Comments

Personal Care Products Council Charges $1,000 For Access to INCI Names

by DONNA MARIA COLES JOHNSON on November 2, 2009

When I was a cosmetics manufacturer years ago, I joined the Personal Care Products Council (formerly known as the Cosmetic, Toiletries & Fragrances Association). At the time, I lived in Washington, DC and I enjoyed going to their offices from time to time to use their library. I also learned a lot from them about how to run a successful cosmetics company under the authority of the Food & Drug Administration, which regulates cosmetics.

unlabeled cosmetics

Today, the pending FDA Globalization Act of 2009 is poised to amend the cosmetics laws for the first time in decades. The pending legislation got me to thinking about an interesting quirk in the law the makes it difficult for startup and small and independent cosmetics companies to label their products in accordance with FDA law.

One of the documents I used most at the PCPC library was the “INCI Dictionary,” which contains the names required to be used to identify ingredients on cosmetic product labels. Then as now, only members or non-members who purchased the INCI Dictionary had access to it. As I recall, the price was somewhere around $400 and it was not available online. Today, the INCI Dictionary is available online from PCPC. The price is $995.00

What Are INCI Names?

INCI names are the names required by federal regulation to be used to identify the ingredients in a cosmetic, and must be listed in the ingredient declaration. The FDA established the requirement for cosmetic ingredient declarations on product labeling under the authority of Section 5 of the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA) (21 CFR 701.3).

The FPLA provides authority to promulgate regulations “necessary to prevent the deception of consumers or to facilitate value comparisons.” To accomplish these goals, the regulation requires that cosmetic product labels be prominent and conspicuous so they are “likely to be read and understood by ordinary individuals under normal conditions of purchase…”
(21 CFR 701.3(b)). Further, Section 5(c)(3)(B) requires the use of “the common or usual name” for identification of each such ingredient included in the preparation.

In other words, the same names — INCI names — must be used on all products to ensure that cosmetic ingredients are consistently identified and consumers can readily compare ingredients when making purchasing decisions.

The specific section of the regulations that says the INCI names must be used is Title 21, Section 701.3 of the Food Drug & Cosmetic Act. You can find the entire section here, but the critical language where INCI is concerned is that, if the FDA does not specifically say which name should be used to identify an ingredient (and it does so only rarely), then name adopted for that ingredient in the PCPC dictionary — the INCI name — is to be used. (Note: PCPC is identified as CTFA, the former name of the PCPC.)

And where is this dictionary available? It’s available from PCPC’s PCPC website. Members can subscribe (PDF) to the online version of the Web Based International Cosmetics Ingredient Dictionary & Handbook for an annual fee of o $495. Non-members must pay $995. The hard copy version of the Dictionary is also available for $495.00 (PCPC members) or $795 (non members)

What’s A Small Business To Do?

This presents an obvious challenge for small businesses. They either have to join PCPC (PDF) at a minimum annual price of $640, and then purchase the INCI information for a minimum of $495, or they have to purchase the information without joining for between $795 and $995.

It would be one thing if using INCI names was optional, but it’s not. Requiring companies to pay a fee to a private non-profit entity in order to access information that is necessary (not optional) in order to comply with the law amounts to a barrier to entry into the cosmetics arena. Small businesses have adapted by getting the INCI information from second-hand sources. That is, people purchase the information from PCPC and then share it with others. This behavior obviously solves the small manufacturer’s labeling problem, but only to the extent they can trust the second hand source. (Of course, the fact that the INCI dictionary bears the PCPC copyright ownership notice is another issue altogether.)

The bottom line? The mandatory nature of the labeling rules forces small businesses to either rely on second hand information to comply with the law, or spend $1,000 a year to comply with federal labeling laws.

What Should Happen?

I am not sure, but I do not believe the current situation was the intent of Congress, the FDA or the PCPC. After all, the current regulatory structure was implemented at a time when only large companies made cosmetics. For them, $1,000 for a labeling manual was and still is a drop in the bucket.

At the leader of a 800+ member trade organization that serves the cosmetics industry, I know that there are thousands of tiny new entrants bringing massive amounts of innovation and energy to the industry. To me, it seems clearly unduly burdensome for these small companies to have to pay $1,000 to gain access to information that is required by law to be included on their product labels.

I think it’s time for Congress and/or the FDA to act, in particular while it is considering new legislation anyway, to create a level playing field that enables all companies, large and small, to have unencumbered access to the information needed to label their cosmetics in compliance with the law.

I will continue to monitor issues of interest as they impact progress on the FDA Globalization Act of 2009 and the Safe Baby Products Act, and report relevant information here.

Question: What do you think? Do you think it’s time for INCI names to be made public so all can see and have unfettered access to them? Post your thoughts and opinions in the comments section below.

Related Posts:

  • Yelena
    I think the INCI names should be available to the public. I am a product development consultant. I work with medium and small businesses. The access to this information is primordial for the product development process of any item.
    The fee to access this information is very hard to bear for the limited resources of the small industry.
  • Dennis
    INCI lists are available online from a variety of sources and some companies charge for them like the PCP (formerly CTFA) which charges for their printed or CD list. Not only does the PCP seems to be the FDA's right hand with regards to the list but the if you want to register a new INCI then you have to pay the PCP to get it added to the list. Anyone else smell a monopoly backed by a government entity?
  • Am I the only person who is reminded of the movie Animal House? Dean Wermer and all the double secret stuff?
    I'm not opening a Pandora's box of parallel drawing here, it seems to me the government cannot advocate for transparency on one hand and obscure pertinent legal information on the other.
  • Thanks for the feedback everyone! I think this has to be a part of our advocacy. It's so obvious that this kind of information must be easily accessible. Right now, it's a barrier to entry that most people don't find out about until after they've started to "enter," and that makes it all the more important for us to bring to the attention of lawmakers and policy makers.
  • The government states that we must use INCI information when labeling our products; to charge small businesses (or any business of any size) an added fee to help us comply with government laws seems at odds with the intent of the law.
  • If the government requires us to use them, then the government should make the list available...it seems rather simple to me.
  • Robert Tisserand
    Is the PCPC (a) funded by government, or is it (b) a private organization funded by its members?

    If it's (a), then the INCI list should be in the public domain. If it's (b), then why does this organization have so much power?

    Either way, imposing INCI names on consumers without enabling interpretation it is strange behavior for an organization that claims to be "a vocal advocate for consumer safety and a trusted source of information."
  • Debbie
    They should be made public.
  • The FDA is requiring we comply with labeling and INCI use. I feel it is the responsibility of the FDA then to also make the INCI information freely available. It would be unreasonable for a teacher to test students without providing instruction or study materials, likewise it is not appropriate for the FDA to regulate the INCI names on labels unless they also freely provide that information to the public. The laws are public, the ability to access the material to meet the laws requirement must also be public. The FDA has abdicated this INCI responsibility to CTFA (PCPC) for far too long. It is time for the FDA to rise up to the challenge themselves and make this information freely available at the FDA itself. First they must decide whether they are going to acknowledge the 3rd through 12th additional editions of the CTFA though.
  • Good points, Kelly. And with the FDA's recent actions (along with the FTC's), such as the letter to Dr. Weil, it's a good time to catch their attention with these points. Together, we'll make it happen!
  • Michele
    They should be made public!
  • Maggie
    While I agree that ingredients need to be listed according to a standard (relying on common names can be misleading and dangerous), compliance with a law should not create undue hardship. Either charge a fee on a sliding scale or make INCI names public.
  • Judith
    They should be public! Laws should not have hidden, secret-password portions only the wealthy have access to.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: