The Announcement on Matters Concerning Cosmetic Registration and Filing, released on 29 July 2026, introduces measures intended to simplify regulatory procedures and reduce duplicated testing and documentation for certain products. The changes also provide greater flexibility for companies launching innovative products in China and for those managing portfolios with similar formulations.
The new rules take effect from the date of publication. Where they conflict with previous NMPA requirements, the provisions of the new announcement will apply.
Easier market entry for products launched first in China
One of the measures is aimed at supporting the development of China as a first-launch market for international cosmetics.
For new cosmetic products that are first introduced in China, or launched in China at the same time as in other countries or regions, registrants and notifiers can submit a declaration confirming the product’s first launch status.
Under these circumstances, they will no longer need to provide evidence showing that the product is already marketed in the country or region where the registrant or notifier is located, or where the product is manufactured.
The measure also provides greater flexibility for product packaging documentation. For such international new products, a sales packaging design drawing from the manufacturing country or region can be submitted instead of packaging that is already in commercial use.
More opportunities to reduce animal testing data
The announcement also expands the circumstances in which toxicological test reports may be omitted from cosmetic registration and filing submissions.
The exemption can apply to certain special cosmetics, including permanent-wave products, non-oxidative hair dyes and physically masking skin-whitening products. It can also apply to general cosmetics containing new cosmetic ingredients, except children’s cosmetics.
However, the exemption is not automatic. The manufacturing company must hold an appropriate production quality management system qualification issued by the competent authority in its country or region, and the product’s safety assessment must provide sufficient evidence to establish its safety.
The NMPA also leaves room for the scope of these measures to evolve. Its technical review department may update the categories eligible for reductions or exemptions from animal testing through future technical guidance as scientific and regulatory practices develop.
For companies, this could reduce the testing burden for qualifying products, although the safety assessment remains central to determining whether an exemption can be used.
Ingredient information moves further into company records
Another important change concerns the handling of ingredient safety information for cosmetics and toothpaste.
Under the new approach, registrants and notifiers do not need to enter ingredient safety information files and ingredient reporting codes during registration or filing. Instead, they need to provide the name of the ingredient manufacturer, while the relevant supporting documentation is retained by the company and made available for inspection when required.
This does not mean that ingredient documentation can be omitted altogether. Where the Safety and Technical Standards for Cosmetics or other applicable technical requirements establish specifications for an ingredient, companies may still need to provide the relevant quality specifications or test reports within the formula or safety assessment documentation.
The NMPA will also stop making ingredient reporting codes publicly available.
For existing products, changes to ingredient manufacturers or applicable quality specifications will continue to be handled through the established maintenance or change procedures for registration and filing data.
Similar products can share more safety data
The new rules also address a common practical issue for companies managing ranges of closely related products: the duplication of testing for formulas that are substantially the same.
Where several products from the same brand and registrant or notifier have similar formulation systems, the company can select a representative product for certain testing. Microbiological and physicochemical testing, toxicology studies and human safety tests can, where the requirements are met, be conducted on the representative product and the resulting reports shared with other qualifying products.
The company must nevertheless demonstrate why the selected product is representative and assess whether sharing the data is scientifically justified.
Where similar products are manufactured at different production sites, microbiological and physicochemical testing must be conducted separately for representative products at the respective sites. Toxicology and human safety data may still be shared where the conditions for doing so are satisfied.
For regulatory purposes, products are considered to have similar formulation systems where differences are limited to specified components such as colourants, fragrances, pH regulators, polymer thickeners and pearlescent agents, together with corresponding adjustments to solvents or fillers. The products must otherwise have the same relevant formula composition, dosage form and method of use.
Companies may also apply the principles for similar products in the cosmetic safety assessment guidance when evaluating ingredient safety, risk substances, stability, preservative efficacy and packaging compatibility.
Manufacturing changes may require less duplicated documentation
The NMPA has also simplified certain procedures when a cosmetic’s manufacturing location changes.
The measure applies to situations such as an imported product being transferred to domestic production, the addition of a domestic manufacturer, or a domestically produced product being transferred to overseas production or having an overseas manufacturer added.
To benefit from the simplified procedure, the registrant or notifier, product name and formula must remain unchanged, and there must be no substantial change to the applicable standards.
In these circumstances, companies can reuse existing toxicology, human safety, safety assessment and efficacy evaluation reports. However, microbiological and physicochemical testing must be carried out again, with the corresponding reports submitted alongside the application.
The original product registration certificate or filing voucher must also be provided.
Greater flexibility for supporting efficacy claims
The announcement introduces a further change in how companies can substantiate many cosmetic efficacy claims.
For claims other than skin-whitening, sun protection and anti-hair-loss claims, companies will have greater freedom to select the methodology used for efficacy claim evaluation, provided that there is sufficient scientific justification.
Possible approaches include relevant industry standards, international standards, technical guidelines and validated internal company methods.
This gives manufacturers more flexibility to choose testing approaches that are appropriate for their products and claims, rather than relying exclusively on a predefined testing route.
Efficacy data can also be shared for similar products
The same principle of avoiding unnecessary duplication has been extended to efficacy testing.
Where a company is registering or filing multiple products with similar formulation systems under the same brand, it may select a representative product for efficacy claim evaluation. Results can then be used for other qualifying products if an equivalence assessment confirms that sharing the data is scientifically valid and appropriate.
The supporting efficacy test report, explanation of formulation similarity and equivalence assessment are retained by the company for inspection.
There is an important distinction for certain higher-regulatory-impact claims. For skin-whitening, sun protection and anti-hair-loss products, efficacy evaluation data and the explanation of formulation similarity must be submitted as part of the registration process rather than simply being retained for inspection.
Changing the domestic responsible person becomes simpler
The announcement also removes some documentation previously required when changing the Domestic Responsible Person (DRP) for cosmetics and toothpaste.
Companies will no longer need to provide the original DRP’s stamped consent to the change or documentary evidence, such as a court judgment, demonstrating the effectiveness of the replacement.
Instead, the submission is based on three key documents: the original DRP authorisation letter and its original notarisation, a list of the products affected by the change, and a commitment from the proposed new DRP confirming that it will assume all responsibilities previously held by the former DRP, including responsibilities relating to products already placed on the Chinese market.
What cosmetic companies should take from the changes
Taken together, the measures represent a significant effort by the NMPA to reduce duplicated regulatory work while maintaining responsibility for product safety and compliance.
For manufacturers, the practical impact may be particularly relevant in four areas: product launch planning, safety testing, management of product families and regulatory maintenance.
Companies preparing international launches may find it easier to position China as a first-launch market. Those with appropriate manufacturing quality certifications may have new opportunities to reduce certain toxicological testing requirements. At the same time, companies with portfolios of closely related products can potentially reuse qualifying safety and efficacy data rather than repeating the same studies for every product.
The changes do not remove the need for robust documentation. In several cases, they instead shift the emphasis from submitting every supporting document during registration or filing to maintaining adequate evidence within the company’s records and being able to provide it for regulatory inspection.
Cosmetic companies operating in China should therefore review their existing registration and filing procedures, particularly their approaches to product families, safety assessment, efficacy testing and regulatory record keeping. The new framework may provide opportunities to reduce duplication and improve efficiency, but companies will need to carefully document the scientific rationale behind any data-sharing or exemption approach they use.
