J&J supports BASF ingredient
This article was originally published in The Rose Sheet
Executive Summary
FDA should expedite review of BASF's Time & Extent Application for UVB absorber octyl triazone, marketed in Europe as Uvinul T-150, Johnson & Johnson says in an Oct. 7 letter to the agency. While J&J "has no experience with this ingredient, we are aware of the limited choices available for sunscreen actives," company states. BASF first petitioned FDA to designate octyl triazone a Category I sunscreen ingredient in November 1996, based on foreign marketing experience (1"The Rose Sheet" Dec. 2, 1996, p. 8). The ingredient has been marketed in Europe since 1989 and in Japan since 1996. FDA barred interim marketing of OTC drugs in the U.S. in its final rule on "material time, material extent" criteria, and noted pending citizen petitions from sunscreen ingredient suppliers could be converted to TEAs for agency consideration of monograph eligibility (2"The Rose Sheet" Jan. 29, 2002, p. 8)...
You may also be interested in...
FDA “Material Time, Material Extent” May Be Cloudy For Sunscreens
Interim marketing for OTC drugs or "conditions" in the U.S. subject to a final or new monograph is barred under FDA's final rule on "material time, material extent" criteria
Octyl triazone inclusion in sunscreen TFM based on foreign use data sought by BASF.
OCTYL TRIAZONE INCLUSION IN SUNSCREEN MONOGRAPH SOUGHT BY BASF AG as a Category I (generally recognized as safe and effective) sunscreen ingredient on the basis of its foreign marketing experience. In a Nov. 15 petition filed by the Washington, D.C. office of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Germany-based BASF asks FDA to reopen the administrative record of the OTC Sunscreen Drug Products review to include octyl triazone, which the company sells overseas under the trade name Uvinul T 150. The ingredient was approved in the European Union in 1989 and in Japan in March.
California Court’s Inaction On TiO2 Prop 65 First Amendment Case Breeds New Lawsuits
The Personal Care Products Council seeks to stem the rising tide of titanium dioxide Proposition 65 lawsuits, requesting that a California court prohibit the state’s Attorney General and private enforcers from filing and/or prosecuting new suits against cosmetics companies failing to warn about potential TiO2 exposure.