After their two respective interventions during the 19th Perfumes & Cosmetics Congress, which took place in Chartres on December 1st and 2nd, 2021, Ambroise Pascal and Catherine Argoyti, respectively Head of the office of health products and services to the person and Deputy in charge of cosmetics and aesthetics of the DGCCRF, and Thomas Lecardez and Manuela Boutillier, respectively Head of the INSMAR unit and Inspector of cosmetic products at the ANSM, answered the questions of the congressmen, and in particular the numerous ones that concerned nanomaterials and claims.
Nanomaterials
Question
Regarding the definition of nanomaterials in the Cosmetics Regulation, how do you see the fact of adding an interpretation to this law on certain points (intentionality, method of analysis), while firmly refusing to do so on others, such as the notion of threshold, even though a European text specifies this threshold, which is not the case for intentionality? It is no longer really a question of applying laws, but of making them, and this is becoming dangerous for a market control body. Why remain so firmly stuck on this notion of a threshold when the rest of Europe and the authorities in other countries do not take this position?
Ambroise Pascal’s answer
On intentionality: the subject is addressed in the definition of the Cosmetics Regulation. We try to apply it as it is written. In the document published jointly with the ANSM, we developed why we had this position.
One point that is quite surprising and enlightening on this debate is that many industry representatives or operators seem to either plead for a direct application of the 2011 European Recommendation, or bet that the definition applicable to cosmetics will evolve in this direction. On the question of intentionality, …
