Art materials law

Repackaging is manufacturing

Updated October 2026

On this page8

The definition clause The scope clause So the packaging decision is the regulatory decision Marketing is the other half of it Users of any age, and misuse counts The duties do not get lighter for a repackager Which makes the supplier relationship the practical problem References

Two clauses decide who this rule reaches, and between them they point straight at the person filling the bottles.

The definition clause

An art material or art material product means any substance marketed or represented by the producer or repackager as suitable for use in any phase of the creation of any work of visual or graphic art of any medium. The repackager is in the definition, not a footnote to it.

The scope clause

The standard applies exclusively to art materials packaged in sizes intended for individual users of any age or those participating in a small group. A drum is not such a size; a 250 ml bottle is.

So the packaging decision is the regulatory decision

The same liquid in a 20 liter pail and in an artist bottle sits on two sides of this standard. That is unusual, and it is why this property treats the container choice as the first regulatory step rather than the last production one.

Marketing is the other half of it

The definition turns on what the substance is marketed or represented as. A medium sold for industrial coating and the same medium sold to artists are different products under this rule, decided by your own listing copy.

Users of any age, and misuse counts

The rule applies to art materials intended for users of any age, and labeling determinations shall consider reasonably foreseeable use or misuse. So "it is for professionals" is not an exemption and never was.

The duties do not get lighter for a repackager

Toxicologist review, labeling, the poison control route, the written criteria and the five-year cycle are all expressed as obligations of the "producer or repackager". There is no reduced tier.

Which makes the supplier relationship the practical problem

You cannot have a formulation reviewed that you do not have. Getting the composition, under confidentiality, from whoever made the bulk is the first real task, and it is a reason to ask before committing to a supplier.

References

16 CFR 1500.14(b)(8), which reproduces ASTM D-4236 as a regulation under the Labeling of Hazardous Art Materials Act, 15 U.S.C. 1277, effective November 18, 1990. Paragraph (b)(8)(i)(A)(2) limits it to art materials packaged in sizes intended for individual users or a small group; (b)(8)(ii)(A) defines art material by what the producer or repackager markets it as, and excludes FIFRA economic poisons and FDCA drugs, devices and cosmetics. law.cornell.edu

16 CFR 1500.14(b)(8)(i)(C) and (D), on the producer or repackager’s duties: submit the formulation to a toxicologist, supply a poison exposure management information source or a 24-hour cost-free telephone number to poison control centers, and have formulations and labels re-reviewed at least every 5 years. Paragraph (D) lists the seven matters the toxicologist must take into account. law.cornell.edu

Written from federal regulation and from measured catalog data, not from a formulation bench. Whether a specific product needs chronic hazard labeling is a toxicologist’s determination and the rule says so; nothing here substitutes for that review. Anything on these pages is a starting point.