By Inna Kowalsky, founder of Cosmetics China Agency.
The facts
On July 29, 2026, China’s National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) published Announcement No. 70 of 2026 on cosmetics registration and filing, effective immediately. The text bundles seven adjustments. Three actually matter for a foreign brand. First, a product launching in China as its true global debut can skip the requirement to prove prior sale elsewhere, a rule that used to block simultaneous worldwide launches. Second, specific low-risk categories, permanent wave products, non-oxidative hair dyes, physical stain-removal products, can be exempted from toxicology reporting under defined conditions. Third, for a range of products sharing a similar formulation system, the company can test one representative SKU and share the results across the whole line. Xinhua confirmed the same day.
Five days later, the same regulator tightened a different bolt. On August 3, 2026, NMPA announced Announcement No. 72 of 2026, approved on July 30, adding two supplementary test methods to the cosmetic safety standard: detection of diclofenac sodium and detection of urotropine in cosmetics. The first catches a pharmaceutical anti-inflammatory sometimes spiked into creams that promise instant soothing. The second catches a formaldehyde-releasing preservative whose use is restricted. Accredited labs now have an official protocol to test for both.
What this actually means
This is not a blanket easing, whatever some consultancies will tell you this week. NMPA has not removed a single safety obligation, it has reorganized who tests what and when. The toxicology exemption is narrow: it applies to specific low-risk categories, and it requires the applicant, the product name, and the formula to stay identical across markets. A brand expecting “no more testing” will be disappointed at filing time.
What is genuinely new is the shared-testing logic across similar SKUs. Before this text, every shade in a haircare or skincare line, even with minor variations, needed its own full test package. Now one representative product can carry the tests for a whole family. That changes the math for a brand launching ten shades instead of one: the file no longer multiplies by ten.
Announcement No. 72 reads as the mirror image of No. 70, and that is what makes the pair interesting together. The same week NMPA makes entry easier for brands playing by the rules, it equips its labs to catch the ones who cut corners on formulation. A brand that respects its filed formula has nothing to fear from these two new methods. A brand tempted to slip in an undeclared active for a perceived boost now faces a higher detection risk than before August 3.
What stays unclear: the text does not publish a closed list of what counts as a “similar formulation system” eligible for shared testing, which leaves room for interpretation at the reviewer’s desk. Two brands with visually close ranges can get two different answers depending on who reads the file.
What this changes for your brand
Not every brand benefits the same way. One already selling in China with a closed, validated file has nothing to redo, the measure is not retroactive. A brand preparing a launch, or extending an existing range with new variants, sits directly in scope.
The window opened July 29 with no announced end date, which is reassuring, this is not a limited-time pilot. The cost of doing nothing is not a penalty, it is simply continuing to pay for full testing on every SKU in a range when a faster path now exists.
One of our haircare clients, preparing an eight-shade color line for China, had budgeted a full test package per shade. After reviewing the July 29 text with local regulatory counsel, the range qualified as a “similar formulation system”: one shade tested in depth, the other seven carried by that test. The filing lost several months of delay and a meaningful share of its cost, without touching the marketing calendar already announced to distributors.
How to check if your file is affected
The process is simple in order, demanding in detail. Start with an inventory of every product in registration or launch preparation, and check which ones genuinely share a formula base, not just a marketing resemblance. Then have Chinese regulatory counsel confirm, category by category, whether the product qualifies for the toxicology exemption, never assume a whole range qualifies without checking.
For a brand weighing which market to launch in first, this text is a concrete argument for putting China at the top of the list rather than at the end, after Europe or the US. That decision gets made with the regulatory team early, not after the file is already lodged elsewhere.
Our beauty marketing team in China works alongside local regulatory firms on exactly this kind of filing, ahead of the marketing launch, so the range strategy and the regulatory strategy move together instead of one waiting on the other.
The open question
Some brands will move fast and launch their full range in China as part of the first global wave. Others still prefer testing the market with a hero product before committing a whole range’s regulatory file. On your next launch, does China sit first or last on your market list? Tell us in the comments, or reach out directly.
Inna Kowalsky is the founder and Chief Beauty Officer of Cosmetics China Agency, an independent, beauty-only agency in Shanghai. LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/innakochanzhi.
Cosmetics China Agency and compliance
We don’t replace local regulatory counsel, but we make sure the marketing timeline matches what the NMPA file can actually deliver, not what we hope it will. A range announced with fanfare before the file clears is exactly the scenario we try to prevent for every client. Want a Free Social Media Audit and a read on how this affects your range?
