Back to posts
The introduction of Poison Centre Notifications (PCN) and the Unique Formula Identifier (UFI) under Annex VIII to the CLP Regulation was not intended as a mere administrative exercise. The entire system was designed with one purpose in mind: enabling poison centres and emergency responders to quickly identify the exact composition of a hazardous mixture and provide the most appropriate medical advice.
Yet we still encounter situations where companies consider disabling an existing PCN submission and submitting a new notification under the same UFI, even though the composition has changed. The argument is often that the change is minor — perhaps only one component has been replaced, the component is not classified for health or physical hazards, and it is present in a relatively low concentration.
At first glance, this may appear harmless. In practice, however, it undermines the very purpose of the UFI system.
What does a UFI actually represent?
The UFI (Unique Formula Identifier) is not simply a product identifier. It is a formulation identifier.
ECHA describes the UFI as a tool that creates an unambiguous link between the product placed on the market and the detailed composition information submitted to poison centres. The fundamental condition is that all products notified and labelled with the same UFI must share the same mixture composition.
This principle is so important that ECHA's guidance explicitly states that UFI management depends on the composition of the mixture, not on the commercial identity of the product. If the composition changes, the UFI strategy must be reconsidered accordingly.
In other words:
One formulation = one UFI
The moment a UFI becomes associated with more than one formulation, its value as a unique identifier begins to disappear.
"But we only changed one non-hazardous ingredient"
This is where companies can fall into a dangerous trap.
A component that is not classified for health hazards or physical hazards may still be relevant for poison centre response. PCN notifications do not only contain hazardous ingredients; they contain composition information intended to support emergency health response.
Furthermore, Annex VIII update requirements are not based solely on whether a component is classified as hazardous. Changes in composition, including adding, removing, or replacing ingredients, can trigger notification updates and in certain circumstances require a new UFI.
Even when a regulatory assessment concludes that a new UFI may not be legally required in a particular case, disabling the historical notification and replacing it with a new formulation under the same UFI should be approached with extreme caution.
The regulatory question and the practical emergency-response question are not always identical.
The real-world scenario nobody should ignore
Imagine the following situation.
A consumer purchases a cleaning product in 2024.
The product carries UFI: XXXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXX and is notified through PCN Submission A.
In 2025, the manufacturer modifies the formulation by replacing a component present at more than 1%. The ingredient is not classified for health or physical hazards, so the change is considered minor. The original PCN is disabled and a new PCN is submitted using the same UFI.
Several months later, the consumer still has the original 2024 product at home.
A child accidentally ingests the product, and the emergency services are contacted.
The poison centre receives the UFI from the label and retrieves the composition linked to that UFI. However, the database now points to the newer formulation rather than the version actually involved in the incident.
The result?
The poison centre may be working with incomplete or inaccurate formulation information.
Will this always lead to incorrect medical advice? Probably not.
Could it delay the assessment, create uncertainty, require additional investigation, or reduce the effectiveness of the response? Absolutely.
And this is precisely the situation the UFI system was created to avoid.
ECHA explains that the UFI allows poison centres to rapidly identify the exact product involved in an incident and distinguish between different formulations that may share the same trade name.
When a single UFI starts representing multiple historical formulations, that certainty is lost.
Product life cycles are longer than you think
One of the most common misconceptions in PCN management is assuming that once a new formulation reaches the market, the old formulation effectively disappears.
Reality is very different.
Products can remain:
- In distributors' warehouses
- On retailer shelves
- In professional users' inventories
- In consumers' homes
For months or even years after a formulation change.
During that period, multiple versions of a product may coexist on the market simultaneously.
The UFI system is designed to maintain a clear connection between each physical product and the formulation information available to poison centres. If historical submissions are disabled and replaced inappropriately, that connection can become blurred.
Compliance is not just about meeting the minimum requirement
Regulatory compliance should not be reduced to finding the narrowest interpretation that permits a particular action.
The objective of Annex VIII is to support emergency health response. The UFI is one of the most important tools enabling poison centres to provide accurate advice during incidents involving hazardous mixtures.
When managing formulation changes, companies should therefore ask themselves not only:
"Can we continue using the same UFI?"
but also:
"Will a poison centre still be able to identify the exact formulation involved if an incident occurs tomorrow?"
If the answer is uncertain, maintaining separate formulation histories and assigning a new UFI may be the safer and more responsible approach.
Conclusion
The UFI is much more than a code on a label. It is the key that connects a product in someone's hand with the formulation data available to poison centres during an emergency.
Disabling an existing PCN submission and reusing the same UFI for a different formulation—even where the change appears minor—can create confusion precisely when clarity matters most.
The true test of a UFI strategy is not whether it simplifies regulatory administration. It is whether, years later, a poison centre can still identify the exact formulation involved in an incident and provide the best possible advice without delay.
That is the purpose of the UFI system—and it is a purpose worth preserving.
