The European Union (EU) continues to advance its circular economy objectives with the Packaging & Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR), one of the most significant packaging reforms in decades. The regulation entered into force on Feb. 11, 2025, replacing the previous Packaging & Packaging Waste Directive (94/62/EC), with most requirements becoming applicable as of Aug. 12, 2026.
The packaging industry is one of the largest users of raw materials in the EU, accounting for approximately 40% of plastic use and 50% of paper consumption, according to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). In response, the PPWR aims to reduce packaging waste, improve recyclability, encourage reusable and refillable packaging systems and support the broader transition to a circular economy. A key focus is reducing unnecessary packaging and limiting single-use and overpackaged products.
For manufacturers, importers and brand owners, PPWR introduces several new obligations. Packaging placed on the EU market will need to meet enhanced recyclability requirements and include standardized labeling to facilitate proper sorting and disposal. The PPWR also establishes mandatory minimum recycled plastic content targets for certain categories of plastic packaging, with phased implementation beginning in 2030 and increasing in 2040. In addition, the PPWR includes measures to minimize unnecessary packaging and limit the use of substances of concern.
Recognizing the complexity of the new requirements, the European Commission recently published an official Guidance and a comprehensive frequently asked questions (FAQ) document in response to numerous implementation questions raised by Member States and industry stakeholders. These documents are intended to promote the consistent application of the PPWR throughout Member States by clarifying the interpretation of several provisions within the regulation.
Main Provisions of the PPWR
The PPWR introduces several ambitious targets intended to reduce packaging waste and increase the sustainability of packaging placed on the European market. Member States are expected to reduce packaging waste by 5% by 2030, 10% by 2035 and 15% by 2040, compared with 2018 levels. In addition, all packaging placed on the EU market is expected to be recyclable in an economically viable manner by 2030.
To support these objectives, the regulation establishes reuse targets for selected transport, e-commerce and beverage packaging while prohibiting certain single-use packaging formats beginning Jan.1, 2030. Mandatory deposit-return systems will also be introduced for beverage cans and plastic bottles, accompanied by harmonized packaging labels to help consumers correctly sort packaging waste within the European Union.
PPWR applies broadly to virtually all packaging placed on the EU market, regardless of material type. Its requirements extend throughout the supply chain and cover consumer, commercial, industrial, transport, grouped, e-commerce and reusable packaging.
One of the key design principles introduced by the PPWR is packaging minimization. Packaging must be limited to the minimum weight, volume and empty space necessary to ensure product protection, safety, hygiene, transportation and functionality. Oversized packaging, excessive void space, decorative layers and unnecessary secondary packaging intended primarily for marketing purposes are specifically discouraged.
PPWR promotes the transition from single-use to reusable packaging systems by introducing reuse targets and refill requirements for selected packaging sectors. The regulation establishes provisions for reusable transport and beverage packaging, while also supporting refill systems, including the use of consumer-provided containers in certain takeaway settings. In parallel, it restricts several single-use packaging applications, including selected hotel toiletries, condiment sachets, produce packaging and other convenience packaging formats. These measures are intended to reduce packaging waste and encourage the adoption of more resource-efficient packaging solutions throughout the supply chain.
The regulation also introduces restrictions on substances of concern. Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are prohibited in food-contact packaging above specified thresholds. It establishes limits of 25 ppb for any individual PFAS (measured by targeted PFAS analysis, excluding polymeric PFAS), 250 ppb for the sum of targeted PFAS and 50 ppm for total PFAS (including polymeric PFAS) where the total fluorine content exceeds 50 mg/kg. Although these provisions are primarily directed at food-contact packaging, they align with the EU’s objective of reducing the use of persistent chemicals in packaging materials.
The PPWR also introduces provisions relating to compostable packaging and establishes clear distinctions between biodegradable, compostable, industrially compostable and home compostable materials. Under the regulation, certain packaging applications may be required to be industrially compostable, subject to final implementing measures and the availability of appropriate collection and treatment infrastructure within Member States. Unlike home composting, which depends on variable environmental conditions, industrial composting occurs under controlled high-temperature and high-humidity conditions designed to facilitate the breakdown of compostable materials. Examples identified by the European Commission include tea bags, coffee pods, produce stickers and certain lightweight food-contact packaging.
Another significant change is the introduction of harmonized packaging labeling requirements across the EU. As implementing acts continue to be adopted, companies can expect additional artwork and labeling obligations, including standardized sorting symbols and other information intended to improve consumer understanding and support recycling initiatives.
Implications for the aerosol industry
Although the PPWR is not specific to aerosol dispensers, many of its requirements apply to the packaging materials and components used throughout the aerosol industry. Manufacturers should assess secondary packaging, plastic components such as caps and actuators, packaging artwork and labeling, and supplier documentation to determine whether changes are needed to meet the regulation’s requirements. While metal aerosol cans already benefit from well-established recycling systems, companies may still need to demonstrate compliance with recyclability, recycled content, labeling and documentation requirements. Working closely with packaging suppliers will help ensure the necessary technical documentation and material information are available to support compliance.
Looking ahead
The EU continues to lead the development of packaging sustainability regulations, and the PPWR is likely to influence future legislation in other markets. Similar initiatives are already emerging around the world, including extended producer responsibility (EPR) programs, recycled content mandates, packaging reduction targets and harmonized recycling labels. While the specific requirements vary by jurisdiction, the overall direction is clear: Packaging is increasingly being regulated not only for its role in protecting products and facilitating distribution, but also for its environmental impact throughout its entire life cycle.
For aerosol manufacturers and brand owners selling internationally, staying informed of these developments will be essential. Companies that proactively review their packaging portfolios and supply chains will be better positioned to adapt as packaging sustainability requirements continue to evolve both within Europe and globally. SPRAY
The European Union’s Regulation on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization & Restriction of Chemicals (EU REACH) is the cornerstone of EU chemicals regulation and a global benchmark for substance control. While it does not regulate finished products directly, its substance-based framework has far-reaching implications for aerosol manufacturers. Every component of an aerosol formulation must be assessed for registration status, hazard classification and potential restrictions. In practice, this means that compliance with EU REACH—alongside the closely linked Regulation on Classification, Labeling & Packaging of substances and mixtures (CLP Regulation)—drives formulation decisions, labeling, Safety Data Sheets (SDSs), and even market access for aerosol products both within the EU and increasingly worldwide as other jurisdictions adopt similar regulatory models.
As reflected in the acronym, the four pillars of REACH are Registration, Evaluation, Authorization & Restriction. Substances—including propellants, solvents and active ingredients used in mixtures—must be registered if they are manufactured or imported into the EU in quantities of one tonne or more per year. Foreign companies exporting hazardous products to the EU must appoint an Only Representative (OR) established in the EU to fulfill registration obligations, unless their EU importers assume this responsibility.
Data requirements increase with volume and include physicochemical properties, toxicological and ecotoxicological data, and identified uses and exposure scenarios. The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), together with EU Member States, reviews these dossiers and evaluates substances of concern to determine whether further regulatory action is needed. Relevant notification details, including chemical data and classification information, are publicly accessible through the new ECHA CHEM database.
The Authorization List (Annex XIV of REACH) identifies Substances of Very High Concern (SVHCs) that cannot be used or placed on the market after a specified “sunset date” unless authorization has been granted. The intent is to drive substitution toward safer alternatives, although continued use may be permitted for specific applications where risks are controlled or where there is a clear socio-economic benefit.
The Restriction List (Annex XVII of REACH) places limits or bans on certain substances and uses. The specific conditions are outlined in Column Two of each entry and may apply to substances on their own, in mixtures or in articles.
While REACH is an EU regulation, its influence extends far beyond Europe. Over the past decade, a growing number of countries have developed their own REACH-like frameworks, adopting similar principles such as substance registration and data sharing. For the aerosol industry, this means that REACH compliance is no longer just a European consideration, but part of a broader global regulatory landscape that increasingly mirrors its structure and expectations.
Global systems closest to EU REACH
Several jurisdictions have implemented frameworks that closely align with EU REACH. The United Kingdom (UK) maintains UK REACH, which largely mirrors the EU system following Brexit, although companies must now manage separate data submissions or arrange for their EU REACH registrations to be grandfathered.
Türkiye’s KKDIK regulation is similarly aligned, replicating core REACH requirements such as substance registration, tonnage thresholds and SDS obligations, with additional administrative requirements at the national level. In practice, compliance in Türkiye is often more administratively stringent than in the EU. For example, SDSs must be prepared by certified in-country professionals.
More recently, Ukraine has introduced a REACH-like framework that follows the EU model, alongside a CLP-aligned classification system. South Korea’s K-REACH is another mature system with strong parallels, requiring registration of both existing and new substances and incorporating hazard-based controls.
Beyond REACH alignment: Other global chemical frameworks
Outside of fully REACH-aligned systems, several countries have implemented frameworks that incorporate similar principles but with more limited scope. China and Taiwan, for example, focus primarily on the registration of new substances, whereas existing substances listed on national inventories are generally not subject to the same level of scrutiny. Japan operates under a risk-based system that emphasizes pre-market evaluation of new chemicals and control of substances of concern, rather than broad registration requirements. Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the U.S. take a comparable approach, using inventory-based systems that prioritize new substances and assess existing chemicals through targeted programs.
For aerosol manufacturers, these schemes typically present a lower registration burden but still require careful attention to ingredient status, hazard classification and downstream compliance obligations.
A number of jurisdictions are also progressing toward REACH-like frameworks. Countries such as India and Brazil are developing national chemical inventories and registration systems that are expected to introduce substance notification and data requirements similar to REACH. Elsewhere in Latin America, Chile launched its Chemical Registration Platform in January 2024, implementing phased registration periods for various chemical types. Colombia officially launched its first National Industrial Chemicals Inventory in November 2025. Substances not included in applicable inventories are classified as “New Substances” and require submission of a New Substance Notification before they can be placed on the market.
The Eurasian Economic Union, comprised of five member states (Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia and Kyrgyzstan) introduced a regional chemicals management framework in 2017 that will implement substance-related obligations across member states. However, there have been several delays in the implementation, and the notification system is still under development.
What this means for aerosol manufacturers
While many of these systems are still evolving, they point in a clear direction of increasing expectations for data generation, substance tracking and regulatory oversight, which will continue to shape the global compliance landscape for aerosol manufacturers. It is also important to recognize that REACH and REACH-like regulations do not exist in isolation. In addition to inventory and registration requirements, aerosol manufacturers must consider product-specific legislation, such as the Aerosol Dispensers Directive in the EU and UK, as well as broader consumer product safety frameworks in jurisdictions such as Canada, Australia and South Korea.
GHS classification and SDS compliance remain fundamental across all markets, alongside additional restrictions such as VOC limits, SVHCs and other controlled substances. While procedural differences remain, these evolving systems demonstrate a clear trend toward harmonization with EU REACH, creating a more consistent yet increasingly complex compliance environment for aerosol manufacturers operating on a global scale. SPRAY
On Nov. 20, 2025, I attended Health Canada’s Workplace Hazardous Products Program (WHPP) stakeholder workshop, which provided updates on regulatory developments affecting hazardous products used in Canadian workplaces and offered insight into Industry concerns related to chemical compliance.
The workshop opened with a discussion from Health Canada on the international context of the Globally Harmonized System of Classification & Labeling of Chemicals (GHS) and how countries collaborate to implement the framework. Alignment between the U.S. and Canada continues to be a priority, with the objective of enabling a single safety data sheet (SDS) and label that are compliant in both countries to facilitate cross-border trade and reduce unnecessary burden on stakeholders.
The discussion then shifted to an industry perspective on barriers to GHS implementation. The speaker emphasized that GHS is widely viewed as the foundation of an effective chemicals management system and noted ongoing efforts to expand implementation across Africa. Key challenges include selecting which GHS revision to adopt, keeping pace with biennial updates, limited Government prioritization, insufficient guidance on technical criteria, and a lack of policy direction for selecting hazard classifications and cut-off values. For example, where multiple cut-off values are permitted, implementation can be delayed if the preferred option is unclear. Additional challenges arise in countries with limited proficiency in United Nations languages, where interpreting differences between GHS revisions can be particularly difficult.
The organizers also highlighted the Red Tape Review launched by the Government of Canada in July 2025 and Health Canada’s Report of Red Tape Reduction, published in September 2025. The objective is to reduce regulatory burden by removing barriers to investment and growth. “Red tape” can include complicated or outdated processes, unnecessary or duplicative requirements, overly burdensome rules or inefficient or unpredictable regulatory administration and service delivery.
With respect to enforcement of the Hazardous Products Act (HPA) and the Hazardous Products Regulations (HPR), Health Canada indicated that its approach will focus on compliance promotion until the July 19, 2027, U.S. implementation deadline for mixtures. This will include awareness-raising and education of regulated parties on their obligations under the HPA and the amended HPR. Beginning July 19 of next year, compliance and enforcement activities will shift to a risk-based approach.
The next presentation came from an HPA inspector, who outlined the inspector’s role, how inspected parties are identified and what to expect during an inspection. Companies may be selected for inspection in several ways, including through Health Canada supplier lists, complaints or concerns submitted to authorities, annual targeted inspection plans or random selection. Inspections may be scheduled or unannounced and can focus on general compliance or a specific area of interest. Inspectors may request to review products on site, as well as copies of SDSs, labels or transaction records. Following an inspection, the inspector prepares a report summarizing findings and observations and may prescribe corrective actions to be completed within specified timelines. Inspection outcomes are typically rated as “Satisfactory,” provided the inspected party cooperates.
The most common area of non-compliance, affecting nearly 50% of reviewed SDSs, relates to the emergency telephone number requirement. The key requirement is that a knowledgeable person must be available to provide additional information about the hazardous product, such as the manufacturer or supplier. The emergency phone number does not need to be staffed 24/7, provided the availability conditions are clearly indicated on the SDS. It is important to note that the Canadian Transport Emergency Centre (CANUTEC), operated by Transport Canada, and 911 are not acceptable emergency numbers for SDS purposes. CANUTEC applies to transportation emergencies only and cannot provide information on the storage, use or handling of hazardous products. Other subscription-based emergency response services, such as the Chemical Transportation Emergency Center (CHEMTREC), may be acceptable provided they meet the requirements set out in the HPR.
There was an opportunity for Q&A, and while Health Canada could not address all inquiries during the session, they followed up with a comprehensive summary responding to all questions posed.
This is also where the discussion becomes aerosol-specific, and a clarification is warranted to a statement made in my September 2025 SPRAY column on the Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS) 2022 transition. In that column, I indicated that removal of the gas cylinder pictogram is optional for aerosol products. During the Q&A session, Health Canada clarified that “the use of a symbol in a pictogram that is not prescribed for a product’s classifications may contravene section 14.2 of the HPA.” Section 14.2 permits additional label information only where it is not false, misleading or likely to create an erroneous impression.
Unlike GHS Revision 7, the HPR does not explicitly exclude aerosols from also being classified as Gases Under Pressure. As a result, where a product meets the criteria for both hazard classes, it is permissible under the HPR to classify the product accordingly and to display both the flame and gas cylinder pictograms on the label. At the same time, products classified as aerosols are not required to also be classified as Gases Under Pressure. In practice, the recommended approach is therefore to remove the gas cylinder pictogram and align the label elements with those specified in GHS Revision 7 for the applicable aerosol category.
Stakeholders raised concerns about inaccurate SDSs and how Health Canada verifies that mixture classifications are correct. It was noted that HPA inspectors do not classify products themselves and generally avoid becoming directly involved in classification determinations; suppliers remain fully responsible for the accuracy of their SDSs. Where classification concerns arise, inspectors may refer products to Health Canada for a formal classification assessment. Concerns about specific products can be submitted directly to Health Canada at whmis-simdut@hc-sc.gc.ca for review.
Another concern raised by stakeholders related to the evaluation of environmental hazards, particularly with respect to transportation of hazardous goods. Although information in Section 12 of the SDS is not mandatory under the HPR, Industry often relies on it when shipping products internationally. As a result, a gap exists between workplace hazard requirements and transportation needs, leaving shippers uncertain about how to determine environmental hazards. Stakeholders questioned where reliable hazard information should be obtained and whether clearer guidance will be provided to manufacturers for environmental hazard determination. Health Canada reiterated that GHS environmental hazard classifications are not adopted under the HPR, as they are not considered workplace hazards. While Section 12 of the SDS remains optional, information may be included provided it is not false or misleading. Environmental hazards are addressed separately by Environment & Climate Change Canada (ECCC) through the administration of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) and the Toxic Substances List. Although Health Canada did not endorse any specific data source for environmental hazard determination, at Nexreg we typically rely on the European Chemicals Agency ECHA CHEM database when assessing environmental classifications.
Other topics covered included the requirement for a Canadian supplier address on Canadian SDSs and labels, as well as U.S.-Canada trade barriers. Health Canada noted that the only exemption to the Canadian supplier address requirement applies to Canadian companies who import hazardous products solely for use in their own workplaces.
Concerns were also raised about Canada’s requirement to submit an application and pay a fee to protect confidential business information on the SDS—an obligation that does not exist in the U.S. Health Canada remains committed to working with stakeholders to address challenges related to cross-border alignment; however, differences between the U.S. and Canadian regulatory systems complicate the process, particularly given Canada’s requirement to consult with provinces and territories when implementing regulatory changes.
Finally, Health Canada confirmed that consultations on proposed regulatory measures under the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act (CCPSA) to address certain human health hazards of concern (HHHOCs), as well as a proposal to remove the consumer product exclusion from the HPA, are currently paused as the department works through priorities established under the Government’s mandate commitments. While this pause is not unexpected, it suggests that updates to consumer product requirements may be slow to materialize. In the meantime, suppliers should continue prioritizing compliance with the CCCR, 2001 for consumer products and the updated WHMIS requirements for workplace products sold in Canada. SPRAY
A new wave of chemicals regulation is taking shape across major jurisdictions:
1. The United Nations (UN) has issued the 11th revised edition of the Globally Harmonized System of Classification & Labeling of Chemicals (GHS);
2. China is moving to modernize labeling and update parts of its GHS-based system; and
3. Brazil is advancing its national risk management framework and chemical inventory requirements.
As global chemical regulatory activity continues at a steady pace, these three developments stand out as broad, forward-looking initiatives worthy of attention.
UN publishes GHS Revision 11
The UN released the 11th revised edition of GHS, adding several changes of direct relevance to the aerosol sector. The revision is now publicly available for download.
Among the most significant amendments are new provisions clarifying the distinction between aerosols and chemicals under pressure. Aerosols are distinguished by the presence of a release device that ejects suspended particles, whereas Chemicals Under Pressure are products in pressurized receptacles that are not aerosol dispensers and contain 50% or more by mass of solids or liquids. The amended definitions also make clear that these categories are separate from other physical hazards. Products classified as Aerosols or Chemicals Under Pressure cannot simultaneously be classified as Flammable Gases, Gases Under Pressure or Flammable Solids/Liquids. In addition, the criteria for Aerosols (Category 1) have been amended to include any aerosol containing more than 1% flammable components or with a heat of combustion of at least 20 kJ/g when the product has not been tested according to the applicable ignition or foam-flammability methods.
GHS also introduces a new hazard concept related to environmental classification. Chapter 4.2 has been renamed from “Hazardous to the ozone layer” to “Hazardous to the atmospheric system” to reflect that substances may pose hazards through ozone depletion and/or contributions to global warming. The GHS now includes a definition of Global Warming Potential (GWP) and establishes two possible classifications for products: Hazardous to the Ozone Layer, based on Ozone Depleting Potential (ODP), and Hazardous by Contributing to Global Warming, based on GWP. The classification criteria for each category reference the annexes of the Montreal Protocol, which list chemicals with ODP or GWP values that are considered hazardous to the atmosphere. A new hazard statement has been added: “Harms public health and the environment by contributing to global warming.” A combined statement may be used when both ozone depletion and global warming criteria are met: “Harms public health and the environment by contributing to global warming and destroying ozone in the upper atmosphere.”
GHS introduces a new section in Annex 11 addressing simple asphyxiants, which are gases or vapors that displace oxygen and can lead to unconsciousness or death by oxygen deprivation. The annex provides examples of substances commonly considered simple asphyxiants, including carbon dioxide, hydrogen, nitrogen, helium, neon, argon, krypton, xenon, ethane, ethylene, acetylene, methane, propane, propylene, aliphatic alkanes and the chlorofluorocarbons. It also clarifies that a separate identification as a simple asphyxiant is not warranted when a substance is already classified for acute inhalation toxicity. The annex offers guidance on hazard communication for these substances and points to existing regulations and reference standards on safe handling in oxygen-reduced environments.
Updates were made to improve the clarity and usability of precautionary statements. The “specific treatment” P-statements (P320/P321) were amended to reference both the label and the Safety Data Sheet (SDS) when immediate measures are easily applied. New P-statements (P322/P323) were added that refer only to the SDS when more detailed instructions are necessary for treatment. Other changes include revisions to Annex 7 to more accurately reflect the classification categories shown in the label examples, along with new guidance on classifying skin sensitizers using non-animal test methods.
Adoption of GHS revisions varies globally, as each country determines which edition to implement and which specific building blocks to adopt. Most jurisdictions remain several editions behind, with the more proactive countries currently aligned with Revision 8 or Revision 9. Although the latest updates are not yet in force in most regions, they offer early clarity for classification decisions and provide insight into the direction of future regulatory developments worldwide.
China transitions toward updated GHS revisions
In August 2025, China’s Ministry of Industry & Information Technology (MIIT) released for public comment a draft of the new mandatory national standard “Regulations on the Preparation of Chemical Safety Labels,” outlining updated requirements for the design, preparation and application of chemical safety labels. The draft proposes to replace the existing “GB 15258 General Rules for Preparation of Chemical Safety Labels,” which has been in force since 2009. It introduces new elements including the use of a QR code for chemical safety information, new rules for small packages and fold-out labels, simplified label rules and kit packaging examples. The updated labeling rules are aligned with the 10th revised edition of GHS. The consultation period has closed, and although the enforcement date has not yet been announced, a one-year transition period is expected following final publication.
In July 2024, China’s Standardization Administration (SAC) issued GB 30000.1, the new general rules for chemical classification and labeling under the GB 30000 series. GB 30000.1 serves only as a general chapter. It defines acceptable hazard endpoints and clarifies what constitutes an SDS and a GHS label in China but does not set out how substances or mixtures are to be classified. Instead, it directs users to follow GB 30000.2 through GB 30000.29.
In June 2025, MIIT released GB 30000.30 on Desensitized Explosives. Although it has little relevance to aerosol manufacturers, as aerosols cannot be classified as explosives, GB 30000.30 formally introduces Desensitized Explosives as a new classification category.
Aside from this new endpoint, China’s classification chapters GB 30000.2–29 remain aligned with GHS Revision 4 and have not yet been updated. As a result, China is now effectively operating a mixed-revision system: GHS Revision 4 for GB 30000.2–29, GHS Revision 8 for GB 30000.1 and GHS Revision 10 for the newly added Desensitized Explosives category under GB 30000.30. No timeline has been announced for updating the remaining chapters.
Brazil continues work on draft chemicals law
Brazil’s Ministry of Environment & Climate Change (MMA) released a draft implementing regulation for the Chemical Management Law (also known as Brazil REACH), aimed at operationalizing Law No. 15,022/2024. Notably, the draft was published in both Portuguese and English, making it more accessible to international audiences. Rather than running a formal public consultation, the MMA had invited interested parties to submit comments and suggestions by email by Sept. 1 of this year.
The proposed regulation establishes the framework for creating a national inventory of chemicals and for assessing and managing the risks of substances manufactured, used or imported in Brazil. Risk management measures could include restrictions on production and use, prior authorization requirements or even prohibition of certain substances.
A new registration platform will be developed within three years. Once operational, companies will have an additional three years to register existing chemicals, forming the Brazilian Chemical Substance Inventory. Chemicals manufactured or imported in Brazil in quantities equal to or greater than one ton per year—based on a three-year average—will require registration. Registrants will need to provide importer or producer details, production or import volumes, substance information, chemical risk analyses based on recommended uses and any applicable fees.
The regulation also allows foreign manufacturers to appoint local entities as representatives, much like the “Only Representative” model in the EU. The legislation will introduce a process for prioritizing substances for risk assessment and for defining and implementing risk management measures, taking into account human health; environmental protection; and social, economic and technological factors. This marks a move toward a more structured and transparent chemicals management system and aligns Brazil with broader global regulatory trends. SPRAY
The Dec.15, 2025, deadline marking the end of the updated Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS 2022) transition period is fast approaching. If you have not already updated your documentation, now is the time to act.
Here at SPRAY, we’ve been tracking the Government of Canada’s amendments to the Hazardous Products Regulations (HPR) and Schedule 2 of the Hazardous Products Act (HPA)—particularly as they relate to aerosol products—since my March 2021 column on the proposed changes. In March 2023, we discussed the implementation of these changes. With the deadline just around the corner, I’m back with one final column to help ensure you are on track. If you sell hazardous products used by workers in Canada, your safety data sheets (SDSs) and labels must comply with the new requirements by the December deadline to avoid disruptions.
New supplier guidance & cross-border variances
Since our last discussion, Health Canada has released a new guidance on the WHMIS supplier requirements, intended for suppliers of hazardous products destined for Canadian workplaces. This manual replaces the earlier WHMIS 2015 Technical Guidance and was most recently updated in June 2025 to include comparisons between the requirements of the HPR and the U.S.’ Hazard Communication Standard (HCS).
Health Canada refers to these differences as “variances” that may arise from the need to maintain Canada’s existing level of worker protection or from differences in legislative frameworks between the two countries. These variances are integrated throughout the new guidance, appearing alongside the relevant regulatory provisions. Examples include the requirement for bilingual SDSs and labels; the mandatory inclusion of a Canadian supplier identifier on both the SDS and label; and specific cases where label elements may differ from those required under the U.S. system. Further amendments to the guidance are expected as Health Canada continues to identify and clarify emerging issues during the transition to WHMIS 2022.
Aerosol classifications under WHMIS 2022
As a reminder, under WHMIS 2022, aerosol products are no longer classified as “Gases Under Pressure.” The former “Flammable Aerosol” hazard category has been replaced with the broader “Aerosol” classification, now comprised of three categories:
• Category 1 and Category 2 for flammable aerosols
• Category 3—newly introduced for non-flammable aerosol products
Label elements for aerosols have also been updated to align with Annex 3 of the Globally Harmonized System of Classification & Labeling of Chemicals (GHS) 7th Revised Edition. One of the most notable changes across all three aerosol categories is the optional removal of the compressed gas pictogram, which was previously required. Aerosol Categories 1 and 2 will continue to require the flammable pictogram, while Category 3 does not require a pictogram for flammability.
Label comparison for non-flammable aerosols
The chart on the previous page provides a side-by-side comparison of label elements for the non-flammable (Category 3) aerosol classification under the previous WHMIS 2015 and the updated WHMIS 2022 legislation. While no pictogram is needed for non-flammable aerosols, the Hazard Statement has changed, and there are additional Precautionary Statements to consider that did not apply to the previous “Gas Under Pressure” category.
Keep in mind that other label elements may be required if the product presents other health or physical hazards. Be sure to conduct a comprehensive hazard assessment to confirm all applicable labeling requirements.
Aerosols vs. Chemicals under pressure:
Watch the Packaging
It’s important to keep in mind the difference between aerosol products and the newly adopted “Chemicals Under Pressure” classifications, which were taken from the GHS 8th Revised Edition. Chemicals Under Pressure are:
• Liquids or solids pressurized with a gas at ≥ 200 kPa at 20°C (68°F);
• Packaged in a container other than an aerosol dispenser; and
• Classified into Categories 1, 2 or 3 based on flammable content and heat of combustion.
Chemicals Under Pressure are excluded from the Flammable Gases, Gases Under Pressure, Flammable Liquids and Flammable Solids hazard classes and they are not classified as “Aerosols,” even if they share similar characteristics. A change in packaging design can directly impact classification. For example, removing the aerosol valve from a pressurized container may be sufficient to shift the product’s classification from an “Aerosol” to a “Chemical Under Pressure” under WHMIS 2022.
This distinction between “Aerosol” and “Chemical Under Pressure” becomes particularly important in borderline cases. For example, spray foams or semi-solid formulations that are pressurized but use a non-standard actuator or require manual release may fall outside of the aerosol definition, depending on how they function. Non-spray pressurized containers, such as pump-assisted tanks used in industrial applications, may be classified as Chemicals Under Pressure if they meet the pressure and content criteria but do not function as aerosol dispensers.
Functionality and packaging design, not just pressure or contents, determine classification. It’s essential for suppliers to carefully assess any changes in container format, especially during reformulations or packaging redesigns, to maintain the correct classification under WHMIS 2022.
Why WHMIS 2022 compliance matters
Health Canada manages the risks hazardous products pose to worker health and safety through a range of compliance and enforcement activities. These are grouped into three main categories:
1. Compliance promotion
2. Compliance monitoring
3. Enforcement actions
In more serious cases, Health Canada may escalate to enforcement measures to address non-compliance or mitigate potential risks. These actions may include issuing warning letters; seizing, detaining, or disposing of non-compliant products; or ordering a stop to the sale or importation of the hazardous product.
Failure to comply with WHMIS 2022 requirements can result in significant legal and financial consequences, including fines, legal prosecution, reputational harm and, in the most serious instances, imprisonment. Beyond regulatory penalties, non-compliance can have severe health and safety impacts, including workplace injuries or fatalities due to inadequate hazard communication and improper handling procedures.
At Nexreg, we are actively supporting clients through their transition to WHMIS 2022. In our experience, many companies have yet to update their SDSs and labels to ensure full compliance. Delays are especially common for distributors and private label suppliers who are dependent on upstream manufacturers for updated product information. That is why we strongly recommend taking a proactive approach. Don’t wait until the last minute to begin gathering the necessary data. If your WHMIS 2022 updates are not already underway, now is the time to review your product inventory and determine what changes are required to meet the new regulatory standards before the December 2025 deadline. SPRAY
In SPRAY’s April feature article discussing the North American regulatory landscape, I briefly touched on the fact that Health Canada is actively consulting on consumer product labeling initiatives under the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act (CCPSA) that could introduce new mandatory hazard labeling for chronic health risks. This month’s column will dive deeper into what these consultations look like, the outcomes so far and potential future impacts.
Label regulations for hazardous products sold to consumers in Canada fall under different laws than those for hazardous products used in workplaces. Consumer products are regulated under the Consumer Chemicals & Containers Regulations, 2001 (CCCR), known colloquially as “the triple CR.” The CCCR is part of the CCPSA and sets out safety requirements that address acute human health and physical hazards, including acute toxicity, corrosivity/irritation, flammability, pressurized containers and quick skin-bonding adhesives. The CCCR outlines labeling requirements, container standards, prohibitions and restrictions for dangerous chemical products sold to consumers.
The CCCR does not address certain human health hazards of concern (HHHOCs) associated with consumer chemical products. HHHOCs include carcinogens, mutagens, reproductive toxicants, specific target organ toxicity and respiratory and skin sensitizers.
On July 11, 2023, Health Canada published a Notice of Intent to consult stakeholders on a proposal to introduce requirements for HHHOCs linked to substances found in consumer products.
The Notice of Intent introduced two possible regulatory approaches. Option 1 would be a hybrid classification and labelling system that merges the existing CCCR requirements with elements of the Globally Harmonized System of Classification & Labeling of Chemicals (GHS). Option 2 would involve replacing the current labeling system with a risk-based GHS framework.
Seventy-one percent of stakeholders indicated that GHS is a reasonable and effective tool for addressing HHHOCs. About twice as many stakeholders expressed a preference for the risk-based GHS framework (Option 2) over the hybrid system (Option 1).
In addition to consulting with industry stakeholders, Health Canada commissioned a public opinion survey to assess consumer understanding and preferences regarding hazard symbols, the effectiveness of hazard statements and the importance of risk and hazard information. The results revealed low public knowledge of the two GHS pictograms representing HHHOCs—41% correctly identified the meaning of the health hazard symbol and just 18% correctly identified the exclamation mark symbol. These findings highlight the need for a robust public education campaign to support any transition to a new labeling framework.
After evaluating the feedback from stakeholders and the public opinion research, Health Canada indicated its intent to explore a risk-based framework for consumer chemical products based on GHS. This framework would address both acute health hazards and physical hazards, as well as HHHOCs. Health Canada is also considering the adoption of certain GHS guidelines for chronic hazard labeling, such as Annex 5, “Consumer Product Labeling Based on the Likelihood of Injury,” while retaining some of the risk-based exclusions currently found in the CCCR.
The push for a risk-based framework reflects the reality that consumer exposure to hazardous chemicals is generally less intensive than occupational exposure. For instance, a professional window cleaner may use a window cleaning product for 40 hours per week, while a consumer might only use the same product for 30 minutes once a week. This difference in usage patterns justifies differentiated approaches to hazard communication.
Health Canada has outlined several objectives for its proposal: to enhance health and safety protections for consumer chemical products by updating label requirements for acute hazards, physical hazards and HHHOCs; to explore improved alignment between consumer and workplace product requirements to reduce the regulatory burden for companies supplying both markets; to continue applying a consistent, risk-based approach for classifying and labeling hazardous chemicals; and to align more closely with international jurisdictions such the EU and UK that have already adopted GHS for consumer products. Alignment with the U.S. Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA) was considered, but the FHSA’s limited emphasis on hazard symbols makes it less suitable, especially given the Canadian public’s support for the use of symbols in hazard communication.
It will be important to see how Health Canada balances its objectives with existing classification criteria. For example, adopting GHS cut-offs could reduce current protection levels. Under CCCR, the cut-off for classifying mixtures as irritants is 5%, whereas under GHS it is 10%, which could cause some “Irritant” mixtures to be de-classified. Additionally, when the median lethal dose (LD50 or LC50) of one or more ingredients in a chemical product is unknown and cannot be estimated, the additivity calculation must use the LD50 or LC50 of the most toxic known ingredient present at a concentration of 1% or greater as a substitute. This substitution method is not a requirement found under GHS, which could result in less stringent classification results compared to CCCR methods. On the other hand, the GHS does mandate on-label disclosure of the percentage of ingredients with unknown toxicity, which may be incorporated into the updated CCPSA scheme to enhance consumer protections.
Once the new system comes into force, companies selling products to consumers will need to re-evaluate the hazards of their existing stock, regardless of the current hazard classification. Products currently sold as unregulated may, in the future, fall under one or more of the new HHHOC categories, triggering additional label requirements. Further stakeholder consultations on various aspects of the proposed risk-based GHS framework are planned throughout 2025 and 2026. Health Canada is encouraging all interested parties to submit feedback. This significant regulatory overhaul will likely take several years to implement, and a transition period is expected to allow industry time to update consumer product labels and ensure compliance. SPRAY
Global Plastics Treaty negotiations
The Global Plastics Treaty negotiations, initiated by the
United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) in 2022, aim to establish a legally binding international agreement to address plastic pollution across its entire lifecycle—from production to disposal. Despite multiple negotiation sessions, the most recent being the fifth session (INC-5) held from Nov. 25–Dec. 1, 2024, in Busan, South Korea, a consensus has yet to be reached.
A significant divide exists between countries advocating for capping plastic production to mitigate pollution and those opposing such measures. Supporters of production limits include the European Union (EU) and the “High Ambition Coalition,” which includes nations such as the UK, Canada, and several African, Latin American and Pacific countries. The need for binding reduction targets for virgin plastic production was supported by more than 100 countries at INC-5. Conversely, major oil-producing countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Russia, resist these caps, favoring enhanced waste management and recycling efforts instead.
In addition, disagreements persist over banning or restricting certain chemicals used in plastic production. The EU proposes eliminating chemicals of concern in plastics and phasing out problematic products, including certain single-use plastics. Another contentious issue is the enforcement mechanisms of the treaty, with debates ongoing about whether decisions should be made by consensus or through voting procedures. The absence of a clear decision-making process has contributed to the stalemate in negotiations.
The INC-5 session concluded without a finalized treaty, leading to plans for continued negotiations into 2025. The EU expressed regret over the inconclusive outcome, emphasizing the urgent need for a global solution to plastic pollution, especially given projections that plastic production could triple by 2060 if current trends persist. Preparations for further negotiations are underway, with additional meetings of the negotiating committee anticipated over the next year.
In the meantime, countries are expected to maintain and strengthen their national efforts to combat plastic pollution, while global discussions continue to work toward a unified agreement.
Health Canada Plastics Registry Guidance
In a related development, Health Canada has released guidance for Phase 1 of reporting to the Federal Plastics Registry (FPR), which I covered in my December 2024 SPRAY column. Phase 1 focuses on the collection of 2024 data relating to production of plastic packaging, electronic and electrical equipment, and single-use or disposable products; the deadline is Sept. 29, 2025.
The guidance outlines how to determine if an entity is obligated to submit; identifies who can report on behalf of obligated entities; and clarifies which resins, plastic packaging and products fall under the disclosure requirements. It also specifies the administrative information that must be submitted, the details required concerning the plastics being reported and the calculation methods to be used. To support stakeholders further, the guidance provides examples and a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section to assist with compliance.
Additionally, Health Canada has made a foreign supplier letter available to help entities communicate reporting obligations with their foreign suppliers. This letter is available in English, French, Simplified Chinese and Spanish. For a copy of the guidance document, the foreign supplier letter or for inquiries about reporting requirements, contact RFP-FPR@ec.gc.ca.
Updates to Europe’s CLP Regulation
The revised CLP Regulation, effective Dec. 10, 2024, introduces several updates to enhance chemical safety and transparency. It clarifies rules for the classification of mixtures and substances with multiple constituents, emphasizes grouping in harmonized classification, as well as enhances labeling requirements, including provisions for digital labels. The changes also include updates to the information submitted to and published in the Classification & Labeling Inventory and grant the European Commission the authority to request ECHA or EFSA to prepare harmonized classification proposals. Additionally, it establishes rules for selling chemicals at refill stations and specifies the role of distributors as duty holders for poison center notifications.
The update builds on the introduction of new hazard classes for substances, which include:
• Endocrine disrupters;
• Persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) substances;
• Very persistent and very bioaccumulative (vPvB) substances;
• Persistent, mobile and toxic (PMT) substances; and
• Very persistent and very mobile (vPvM) substances
These are now recognized as hazards of the highest concern, typically requiring harmonized classification.
Companies are required to review their portfolios to assess the impact of these changes on their substances and mixtures. They must inform ECHA of any new classifications by updating their REACH registration dossier or CLP notification. To support these changes, ECHA has published updated guidance on the application of CLP criteria. The recommendations are now organized into five separate documents for easier use and accessibility. Additional updates to existing guidance documents are anticipated in 2025, including guidance on labeling and guidance on Annex VIII (poison centers).
ECHA enforcement update
In January 2020, Regulation (EU) 2020/878 came into effect, following the EU Commission’s revision of Regulation (EU) 2015/830 (REACH Annex II). This amendment, which aligned with the 6th and 7th revisions of the UN GHS, brought significant updates to SDS requirements. It introduced new subsections and expanded the detail required in various sections and subsections. As a result, suppliers were mandated to revise and update SDSs for substances and mixtures placed on the EU/EEA market to comply with these enhanced requirements.
In 2023, ECHA’s Forum for Exchange of Information on Enforcement carried out the REACH-En-Force
(REF-11) project to assess compliance with the new requirements introduced by Regulation (EU) 2020/878. The project evaluated the accuracy and coherence of information in SDSs, focusing on classification, risk management measures and overall content.
Key changes in information requirements that were reviewed included the addition of new subsections; specific details on nanomaterials; substances with endocrine-disrupting properties; and the inclusion of specific concentration limits (SCL), acute toxicity estimates (ATE) and multiplication factors (M-factors) for applicable substances.
The project was conducted in 28 Member States with a total of 2,528 product SDSs checked for compliance. Inspectors involved in the REF-11 project found that 35% of the inspected SDSs did not comply with the legislation. Non-compliance was attributed either to the content failing to meet the required standards or, in about 5% of cases, to the SDS not being provided at all. The biggest challenges identified were the lack of information on nanoforms and endocrine-disrupting properties. These were missing in 67% and 48% of the inspected SDS, respectively, where such information was required. Additionally, 16% of the SDS reviewed lacked information mandated by authorization decisions.
To address non-compliances identified during ECHA’s REF-11 project, inspectors predominantly issued written advice to the responsible parties. In more severe cases, they implemented administrative orders, imposed fines and, in some instances, filed criminal complaints to enforce compliance with REACH requirements.
As global environmental and safety challenges continue to escalate, businesses and governments must remain proactive, ensuring they contribute to a more sustainable and transparent future for both industry and the environment.
We will continue to monitor the initiatives and enforcement measures discussed in this article and provide updates as new developments unfold. SPRAY
No progress on rule restricting PFAS & flame retardants
Canada is strengthening its regulatory framework for toxic substances, particularly targeting per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and flame retardants due to their persistence in the environment and harmful effects. The Prohibition of Certain Toxic Substances Regulations 2022 aims to restrict the manufacture, use, sale and import of chemicals such as Dechlorane Plus (DP) and Decabromodiphenyl Ethane (DBDPE), as well as products containing these substances. The proposed regulations would also extend restrictions on perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), long-chain perfluorocarboxylic acids (LC-PFCAs), hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), which are already subject to prohibition—with some exemptions—under the current regulations. These substances are of concern because of their potential for long-term environmental damage and bioaccumulation.
The 2022 proposal seeks not only to improve environmental protection but also to align with international agreements such as the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Additionally, it aims to streamline Canada’s existing regulations by consolidating and clarifying the rules surrounding toxic substances.
While the regulatory framework was initially expected to be finalized in 2023, the Government of Canada announced a delay in August of that year, pushing the release of the final rule to no earlier than Summer 2024. As of Autumn 2024, there remains no clear timeline for when the final regulations will be published, leaving industries and environmental groups awaiting further updates.
State of PFAS Report & mandatory data submission
In July 2024, Canada released an updated draft of its State of PFAS Report, offering a comprehensive analysis of PFAS across the country. The revised draft incorporates a significant amount of feedback and data gathered during the initial consultation period, as well as information from additional sources. It aims to provide a qualitative assessment of the fate, sources, occurrence and potential impacts of PFAS on both the environment and human health.
In parallel, a mandatory information request was initiated for the 2023 calendar year, requiring companies to report on 312 types of PFAS that were manufactured, imported or used in Canada above specified thresholds. The deadline for submitting information—including company details, facility information, quantities of substances handled and data on related goods—is Jan. 29, 2025. Although foreign suppliers are not directly obligated to report, they are “encouraged to inform” their Canadian importers, promoting collaboration across supply chains to ensure accurate and comprehensive reporting. Health Canada has published a guidance manual for responding to the mandatory data submission notice, which outlines who is responsible for submitting information and how to complete the submission; as well, it explains the reporting thresholds and activities for PFAS listed in the notice.
Federal Plastics Registry set for 2025 launch
As part of Canada’s broader initiative to achieve zero plastic waste by 2030, the Federal Plastics Registry has been introduced to track plastic production, imports and waste management. The registry, managed by Environment & Climate Change Canada (ECCC), will require companies to report data on the lifecycle of plastics, including details on how plastic waste is managed. Reporting will be phased in between 2025 and 2027, with categories including plastic packaging, electronics, textiles and single-use plastics.
The registry, which was first outlined in an April 2024 publication by ECCC, will provide crucial data to support efforts against plastic pollution and promote a circular economy. Additional guidance to aid companies with reporting obligations is expected soon.
The first phase of reporting will begin in September 2025, focusing on plastic products placed on the market during the 2024 calendar year. The reporting system was expected to become accessible in the second half of 2024 to give companies time to prepare, but as of the time of writing, no update has been provided. Schedule 1 of the regulation outlines the types of plastics to be reported, broken down by resin types, resin sources, packaging and other plastic products, organized into various categories and subcategories.
The Government of Canada is considering developing a suite of open standards for plastics data. Due to the fragmented way plastics data is currently collected by various public and private entities, it is difficult to compare or combine datasets. Open standards would provide consistent definitions, formats and organization, improving data interoperability. These standards would help harmonize reporting, reduce administrative burdens for businesses and facilitate the exchange of information for better understanding of plastics flows in Canada.
Recent CEPA Developments
Several key initiatives have been introduced under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), focusing on enhancing transparency, chemical safety and addressing environmental justice concerns. One significant update is the implementation of new software that uses an automated workflow to prioritize chemicals listed on the Domestic Substances List (DSL). This tool allows regulators to efficiently identify substances requiring assessment or regulatory action by analyzing factors such as toxicity, exposure and bioaccumulation. The system integrates diverse data sources, supporting more effective resource allocation and contributing to the broader modernization of CEPA’s chemical management framework.
The Government of Canada has proposed unmasking the identities of 198 chemicals on the DSL that are currently classified as confidential business information. This would involve removing the concealed names and adding these substances to Part 1 of the DSL with their Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Numbers. These amendments, which are part of CEPA reforms under Bill S-5, allow the Minister of the Environment to disclose the identities of substances after 10 years. The 198 substances included in this notice have been listed confidentially on the DSL since 2004 or earlier. The initiative aims to enhance transparency while maintaining protections for proprietary data when necessary.
Another significant development is the passage of Bill C-226, the National Strategy Respecting Environmental Racism & Environmental Justice, which received royal assent in June 2024. This legislation mandates the creation of a national strategy to address environmental racism, a phenomenon where marginalized communities are disproportionately affected by environmental hazards. The bill’s goal is to reduce exposure to harmful pollutants in these communities, while improving overall environmental health and equity. The focus now shifts to implementation, which includes developing the strategy, ensuring community involvement and ongoing monitoring to effectively address environmental injustices. Bill C-226 marks an important step toward ensuring that vulnerable populations are protected from environmental injustices. SPRAY
Detergents are products containing soaps and/or other surfactants intended for washing and cleaning. They come in various forms, including aerosols, trigger sprays, liquids and powders, and are marketed for household, institutional or industrial purposes. Common examples of aerosol detergents include stain removers, carpet and upholstery cleaners, glass cleaners and multipurpose cleaners. Given their widespread use, detergents play an important role in daily life and industrial processes, making their regulation essential to ensure safety, environmental protection and consumer transparency. Recent regulatory updates in the European Union (EU) and the United Kingdom (UK) reflect the ongoing efforts to address these needs.
Regulatory Framework
In Europe, detergents are regulated under the Regulation on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization & Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) and Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 on the Classification, Labeling & Packaging of Substances & Mixtures (CLP Regulation). Additional regulations that need to be considered include the Aerosol Dispensers Directive (ADD) 75/324/EEC and Detergents Regulation (EC) No 648/2004.
The Detergents Regulation, in force since 2005, applies to all detergents and surfactants sold in Europe. It standardizes the rules for surfactant biodegradability, specifies labeling requirements—including ingredient and dosage information—mandates the online publication of ingredient lists, sets record-keeping standards and imposes limits on phosphorus content in consumer laundry and dishwasher detergents.
The key point to consider when determining if a product falls under the scope of the Detergents Regulation is whether it has a cleaning function. A product intended for cleaning is considered a detergent, even if it does not contain a surfactant. If the product does contain surfactants, proof of ultimate aerobic biodegradation to 60% mineralization within 28 days is required.
Proposed updates
In April 2023, the European Commission released a proposal to update the European framework on detergents and surfactants. The proposal intends to tackle issues with the current detergents requirements and account for new market developments, such as detergents containing living microorganisms and refill sales. It also aims to address overlaps in labeling requirements with other EU laws such as CLP Regulation.
New definitions & requirements
The proposal updates and clarifies the definition of a detergent by including microorganisms and focusing on the cleaning function, regardless of whether surfactants are present. Under the new requirements, it would no longer be permitted to request a derogation for surfactants used in professional detergents that do not meet the ultimate biodegradability criteria.
Specific requirements for detergents containing microorganisms are outlined in the proposal, including prohibitions on genetically modified organisms and requirements for stability, shelf life and safety testing. Detergent labels must inform consumers about the presence of microorganisms and provide instructions on the proper use and storage of the product to maintain its effectiveness and safety.
Labeling & compliance
The proposal also includes changes to labeling responsibilities and requirements, aiming to modernize and enhance the clarity of information provided to consumers. Specifically, the proposal allows certain information to be moved to digital labels, reducing the amount of physical label space needed and enabling more detailed information to be accessed online. Additionally, the responsibility for transmitting ingredient data sheets is shifted from medical personnel to poison centers in an effort to streamline the process and ensure that relevant safety information is readily accessible to those who need it in emergencies.
Requirements for the content of phosphates and other phosphorus compounds in detergents are also updated in the proposal with respect to consumer laundry detergents, automatic dishwashing detergents and hand dishwashing detergents.
The concept of a product passport is introduced as a new prerequisite for placing a detergent on the market. This passport is a comprehensive digital record containing all necessary information about the detergent, ensuring transparency and compliance with regulatory standards. Customs authorities will be able to check product passports to validate compliance for detergents entering the EU market from third countries.
Implementation timeline
Since updates are still in the proposal stage, the specific timeline for compliance has not yet been clarified. Once enacted, the framework will include specific dates for the transition and application of the new obligations. These will include deadlines for the industry to comply with new biodegradability criteria, labeling adjustments and the product passport system. The earliest application of the new rules is anticipated to be 2027.
Regulations in Post-Brexit UK
Although Great Britain is no longer part of the EU, the UK has retained the existing Detergents Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 within its own legal framework to ensure continuity and stability for businesses. Therefore, the legal requirements for the composition, labeling and safety of detergent products remain largely unchanged in the UK. The Detergents Regulation continues to apply in Northern Ireland under the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement and the provisions of the Northern Ireland Protocol. One key difference to keep in mind is that a UK-based company must be listed on the label instead of an EU one.
The UK introduced the UK Conformity Assessed (UKCA) marking to replace the Conformité Européene (CE or European Conformity) marking, which indicates compliance with UK regulations. The UK government has enacted legislation to continue recognition of current EU requirements, including the CE marking. This means that businesses have the flexibility to use either the UKCA or the CE marking to sell products in Great Britain.
The proposed updates to the Detergents Regulation will not necessarily apply in the UK. Any new updates to EU regulations post-Brexit are not automatically retained in EU law. The UK government may choose to adopt similar updates independently if they align with domestic priorities and regulatory goals. This decision would involve a separate legislative process within the UK to incorporate any desired changes into national law.
It is advisable to consult UK-specific guidance documents and monitor announcements from UK regulatory bodies such as the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) to stay up to date with potential updates and ensure that all requirements are met when selling detergents in Great Britain.
Microplastics
There are some new restrictions coming up in Europe for synthetic polymer microparticles, commonly known as microplastics, under the Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/2055. Microplastics are small pieces of plastic (usually smaller than 5mm) that are persistent, very mobile and difficult to remove from nature. From Oct. 17, 2028, microplastics will be banned in detergents unless they contain microbeads, a type of synthetic polymer microparticles (SPM) used for exfoliating, polishing or cleaning purposes. No transitional period was proposed for microbeads because industry was expected to have voluntarily phased out their use by 2020.
There are currently no equivalent restrictions on the sale of products containing microplastics in the UK, except for a ban on the manufacture of microbeads in rinse-off personal care products that came into force in 2018.
Future outlook
The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) recently published an updated Key Areas of Regulatory Challenge document describing the specific challenges and research needs for the organization in alignment with the European Green Deal and the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability. The proposed updates to the Detergent Regulations represent a significant step towards addressing these challenges by providing ECHA with additional tools to combat chemical pollution and enhance the availability of chemical data.
As the regulatory landscape for detergents evolves, businesses must stay informed and proactive in adapting to new requirements. The proposed updates to the EU Detergent Regulations represent a forward-thinking approach to managing chemical safety and environmental impact. By aligning with broader sustainability goals and addressing emerging market trends, these regulations will play a role in shaping the future of the detergent industry.
For questions about detergent compliance in Europe and around the world, feel free to reach out to us at Nexreg Compliance. SPRAY
Your proprietary formula is worth its weight in gold. It is prudent to protect this invaluable information and avoid disclosing specific details on a safety documentation.
In the U.S., it is not uncommon for suppliers to hide chemical information on the safety data sheet (SDS) for a hazardous product as “trade secret.” This is permitted without any registration or administrative fee required, as long the claim can be supported and given that it provides an advantage over competitors who do not know or do not use it. In contrast, it is challenging to obtain approval to withhold chemical information for a mixture in Europe. Under the European Union Classification, Labeling & Packaging (EU CLP) regulation, an approval to use an alternative chemical name can only be obtained for chemicals that do not have any community workplace exposure limits, and that are classified into specified, less severe, hazard categories.
Canada is a middle ground between the relaxed U.S. and the stricter EU confidentiality provisions. In Canada, a registration must be completed to withhold chemical details from the SDS. If you are thinking about hiding confidential chemical information on your Canadian Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS) SDS, you will want to continue reading!
HMIRA background
The Hazardous Materials Information Review Act (HMIRA) and Hazardous Materials Information Review Regulations (HMIRR) set out the requirements for suppliers that wish to claim an exemption from the obligation to disclose confidential business information (CBI) with respect to SDS and labeling requirements under the Hazardous Products Act (HPA) in Canada.
Amendments to HMIRA and HMIRR came into force in 2020 and, since then, Health Canada has been working to modernize the administration of the program to improve efficiencies. There is a new searchable webpage that consolidates claim information, such as exemption status and expiry date, in one location in a user-friendly format.
Health Canada has also updated the online application form to provide an easier, more streamlined claim application process. Once filled out, the application can be submitted, downloaded, and saved as an .hcxs file, which can be uploaded again at a future time if modifications are required.
To withhold the name of a hazardous chemical from the SDS, a generic chemical name (GCN) must be chosen to take its place. Selecting any generic replacement for the chemical name—such as “proprietary chemical 1”—is not allowed. The GCN should be less specific than the true chemical name but no more general than necessary to protect the CBI. It must not convey false or misleading information about the nature of the chemical. Health Canada released a helpful guidance document that explains strategies for developing a GCN along with some specific examples and commonly encountered errors.
New service standards
In the past, registration has been a slow process, sometimes taking Health Canada several years before a HMIRA claim is fully reviewed and accepted. This used to result in large backlogs of mixtures with claims in limbo waiting for approval. In 2023, Health Canada introduced a new multi-staged review process wherein claims are assessed separately from SDS and label compliance. This allows for a more streamlined process for claimants to have up-to-date information on their submissions in a more predictable and timely manner.
Under the new process, once all information needed to complete an evaluation is provided, the registry number (RN) and date of filing are issued together with a claim validity decision or consultation document at the time of registration. The RN must be displayed on the SDS of a hazardous mixture to import or sell the product in Canada without disclosing the CBI. This method results in faster and more predictable responses about the claim status and helps ensure that the three-year exemption period is followed more closely. For the issuance of an RN on up to 15 HMIRA exemption claims, Health Canada has now committed to a service delivery standard of just 10 business days from the date of the receipt of a complete application. The standard for 16–25 claims is 15 business days, and for 26 or more claims, the standard is 20 business days. Health Canada confirmed that it processed 100% of claims for exemption applications within the service standards for fiscal year 2022–2023. The new service standards officially took effect on April 1, 2024.
In our anecdotal experience at Nexreg, we have also found that the response from Health Canada for HMIRA claims has improved substantially. Recently, we have assisted clients with HMIRA submissions and received responses from Government of Canada agents in fewer than two business days.
The fees associated with submitting a HMIRA claim are adjusted on April 1 of each year. The cost is updated in the April Consumer Price Index for Canada, as published by Statistics Canada for the previous fiscal year. Fees can now be paid online via credit card.
2024–2025 work plan & multi-stakeholder workshop
In terms of the next steps for regulatory activities, Health Canada’s Workplace Hazardous Products Program (WHPP) will focus on the following priorities during the 2024–2025 fiscal year:
• Increasing transparency of inspection information
• Publication of additional hazardous substance assessments
• Implementation of the amended Hazardous Products Regulations (HPR)
• Ongoing international leadership
With these priorities in mind, Health Canada aims to strengthen compliance promotion and advance work on key policy files. Additionally, Health Canada is actively participating in United Nations Sub-Committee of Experts on the GHS (UNSCEGHS), and in the Canada–U.S. Regulatory Cooperation Council, to advance global health and safety and facilitate regulatory alignment throughout North America.
Initially planned for this Spring, the 2024 WHPP multi-stakeholder workshop has been rescheduled to Fall 2024. The multi-stakeholder workshop is an opportunity for interested parties to engage with those affected by WHMIS and provide regulators with valuable ideas and feedback. The Government of Canada would like to maximize the usefulness of the workshop by leveraging the availability of more substantive updates coming later this year. As we go to press, there had been no word yet on the update to the U.S. Hazard Communication Standard, which is anticipated to be released soon. The specific timing of the multi-stakeholder workshop has not yet been confirmed. Industry stakeholders and other interested groups are encouraged to lead discussion topics. The deadline to submit topic proposals is July 2, 2024.
Health Canada plans to continue to issue general program updates via the quarterly WHPP newsletter. If you have any questions about Canadian regulatory compliance or trade secret registrations, don’t hesitate to reach out to us at Nexreg Compliance. SPRAY
