restriction model were adopted such as the EU model or harmonisation with the New Zealand Cosmetic Products Group Standard, then it would not be necessary to have an inventory of cosmetic chemicals for Australia. The cost of administration can be reduced to excluding or restricting use of chemicals of harm as they are internationally identified.
This is a far more pragmatic approach that would save both industry and NICNAS significant operation and compliance costs
We recommend that this approach be seriously considered for cosmetics and as an option for other low risk products as part of the review. The adoption of the Cosmetic Products Group Standard in New Zealand has been highly successfully and embraced by the New Zealand cosmetics industry. It has facilitated export opportunities, particularly for small and medium enterprises without compromising public health and safety or environmental considerations.
The Cosmetic Toiletry and Fragrances Association of New Zealand Inc. (CTFA) is the pre-eminent membership organisation representing cosmetic companies within New Zealand. The CTFA is affiliated to similar bodies internationally and communicates with such bodies to ensure international harmonisation where possible.
The present membership consists of the majority of Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance manufacturers and/or distributors of such products within New Zealand and by value around 90% of the domestic New Zealand Cosmetic market.
The Cosmetics industry in New Zealand generates around $150 million in exports across a range of product types ranging from traditional cosmetic products to natural ingredient and unique New Zealand cosmetics. These products are also sold in the domestic market.
CTFA Membership is voluntary and governed by a Code of Ethics for market conduct.
A Cosmetic Code of Practice is well developed covering Good Manufacturing Practice. (GMP) (aligned to the International Standards Organisation 22716 - GMP) Included in the voluntary code guidelines are handling, storage and labelling practices for our member companies to ensure compliance with the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) legislation under the Cosmetic Group Standard 2006 Regulation.
Most of our manufacturing members hold an audited by the CTFA dual certification for GMP ISO 22716 and the New Zealand GMP CTFA certification. Certificates are renewed every 5 years.
The Code of Practice is available free to members of the CTFA but not available to non-members who may still use the ISO standards.
The CTFA has produced guide materials on Green advertising Claims within New Zealand, labelling and packaging and guides for product type specific compliance such as hair products and sunscreens.
Currently the CTFA New Zealand has 77 full members included sub groups such Beauty and Hair Salon Marketers. It also has 19 associate or supplier members ranging from media to packaging and services suppliers.
The CTFA and its members support the charity “Look Good Feel Better” by both fund raising and providing products in excess of $2.5 million dollars per annum. The charity provides annually workshops for more than 2000 women with cancer on how dealing with the effects of the treatment each year.
The CTFA works in close cooperation with groups such as the Direct Sellers Association and the Employers and Manufacturers Association on issues of common interest. Direct Sellers account for around 20% of Cosmetic sales in New Zealand and for a significant component of the exports from New Zealand.
Our products range from the well understood perfumes, colour and skincare products to products such as toothpaste, oral care and anti-dandruff shampoos. These are commonly called personal care products within the wider industry.
Governance of our products falls mostly under the HSNO Cosmetic Groups Standard although all products that also constitute dangerous goods are covered by the Dangerous Goods regulations of the HSNO legislation as set out within the Group Standard.
Products that have a therapeutic benefit or claim maybe covered by the Medicines Act as a related product such as higher level fluoride toothpastes and anti-dandruff shampoos that also include treatments for other conditions.
Around 95% of cosmetic products sold in New Zealand are imported. These are manufactured to world best practice and accepted Good Manufacturing Practice standards in Europe, USA, Canada or Australia or in other markets under licence and to those same standards by global manufacturing facilities.
New Zealand is not an isolated market with more than 380 fragrances marketed to women and almost 200 fragrance or cologne products marketed to men currently. Around 50+ new fragrances are launched each year and around 15 are withdrawn making this a dynamic and changing market.
Skin care, colour make up and beauty products have a range of more than 200 product brands while hair care, body wash and care products number around 100 brands. While less products are launched or withdrawn in this category of product it continues to change with new and innovative skin products constantly being launched. We see sun care and sunscreen products as part of those skincare products.
The representation of cosmetics product in New Zealand is less than is available in some larger markets. In spite of the size of our market, it is considered to have a significant range of consumer choice which is enabled by the current internationalisation of the New Zealand marketplace under the Cosmetic Group Standard.
A full list of all 2012 submissions can be viewed at June 2012 submissions to the review of NICNAS