Skip to main content
Log in

Regulation of Cosmetics: What has Malaysia Learnt from the European System?

Journal of Consumer Policy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Cosmetics are very popular consumer products. Their ever-increasing sales have encouraged many producers to introduce cosmetics which are sometimes unsafe and cause adverse effects. In order to secure the safety of cosmetic products and to make the cosmetics trade more effective, the EU has harmonized its cosmetic regulations. This is the first region in the world to have done so. This harmonization model and many aspects of the EU regulatory framework have been followed and adopted by ASEAN countries as well as others around the world. As Malaysia is an ASEAN Member State, it has also adopted this system. This article takes Malaysia as a case study in order to determine how the EU model has been put into operation. Although there are a lack of resources and technical facilities, ASEAN has certainly benefited from the EU system, but there has also been a need to include additional requirements to tailor the EU Directive to the requirements of ASEAN countries, not least the greater lack of awareness by the public of the composition and dangers of cosmetic products.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. The European Economic Community (EEC) wished to harmonize its cosmetic regulations in 1969; however, this aim was not achieved. In 1962, the European Cosmetic, Toiletry & Perfumery Association, known as COLIPA, was established. In 1965, COLIPA was also involved in drafting the introduction of the Cosmetics Directive. At the time, the proposed Directive was hailed as a major improvement on the legislation of many European countries. More importantly, it was considered as the first step towards the harmonization of the cosmetics industry not only within the EEC but also around the world. In 1976, the EU finally established a single set of rules for cosmetics. See Lindenschmidt, R. C., Anastasia, F. B., Dorta, M., & Bansil, L. (2001). Global cosmetic regulatory harmonization. Toxicology, 160(1), 237–241. Also see Shweta, K., & Swarnlata, S. (2008). A note on dire need of harmonisation of cosmetic legislation. International Journal of Trade and Global Markets, 1(4), 419–431.

  2. Falke, J., & Joerges, C. (2010). Traditional law approximation policy approaches to removing technical barriers to trade and efforts at a horizontal European product safety policy. Hanse Law Review, 6, 237. Also see Bruggemeier, G., Falke, J., Joerges, C., & Micklitz, H. W. (2010). European product safety, internal market policy and the new approach to technical harmonisation and standards-reissued. Hanse Law Review, 6, 107.

  3. EU Commission, ‘Working Paper: Impact Assessment: Report on Simplification of the Cosmetic Directive,’ Directive 76/768/EEC (COM 2008) 49 Final. See Lodén, M., Ungerth, L., & Serup, J. (2007). Changes in European legislation make it timely to introduce a transparent market surveillance system for cosmetics. Acta Dermato-Venereologica, 87(6), 485–92.

  4. Seven major amendments and more than 40 technical adaptations to its annexes. http://www.cosmeticsandtoiletries.com/regulatory/region/europe/EU-UpdatemdashChanges-with-Implementation-of-12232009-201298751.html. Accessed 5 August 2014

  5. However, a consolidated version (that is, an informal text incorporating all of the amendments) was made available by the Office for Publication on 9 August 2006.

  6. A summary of suggested items in the public consultation can be found in Annex 1.

  7. EU Commission Working Paper, op. cit. (2008), 7.

  8. Betton, C. I. (2007). The REACH Regulation of the European Union. Global Regulatory Issues for the Cosmetics Industry, 35 Also see Nohynek, G. J., Antignac, E., Re, T., & Toutain, H. (2010). Safety assessment of personal care products/cosmetics and their ingredients. Toxicology And Applied Pharmacology, 243(2), 239–259.

  9. This is evidenced by the fact that around 30 countries have adopted the EU model of approved, prohibited ingredient lists and other countries have reproduced certain elements based on the EU model. This is due to the fact that the Cosmetics Directive/Regulations of the EU attempts to guarantee product safety for the consumer while facilitating the cosmetics trade within the EU. The EU has also been actively invited to share its experience of implementing its cosmetic scheme system with other regions and countries such as ASEAN and Japan. This will be explained further in the next section.

  10. McGee, A., & Weatherill, S. (1990). The evolution of the single market—harmonisation or liberalisation. The Modern Law Review, 53(5), 578–596.

  11. The effects of these have sometimes been lethal. In Cambodia for example, there was a death due to a Vietnamese-made skin whitening cream believed to contain dangerous chemicals. This was reported in an article in the Bangkok Post, (2010). Skin Cream Linked to Bride’s Death, 9 March. See Di Giovanni, C., Arcoraci, V., Gambardella, L., & Sautebin, L. (2006). Cosmetovigilance survey: are cosmetics considered safe by consumers? Pharmacological Research, 53(1), 16–21.

  12. http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/486693/20130705/japan-s-kanebo-cosmetics-recalls-products-company.htm#.U-MsD_QW3Ps accessed 10 July 2014

  13. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/07/04/national/science-health/kanebo-recalls-54-products-over-skin-spots/#.U8Nly_QW2LA see also http://www.cosmeticsdesign-asia.com/Regulation-Safety/Kanebo-issues-further-recall-after-2-250-major-complaints accessed 10 July 2014

  14. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/07/04/national/science-health/kanebo-recalls-54-products-over-skin-spots/#.U8Nly_QW2LA, see also http://www.cosmeticsdesign-asia.com/Regulation-Safety/Kanebo-issues-further-recall-after-2-250-major-complaints accessed 10 July 2014

  15. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2013/08/04/editorials/kanebo-and-consumer-protection/#.U-Mua_QW3Ps accessed 10 July 2014

  16. ibid

  17. ibid

  18. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/07/04/national/science-health/kanebo-recalls-54-products-over-skin-spots/#.U-MsiU0cTct

  19. de Córdova Manent, B. F., & Abellán, E. G. (2011). Quality control of cosmetic products. Specific legislation on ingredients. Analysis of Cosmetic Products, 29.

  20. Motoomull,J. (1998). Case studies of regulations under Review: ASEAN Global Cosmetic Regulatory Harmonization: An Impetus to the Development of Export Market. Proceeding of An International Cosmetic Industry Congress, 85.

  21. Masson, P.H, (1999). The contribution of the European Cosmetics Directive towards international harmonization: impact on the evaluation of safety and efficacy. Cosmetics, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 20–35.

  22. ibid

  23. Yoshimatsu, H. (2006). Collective action problems and regional integration in ASEAN. Contemporary Southeast Asia. A Journal of International and Strategic Affairs, 28(1), 115–140.

  24. ASEAN. http://www.asean.org/communities/asean-economic-community/item/agreement-on-the-asean-harmonized-cosmetic-regulatory-scheme-phnom-penh-2-september-2003, accessed 24 April 2014.

  25. Agreement on the ASEAN Harmonized Cosmetic Regulatory Scheme, signed on 2 September 2003. Objective 1, p. 10.

  26. ibid

  27. Goltermann (2012). State Capacity and Compliance in ASEAN, Roads to Regionalism: Genesis, Design, and Effects of Regional Organizations, 159. See also Peetman, S. (2013). Standards harmonisation in ASEAN: progress, challenges and moving beyond 2015 (No. DP-2013-30).

  28. ibid

  29. ASEAN, 2010. Also see Golterman, Ibid, 169.

  30. ibid

  31. Neeranard J., Puree A. (2014). ASEAN Harmonisation; Compliance of Cosmetics Regulatory Scheme in Thailand within 5 Years. Journal Of Humanities And Social Science, Volume 19, Issue 3, Ver. II, 46–54.

  32. ibid

  33. Schneider, S., B. (2009). Global cosmetic regulations? A long way to go…., Global Regulatory Issues for the Cosmetics Industry, 199.

  34. ibid

  35. The Control of Drugs and Cosmetic Act 1984 (of Malaysia), under Part III, Section 7(i) specifies that no person shall manufacture, sell, supply, import, and possess for sale any product unless the product is a registered product, and the person holds the appropriate licence required and issued under these Regulations.

  36. Part III (Registration & Licensing), Section 7–25 of Control of Drugs and Cosmetic Regulations 1984.

  37. Asia Pacific Cosmetic & Toiletries Market Overview (2005). Volume 1, 1–8.

  38. http://www.docstoc.com/docs/34037996/MALAYSIA (5 April 2013)

  39. Nordin Mansor, Desnika Efni Mat Ali and Mohd Rafi (2010). Cosmetic usage in Malaysia, understanding the major determinants affecting the users. International Journal of Business and Science, Volume 1, No 3, December, 273

  40. New Straits Times. (2008). Face Scarred by Beauty Product. Tuesday, March 25.

  41. http://portal.bpfk.gov.my/index.cfm?menuid=118 accessed on 10 December 2013

  42. For hydroquinone, such substance falls under the category of substances that cosmetic products must not contain except subject to restrictions and conditions laid down (Annex III Part II); only 0.3 % can be used but only for oxidizing the colouring agent for hair dying and 0.02 % for artificial nail system. A study held that hydroquinone and its metabolites can cause damage to the DNA and inhibit apoptosis of mutated cells. The carcinogenic action of benzene was reported as difficult to attribute to its hydroquinone metabolite. Whereas, according to the study, daily use of hydroquinone caused it to accumulate in the body because absorption into the skin was faster than excretion in the urine. See Kooyers,T. J. & Westerhof, W. (2004). Toxicological aspect and health risks associated with hydroquinone in skin bleaching formula. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd, April 17 148 (16), p. 771. See Nordlund, J. J, Grimes, P. E. & Ortonne, J. D. (2006). Journal of European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, 20, No 7, August 2006,Wiley-Blackwell, 781–787. Also see Levitt, J. (2007). The safety of hydroquinone: a dermatologist’s response to the 2006. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 57(5), 854–872.

  43. It should be noted that in Annex II part I, tretinoin falls under the category of lists of substances which must not form the composition of cosmetic products.

  44. Farr, S. (1996). Harmonisation of technical standards in the EC. Wiley.

  45. The adoption includes all of the annexes. See Article 4(2), 4(3) and 4(4).

  46. Data obtained from an interview with Zuraidah Abdullah, Senior Principal Assistant Director, Cosmetic Section, National Pharmaceutical Control Bureau, Petaling Jaya Selangor, Malaysia on 15 March 2014.

  47. ibid

  48. Product Information File (PIF) is the requirement imposed on cosmetic companies to keep the safety information readily available for the competent authorities. According to Article 7 of the Directive, the data required to be put in the PIF files are the “assessment of the safety for human health of the finished product; as well as the name and address of the qualified person responsible for the assessment, the qualitative and quantitative composition of the product, the physico-chemical and microbiological specifications, the method of manufacture complying with the good manufacturing practice (GMP), existing data on undesirable effects on human health, proof of the effect claimed for the cosmetic product and data on any animal testing.”

  49. The USA’s Food and Drug Act of 1938 is the oldest law on cosmetics. What makes it a very significant jurisdiction, in addition to this law, is that the policy on cosmetics in the USA is centred on self-regulation which is different to the legislation-driven practices of most other countries.

  50. New policies were introduced in the EU Cosmetics Directive, such as the amendment to prohibit the testing of animals (this culminated in the case of France v European Parliament and the Council of European Union and the safety of nanomaterials in cosmetic products that has been discussed recently. Such developments put the EU at the forefront in cosmetic regulations.

  51. Bach & Newman (2010). Governing lipitor and lipstick: capacity, sequencing, and power in International Pharmaceutical and Cosmetics Regulation. Review of National Political Economy, 17(4), 665–695.

  52. ibid

  53. Risk and Analyst Limited. (2004). Comparative study on the cosmetic legislation in the EU and other principle markets with special attention to so-called borderline products. EC DG Enterprise

  54. As well as ASEAN, this includes Mercosur and the Comunidad Andina (Andean Pact).

  55. Such as China, Israel, Morocco, India. See the Risk and Analyst Limited. (2004). ibid, also see McMillan, R. & Lisansky, S. (eds). (1998). Global cosmetic regulatory harmonization: an impetus to the development of export markets, Proceedings of an International Cosmetic Industry Congress, CPL Press.

  56. The International Cooperation on Cosmetics Regulation (ICCR) is an international group of cosmetic regulatory authorities from the USA (Food and Drug Administration), Japan (Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare), the European Union (European Commission, DG Enterprise), and Canada (Health Canada). This multilateral framework maintains the highest level of global consumer protection, while minimizing barriers to international trade.

  57. This seminar was a collaboration between the two countries on the commitment to start a convergence more progressively between them to inform the Japanese cosmetic industry of the new regulation on cosmetics in the EU including the latest development on nanomaterials.

  58. Article 1(1) of the Cosmetics Directive defines a “cosmetic product” as “any substance or preparation intended to be placed in contact with the various external parts of the human body (epidermis, hair system, nails, lips and external genital organs) or with the teeth and the mucous membranes of the oral cavity with a view exclusively or mainly to cleaning them, perfuming them, changing their appearance and/or correcting body odours and/or protecting them or keeping them in good condition.” According to the definition, there are two cumulative aspects: first, the target part of application and, second, the “intended main (cosmetic) function.” The effect is that it attempts to establish parameters by describing common characteristics of products that are regarded by most people as cosmetics.

  59. Discussed in the 19th ACC Meeting on 21–24 May 2013, in Laos and in the 20th ACC Meeting on 25–28 November 2013 in Malaysia

  60. Indonesia

  61. Commission Decision 2004/210/EC.

  62. BIS, Cosmetic safety: a guide to the cosmetic products (Safety Regulations 2008), March 2010, p.8

  63. Article 12 of the EU Cosmetic Regulation

  64. Article 16 of the EU Cosmetic Regulation

  65. Article 10 of the EU Cosmetic Regulation

  66. Article 22 of the EU Cosmetic Regulation

  67. Ogus, A. (2000). Self-regulation. Encyclopedia of Law and Economics, 5, 587–602.

  68. Peter, B. H., (2000). A history of government regulation of adulteration and misbranding of cosmetics. In Norman F. Estrin & James M. Akerson (eds.). Cosmetic Regulation in a Competitive Environment 1, 2.

  69. Gillhooley, M., (1978). Federal regulation of cosmetic: an overview, Food Drug Cosmetic Law Journal, 33, 231–232. Also, Kaplan, S. (1990). How cosmetic lobby maintains its lustre: even distant threat of regulations spawns industry scurrying. Legal Times, April 31, 1. See also Gary L. Y., & Susan O. (1997). Cosmetic regulation revisited, in Robert Brady et al. (eds.), Fundamentals of Law and Regulation: Volume 1, Food and Drug Law Institute, 326. Henry, I. M. (2005). Hysteria over cosmetics; why would California lawmakers yearns for European style—over regulation? The Orange County Register, April 24, 110. Also see Page, J. A. & Blackburn, K. A. (1976–1977). Behind the looking glass: administrative, legislative and private approaches to cosmetic safety substantiation, 24 UCLA Law Review, 808. Hartman, A. (2008). FDA’s minimal regulation of cosmetics and the daring claims of cosmetic companies that cause consumers economic harm. Western State University Review, 36, 53.

  70. It is mentioned in Article 3 of the EU Cosmetic Regulation that “Cosmetic products should be safe under normal or reasonably foreseeable conditions of use.”

  71. Article 10 of the EU Cosmetic Regulation

  72. Article 22 of the EU Cosmetic Regulation

  73. Brad S. H. & Horton L.R., (1997). International harmonization of cosmetic regulation, in Fundamentals of Law and Regulation: Volume 1’, Food and Drug Law Institute, 488.

  74. SCCP. (2005). Opinion concerning request for confirmation on chemical ingredients in cosmetic products classified as carcinogenic. mutagenic, or toxic to reproduction according to Council Directive. 15 March

  75. The Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (Dec 2010). The SCCS’s notes of guidance for testing of cosmetic ingredients and their safety evaluation. 7th Revision, adopted by the SCCS during the 9th plenary meeting of 14 December.

  76. Pauwels, M. & Vera, R., (2007). EU legislations affecting safety data availability of cosmetic ingredients. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 49.3, 308–315.

  77. Pisacane, G. (2009). Cosmetics market regulation in Asian countries. Household and Personal Care today, 4, 21–25.

  78. Anis Talib, (2009). Status of the ACD implementation and pertinent changes to Malaysia cosmetic regulation. ASEAN Cosmetic Directive Fostering Industry Compliance Seminar, 19 Oct, National Pharmaceutical Control Bureau and The Cosmetic Toiletries and Fragrance Association of Malaysia

  79. ibid

  80. ibid

  81. Data obtained from an interview with Zuraidah Abdullah, Senior Principal Assistant Director, Cosmetic Section, National Pharmaceutical Control Bureau, Petaling Jaya Selangor, Malaysia on 15 March 2014

  82. Hodges (2005). European regulation of consumer product safety. Oxford University, 87.

  83. It is explicitly mentioned in Article 3 of the EU Regulation and Article 2 of the ASEAN Directives.

  84. Annex II of the Directive

  85. http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.results&annex_v2=II&search accessed on 10 December 2013.

  86. As listed in categories 1, 2 and 3 under Annex I to Council Directive 67/548/EEC.

  87. Refer to article 4 of the ACD.

  88. Article 3 of the ACD.

  89. The adoption of this includes all of the annexes, see Article 4(2), 4(3) and 4(4) of the ACD.

  90. The ACSB consists of representatives from the regulatory authorities, the industry and the academic world. At present, the ACSB is reviewing the ASEAN cosmetics ingredients (published as the Handbook of Cosmetic Ingredients) as well as additions to the annexes of the Directive.

  91. ASEAN Cosmetic Committee in 2003 in accordance with Article 10 “Institutional Arrangements” of ASEAN Cosmetic Directive (ACD) to oversee and monitor the implementation of this Directive

  92. It should be noted that in Annex II part I, tretinoin falls under the category of lists of substances which must not form of the composition of cosmetic products.

  93. For hydroquinone, such substance falls under the category of lists of substances that cosmetic products must not contain except subject to restrictions and conditions laid down (Annex III Part II) that is only 0.3 % can be use but only for oxidizing colouring agent for hair dying and 0.02 % for artificial nail system.

  94. Other than whitening product, baby products are also regarded as “priority products.”

  95. Information given by Dr. Saadiah Sulaiman, a safety assessor in Malaysia, in an interview dated 12 July 2012.

  96. Cartwright, P. (2006). Enforcement, risk and discretion: the case of dangerous consumer products. Legal Studies, 26(4), 524–543.

  97. Under Appendix II of the ACD.

  98. ASEAN 10th ACC Meeting, 19 November 2008, Singapore

  99. Anis Talib, opcit.

  100. ibid.

  101. Woodroffe, G. & Weatherill, S. (1990). Post-market control of technical goods: consumer safety in the U.K., in Micklitz (ed.), Post-market Control of Consumer Goods, University of Bremen, Nomos, 259 – 302.

  102. Article 6.1 of Guidelines for Control of Cosmetic Malaysia 2008

  103. Article 5 of ASEAN Guidelines for the Safety Assessment of Cosmetic Products

  104. Article 6.1 of Guidelines for Control of Cosmetic Malaysia

  105. Article 8 of the ASEAN Cosmetic Directive

  106. Data obtained from an interview with a safety assessor dated 12 August 2013.

  107. ibid.

  108. ibid.

  109. ibid.

  110. Saadiah Sulaiman, (2009). Safety assessment: available local expertise. ASEAN Cosmetic Directive Fostering Industry Compliance Seminar, 19 Oct, National Pharmaceutical Control Bureau and The Cosmetic Toiletries and Fragrance Association of Malaysia

  111. SPS measures at http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/agrm4_e.htm, last visited 10 February 2012.

  112. ibid

  113. Based on information given by a safety assessor in Malaysia on 28 March 2011

  114. Motoomull, J., (1998). Case studies of regulations under review: ASEAN, in the Global Cosmetic Regulatory Harmonization: an impetus to the development of export market. In MacMillan R. and Lisansky S. (ed) Proceeding of An International Cosmetic Industry Congress, April 22–23, Florence, 85.

  115. Howells, G. G. (1998). Consumer product safety. Aldershot: Ashgate, 5

  116. Article 6 of the Guidelines

  117. Sections 4 and 5 of the EU Cosmetics Regulations

  118. Zuraidah Abdullah, op cit.

  119. ibid

  120. ibid

  121. This information is based on an informal discussion with an officer from the National Pharmaceutical Control Bureau (NPCB) dated 29 March 2011.

  122. Appendix 7, Annex 1, part 8 ACD

  123. Information given by an officer at the NPCB (29 March 2011).

  124. ibid

  125. This is the system of information sharing between ASEAN countries. However, the sharing of information between ASEAN countries is not similar to the EU, as the authorities will circulate information between themselves about the hazardous cosmetics, and then later, it is up to each country how to announce them. It is explained in the next section.

  126. ibid

  127. ibid

  128. ibid

  129. ibid

  130. Zuraidah Abdullah, op cit.

  131. Zuraidah Abdullah, op cit.

  132. http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/08/312&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en (last assessed on 7 February 2014).

  133. This information was given in a telephone interview by an officer in charge of the ASEAN ALERT in Malaysia dated 12 July 2014.

  134. http://portal.bpfk.gov.my/index.cfm?menuid=118 accessed 1 August 2014

  135. Discussed in the 19th ACC Meeting on 21–24 May 2013 in Laos and in the 20th ACC Meeting on 25–28 November 2013 in Malaysia

References

  • Anis Talib, (2009). Status of the ACD implementation and pertinent changes to Malaysia cosmetic regulation. ASEAN Cosmetic Directive Fostering Industry Compliance Seminar, 19 Oct, National Pharmaceutical Control Bureau and The Cosmetic Toiletries and Fragrance Association of Malaysia.

  • Asia Pacific Cosmetic & Toiletries Market Overview (2005). Volume 1.

  • Bach, & Newman, (2010). Governing lipitor and lipstick: capacity, sequencing, and power in International Pharmaceutical and Cosmetics Regulation. Review of National Political Economy, 17(4).

  • Betton, C. I. (2007). The REACH Regulation of the European Union. Global Regulatory Issues for the Cosmetics Industry.

  • Brad, S. H., & Horton, L.R., (1997). International harmonization of cosmetic regulation, in Fundamentals of Law and Regulation: Volume 1’, Food and Drug Law Institute.

  • Bruggemeier, G., Falke, J., Joerges, C., & Micklitz, H. W. (2010). European product safety, internal market policy and the new approach to technical harmonisation and standards-reissued. Hanse Law Review, 6, 107.

  • Daum, C. (2006). Self-regulation in the cosmetic industry: a necessary reality or a cosmetic illusion? Food & Drug.

  • de Córdova Manent, B. F., & Abellán, E. G. (2011). Quality control of cosmetic products. Specific legislation on ingredients. Analysis of Cosmetic Products, 29.

  • Di Giovanni, C., Arcoraci, V., Gambardella, L., & Sautebin, L. (2006). Cosmetovigilance survey: are cosmetics considered safe by consumers? Pharmacological Research, 53(1).

  • EU Commission ‘Working Paper: Impact Assessment: Report on Simplification of the Cosmetic Directive,’ Directive 76/768/EEC (COM 2008) Final.

  • Falke, J., & Joerges, C. (2010). Traditional law approximation policy approaches to removing technical barriers to trade and efforts at a horizontal European product safety policy. Hanse Law Review, 6, 237.

  • Farr, S. (1996). Harmonisation of technical standards in the EC. Wiley.

  • Gary, L.Y., & Susan, O. (1997). Cosmetic regulation revisited. In R. Brady et al. (Eds.), Fundamentals of Law and Regulation: Volume 1, Food and Drug Law Institute.

  • Gillhooley, M., (1978). Federal regulation of cosmetic: an overview. Food Drug Cosmetic Law Journal, 33.

  • Goltermann (2012). State Capacity and Compliance in ASEAN, Roads to Regionalism: Genesis, Design, and Effects of Regional Organizations.

  • Hartman, A. (2008). FDA’s minimal regulation of cosmetics and the daring claims of cosmetic companies that cause consumers economic harm. Western State University Review, 36.

  • Henry, I. M. (2005). Hysteria over cosmetics; why would California lawmakers yearns for European style—over regulation? The Orange County Register, April 24.

  • Hodges (2005). European regulation of consumer product safety. Oxford University, 87.

  • Interview with Zuraidah Abdullah, Senior Principal Assistant Director, Cosmetic Section, National Pharmaceutical Control Bureau, Petaling Jaya Selangor, Malaysia on 15 March 2014.

  • J. A., & Blackburn, K. A. (1976–1977). Behind the looking glass: administrative, legislative and private approaches to cosmetic safety substantiation, 24 UCLA Law Review.

  • Kaplan, S. (1990). How cosmetic lobby maintains its lustre: even distant threat of regulations spawns industry scurrying. Legal Times, April 31.

  • Levitt, J. (2007). The safety of hydroquinone: a dermatologist’s response to the 2006. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 57(5).

  • Lindenschmidt, R. C., Anastasia, F. B., Dorta, M., & Bansil, L. (2001). Global cosmetic regulatory harmonization. Toxicology, 160(1), 237–241.

  • Lodén, M., Ungerth, L., & Serup, J. (2007). Changes in European legislation make it timely to introduce a transparent market surveillance system for cosmetics. Acta Dermato-Venereologica, 87(6).

  • Masson, P. H. (1999). The contribution of the European Cosmetics Directive towards international harmonization: Impact on the evaluation of safety and efficacy. Cosmetics, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

  • McGee, A., & Weatherill, S. (1990). The evolution of the single market— harmonisation or liberalisation. The Modern Law Review, 53(5).

  • Motoomull, J. (1998). Case studies of regulations under Review: ASEAN Global Cosmetic Regulatory Harmonization: An impetus to the development of export market. Proceeding of an International Cosmetic Industry Congress.

  • Neeranard, J., & Puree, A. (2014). ASEAN Harmonisation; Compliance of Cosmetics Regulatory Scheme in Thailand within 5 Years. Journal Of Humanities And Social Science, 19(3), Ver. II.

  • New Straits Times. (2008). Face scarred by beauty product. Tuesday, March 25.

  • Nohynek, G. J., Antignac, E., Re, T., & Toutain, H. (2010). Safety assessment of personal care products/cosmetics and their ingredients. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, 243(2).

  • Mansor, N., Ali, D.E.M., & Yaacob, M.R. (2010). Cosmetic usage in Malaysia, understanding the major determinants affecting the users. International Journal of Business and Science, 1(3), December.

  • Ogus, A. (2000). Self-regulation. Encyclopedia of Law and Economics, 5.

  • Pauwels, M., & Vera, R., (2007). EU legislations affecting safety data availability of cosmetic ingredients. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 49.3.

  • Peetman, S. (2013). Standards harmonisation in ASEAN: progress, challenges and moving beyond 2015 (No. DP-2013-30).

  • Peter, B. H. (2000). A history of government regulation of adulteration and misbranding of cosmetics. In N. F. Estrin & J. M. Akerson (Eds.). Cosmetic Regulation in a Competitive Environment 1, 2.

  • Pisacane, G. (2009). Cosmetics market regulation in Asian countries. Household and Personal Care today, 4.

  • Saadiah Sulaiman, (2009). Safety assessment: available local expertise. ASEAN Cosmetic Directive Fostering Industry Compliance Seminar, 19 Oct, National Pharmaceutical Control Bureau and The Cosmetic Toiletries and Fragrance Association of Malaysia.

  • Schneider, S. B. (2009). Global cosmetic regulations? A long way to go…., Global Regulatory Issues for the Cosmetics Industry.

  • Shweta, K., & Swarnlata, S. (2008). A note on dire need of harmonisation of cosmetic legislation. International Journal of Trade and Global Markets, 1(4).

  • Woodroffe, G. &Weatherill, S. (1990). Post-market control of technical goods: consumer safety in the U.K. In Micklitz (Ed.), Post-market Control of Consumer Goods. University of Bremen, Nomos.

  • Yoshimatsu, H. (2006). Collective action problems and regional integration in ASEAN. Contemporary Southeast Asia. A Journal of International and Strategic Affairs, 28(1).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Z. Zakaria.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zakaria, Z. Regulation of Cosmetics: What has Malaysia Learnt from the European System?. J Consum Policy 38, 39–59 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-014-9271-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-014-9271-3

Keywords

Navigation