{"id":3247,"date":"2026-10-19T17:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-10-19T09:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/?p=3247"},"modified":"2026-10-19T17:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-10-19T09:00:00","slug":"sourcing-cosmetic-jars-china","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/es\/supplier-verification\/sourcing-cosmetic-jars-china\/","title":{"rendered":"C\u00f3mo obtener envases de cosm\u00e9ticos de China: una gu\u00eda basada en la experiencia del comprador."},"content":{"rendered":"

C\u00f3mo obtener envases de cosm\u00e9ticos de China: una gu\u00eda basada en la experiencia del comprador.<\/h1>\n

A cosmetic jar looks like a component purchase until it touches a formula. Then every record needs a product and batch link. A pump image, resin statement, or supplier test sheet cannot decide formula compatibility or product safety.<\/p>\n

Abastecimiento<\/a> cosmetic jars from China is a buyer evidence-review process that connects the stated jar, pump, tube, closure, liner, coating, label, formula\/product revision, supplier source, sample\/lot, handling record, test\/assessment scope, and change history before a buyer makes a compatibility, safety, or market claim.<\/strong> It does not establish chemical compatibility, formula stability, leakage performance, cleanliness, product safety, regulatory compliance, or market acceptance.<\/p>\n

The component must match the formula record. Sourcing cosmetic jars from China depends on that stated product link.<\/p>\n

Table of contents<\/h2>\n
    \n
  1. What can cosmetic-packaging evidence show?<\/a><\/li>\n
  2. Which component and lot records matter?<\/a><\/li>\n
  3. What can a compatibility record show?<\/a><\/li>\n
  4. How should handling and packaging records be read?<\/a><\/li>\n
  5. How should label and formula records connect?<\/a><\/li>\n
  6. Which change records need attention?<\/a><\/li>\n
  7. How can a buyer keep the review bounded?<\/a><\/li>\n
  8. Which issues need escalation?<\/a><\/li>\n
  9. What are the challenges and limitations?<\/a><\/li>\n
  10. Frequently asked questions<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    What can cosmetic-packaging evidence show?<\/h2>\n

    Sourcing cosmetic jars from China can show whether documents name a consistent supplier, primary package, component revision, formula\/product context, sample or lot, source, date, and stated assessment scope. It can expose a missing liner reference, a revised pump, or a report with no product connection. It cannot establish that a formula is compatible with a package or that the completed cosmetic is safe.<\/p>\n

    FDA\u2019s cosmetic GMP guidance<\/a> says primary packaging materials should be stored and handled to prevent mix-up or contamination, and that materials should carry identity, lot identification, and control status. [1] These are manufacturing and record-control principles in FDA guidance. They are not a remote buyer\u2019s process instructions or a conclusion that a supplier\u2019s site meets any particular standard.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
    Evidence item<\/th>\nRecord to retain<\/th>\nWhat it can support<\/th>\nWhat it cannot establish alone<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
    Jar\/tube\/pump identity<\/td>\nModel, drawing\/image, revision, source\/date<\/td>\nWhich component is stated<\/td>\nMaterial suitability or performance<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Closure\/liner\/coating statement<\/td>\nSupplier source and product-revision link<\/td>\nClaimed component configuration<\/td>\nCompatibility, migration, cleanliness, or safety<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Formula\/product context<\/td>\nNamed cosmetic product\/formula revision where available<\/td>\nA stated relationship for review<\/td>\nFormula composition or package compatibility<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Sample or lot<\/td>\nSample\/lot, date, linked component\/product<\/td>\nScope of an observation or record<\/td>\nResult for all production<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Assessment\/test record<\/td>\nOriginal source, date, item\/sample, stated scope<\/td>\nWhat the issuer reports<\/td>\nSafety, compliance, or product approval<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Handling record<\/td>\nPrimary-packaging identity, lot\/control status, stated source<\/td>\nA documented supplier statement<\/td>\nContamination absence or GMP conclusion<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

    Sourcing cosmetic jars from China is a document comparison<\/a> before it becomes a product claim.<\/p>\n

    Which component and lot records matter?<\/h2>\n

    Start with the exact primary package. Sourcing cosmetic jars from China needs a named jar, pump, tube, closure, liner, coating, decoration, label\/artwork, and revision. The supplier\u2019s component statement should conectar<\/a> to a sample or lot and retain its source and date.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
    Record<\/th>\nBuyer question<\/th>\nWhat it can show<\/th>\nLimit<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
    Component specification<\/td>\nWhich jar, pump, tube, or closure is stated?<\/td>\nA comparison reference<\/td>\nActual material performance<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Resin\/coating\/liner statement<\/td>\nWhat does the supplier report?<\/td>\nA claimed component detail<\/td>\nFormula compatibility or safety<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Drawing\/artwork revision<\/td>\nWhich presentation is described?<\/td>\nVersion control<\/td>\nThat production uses that version<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Lot\/control record<\/td>\nWhich components are linked to an observation?<\/td>\nA stated lot connection<\/td>\nComplete traceability or condition<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Sample record<\/td>\nWhich physical sample was reviewed?<\/td>\nDefined evidence scope<\/td>\nProduction-wide result<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Supplier identity\/source<\/td>\nWho issued the record and when?<\/td>\nProvenance<\/td>\nCapability, legitimacy, or compliance<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

    FDA also describes records for primary packaging materials and finished-product code marks in its GMP guidance. [1] Sourcing cosmetic jars from China can treat those as evidence categories. It cannot decide how a facility must handle materials or whether its controls are adequate.<\/p>\n

    Keep the revision visible. Sourcing cosmetic jars from China records need a dated component source.<\/p>\n

    What can a compatibility record show?<\/h2>\n

    A compatibility record is evidence acerca de<\/a> the stated component, formula\/product context, sample, date, and scope. Sourcing cosmetic jars from China can compare those identifiers with the purchase record and identify mismatches. It cannot interpret chemical interactions, determine migration or extractables, confirm formula stability, or establish safe consumer use.<\/p>\n

    FDA says cosmetic adulteration can involve ingredients, contaminants, processing, packaging, shipping, and handling. It also says a container composed of a potentially harmful substance can be relevant to adulteration under U.S. law. [2] Those are U.S. legal concepts. They do not allow a buyer to diagnose adulteration or make a package-safety decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
    Compatibility-record question<\/th>\nEvidence to compare<\/th>\nWhat it can support<\/th>\nWhat remains separate<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
    Which package was named?<\/td>\nJar\/pump\/tube\/closure revision and source<\/td>\nStated package scope<\/td>\nComposition or suitability<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Which product context was named?<\/td>\nFormula\/product reference, label\/artwork, date<\/td>\nStated product link<\/td>\nFormula identity or performance<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Which sample was examined?<\/td>\nSample\/lot, component\/product link, record date<\/td>\nScope of a stated observation<\/td>\nLot-wide conclusion<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    What did the issuer report?<\/td>\nOriginal report and stated conditions\/scope<\/td>\nA source-backed statement<\/td>\nSafety, compliance, or product approval<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Has a package or formula changed?<\/td>\nChange records and prior documentation<\/td>\nA documented change or gap<\/td>\nTechnical or regulatory effect<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

    A report belongs to its stated sample and scope. Sourcing cosmetic jars from China cannot use it as a safety finding.<\/p>\n

    How should handling and packaging records be read?<\/h2>\n

    Primary packaging can be exposed to mix-up, dirt, or other conditions before it reaches a finished cosmetic. FDA\u2019s guidance mentions storage and handling that prevent mix-up and contamination and labels that identify materials, lots, and control status. [1]<\/p>\n

    Sourcing cosmetic jars from China can retain a supplier handling statement, component\/lot control record, packaging image, date, source, and related nonconformance record. The file can show what the supplier stated or observed. It cannot establish cleanliness, contamination absence, factory conditions, or a finished cosmetic\u2019s safety.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
    Handling evidence<\/th>\nWhat to retain<\/th>\nWhat it can support<\/th>\nWhat it cannot prove<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
    Supplier handling statement<\/td>\nSource, date, named component and stated scope<\/td>\nSupplier\u2019s described practice<\/td>\nGMP compliance or contamination control<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Packaging\/lot label<\/td>\nComponent, lot, source\/date, visible condition<\/td>\nA stated identity link<\/td>\nCleanliness, material safety, or integrity<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Sample observation<\/td>\nSample\/lot, image\/source\/date, description<\/td>\nPoint-in-time evidence<\/td>\nCause, contamination, or all-lot result<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Nonconformance record<\/td>\nComponent\/lot, issue, status, source<\/td>\nA documented issue<\/td>\nRoot cause, liability, or disposition<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Distribution\/code record<\/td>\nStated finished-product or component code\/source<\/td>\nA traceability reference<\/td>\nFull chain of custody<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

    A clean-looking component is still an observation, not a contamination finding. Sourcing cosmetic jars from China should preserve the original observation record.<\/p>\n

    How should label and formula records connect?<\/h2>\n

    The label and formula\/product record should identify the same commercial item as the package evidence. FDA says U.S. cosmetics can be adulterated or misbranded under applicable law and that labelling obligations apply. [2] The European Commission says Regulation (EC) No 1223\/2009 is the main EU framework for finished cosmetics placed on the EU market and includes product-safety-report and responsible-person concepts. [3]<\/p>\n

    These U.S. and EU sources have defined jurisdictions. Sourcing cosmetic jars from China cannot determine a label\u2019s legal sufficiency, a cosmetic claim\u2019s validity, a responsible person\u2019s obligations, or whether a product may be placed on a particular market.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
    Link to check<\/th>\nRecords to compare<\/th>\nBounded result<\/th>\nWhat requires qualified review<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
    Component to product<\/td>\nJar\/pump\/tube revision and named product\/formula context<\/td>\nLink is stated or incomplete<\/td>\nCompatibility and product safety<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Product to label<\/td>\nLabel\/artwork, product revision, source\/date<\/td>\nDocuments name the same or different item<\/td>\nLegal and market requirements<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Packaging to lot<\/td>\nComponent\/finished-product lot and record source<\/td>\nTraceability link is present or missing<\/td>\nFull production history<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Assessment to item<\/td>\nReport scope, sample, component\/product revision<\/td>\nStated scope maps or does not map<\/td>\nTechnical, safety, and regulatory applicability<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Market to product<\/td>\nIntended-market record and qualified review note<\/td>\nMarket context is identified<\/td>\nMarket access or compliance<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

    A label link does not resolve formula compatibility. Sourcing cosmetic jars from China needs qualified review of any formula-package question.<\/p>\n

    Which change records need attention?<\/h2>\n

    A change in a jar, pump, tube, closure, liner, coating, label, formula\/product revision, supplier, lot, handling statement, or assessment record can break an earlier evidence link. Sourcing cosmetic jars from China should preserve the stated change, date, product\/component reference, original records, and unresolved question.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
    Change trigger<\/th>\nWhy record it?<\/th>\nBounded result<\/th>\nQualified review<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
    Jar\/tube\/pump\/closure revision<\/td>\nEarlier evidence may name another component<\/td>\nChange is documented or unclear<\/td>\nPackaging engineering, formula, safety, calidad<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Liner\/coating\/material statement change<\/td>\nProduct-package context may differ<\/td>\nSupplier statement changed<\/td>\nCompatibility and safety assessment<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Formula\/product or label change<\/td>\nRecords may no longer describe one item<\/td>\nProduct link is altered<\/td>\nFormulation, regulatory, legal review<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Lot\/source change<\/td>\nSample\/report relation may be uncertain<\/td>\nTraceability is present or missing<\/td>\nQuality and technical review<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Handling\/nonconformance record<\/td>\nCondition or control issue was stated<\/td>\nIssue is recorded<\/td>\nCause, risk, disposition, or release<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

    Sourcing cosmetic jars from China becomes unreliable when a report names pump revision A while the order names revision B.<\/p>\n

    Record the mismatch. Sourcing cosmetic jars from China must retain conflicting package and report sources.<\/p>\n

    How can a buyer keep the review bounded?<\/h2>\n

    A bounded review says what records identify, which versions match, and which preguntas<\/a> remain open. It does not convert a supplier declaration, packaging image, or limited report into a formula-compatibility, contamination, safety, or compliance conclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
    Buyer question<\/th>\nEvidence to compare<\/th>\nBounded conclusion<\/th>\nWhat needs qualified review<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
    Is the primary package identified?<\/td>\nComponent revision, drawing\/image, supplier source<\/td>\nIdentity is stated or incomplete<\/td>\nMaterial properties and performance<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Does a report map to the package and product?<\/td>\nOriginal record, sample\/lot, component\/product links<\/td>\nScope aligns or differs<\/td>\nCompatibility, safety, compliance<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Is handling evidence traceable?<\/td>\nSupplier statement, lot\/control record, source\/date<\/td>\nA stated record is present or missing<\/td>\nConditions, cleanliness, contamination<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Did a change occur?<\/td>\nChange records and earlier package\/product documents<\/td>\nChange is identified or unclear<\/td>\nEffect on product and records<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Is the market context identified?<\/td>\nIntended market, label\/product records<\/td>\nContext is stated<\/td>\nLegal requirements and market access<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

    Sourcing cosmetic jars from China should preserve a gap rather than fill it with a product claim.<\/p>\n

    Keep the gap visible. Sourcing cosmetic jars from China is not a compatibility or safety determination.<\/p>\n

    Which issues need escalation?<\/h2>\n

    Escalate when package, pump, tube, closure, liner, coating, formula\/product, label, lot, sample, assessment, handling, or change records are unclear or conflicting; or when a potential contamination, compatibility, safety, customer, regulatory, legal, or commercial issue appears.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
    Trigger<\/th>\nWhy it matters<\/th>\nAppropriate review<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
    Package\/formula or report mismatch<\/td>\nEvidence may concern another item<\/td>\nQualified formulation, packaging, testing, quality review<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Changed component or coating<\/td>\nEarlier records may not map to current product<\/td>\nQualified packaging engineering and product-safety review<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Handling\/condition concern<\/td>\nConsequential quality question may exist<\/td>\nQualified quality and product-safety review<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Label\/market question<\/td>\nRequirements are jurisdiction-specific<\/td>\nQualified regulatory and legal review<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Unclear lot\/sample link<\/td>\nEvidence scope cannot be assessed<\/td>\nQualified quality and technical review<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Customer or contract concern<\/td>\nRepresentation or obligation may be affected<\/td>\nQualified commercial and legal review<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

    FDA says manufacturers and marketers have legal responsibility to ensure cosmetic-product safety in the U.S., while FDA does not prescribe specific tests for every individual cosmetic product or ingredient. [2] Sourcing cosmetic jars from China cannot substitute for the qualified work needed for a real formula and package.<\/p>\n

    Escalate before use. Sourcing cosmetic jars from China needs qualified review before a consequential claim.<\/p>\n

    What are the challenges and limitations?<\/h2>\n

    Sourcing cosmetic jars from China does not decide whether a jar, pump, tube, closure, liner, or coating is compatible with a formula. It does not diagnose contamination, interpret a test, approve a cosmetic, resolve a label claim, or establish U.S. or EU compliance.<\/p>\n

    FDA\u2019s guidance describes packaging-material identity, lot, and control records within a cosmetic GMP context. [1] FDA\u2019s legal overview describes U.S. packaging and product-safety issues. [2] The European Commission describes the EU finished-cosmetic framework. [3] Each source is limited in purpose and jurisdiction.<\/p>\n

    This article does not provide formula, compatibility, migration, extractables, cleanliness, handling, cleanroom, packaging-design, product-safety, labelling, regulatory, or legal instructions. Qualified cosmetic formulation, packaging engineering, testing, quality, regulatory, legal, and commercial specialists must assess those questions before a buyer acts.<\/p>\n

    The evidence has limits. Sourcing cosmetic jars from China remains source scoped.<\/p>\n

    Frequently asked questions<\/h2>\n

    What does sourcing cosmetic jars from China involve?<\/h3>\n

    Sourcing cosmetic jars from China connects the stated package and product context to supplier, component, lot, sample, handling, assessment, label, and change records. It does not approve formula compatibility or product safety.<\/p>\n

    Does a resin or liner statement prove formula compatibility?<\/h3>\n

    No. A supplier statement identifies a claimed component. It does not establish chemical compatibility, migration, extractables, stability, cleanliness, or safe consumer use.<\/p>\n

    Can a packaging image prove a component is clean?<\/h3>\n

    No. An image can document a visible item at a stated time. It does not prove contamination absence, handling conditions, or finished-product safety.<\/p>\n

    What package records should remain linked to a report?<\/h3>\n

    Keep the component model and revision, closure\/liner\/coating statement, named product\/formula context, sample or lot, source, date, and stated scope. A missing link is a finding, not proof.<\/p>\n

    Does FDA approve cosmetic packaging before sale?<\/h3>\n

    FDA says cosmetics and ingredients, except colour additives, do not require FDA premarket approval, while laws and regulations still apply. [2] A buyer must not describe this as approval of a particular package or product.<\/p>\n

    Can a report for a pump apply to a different jar revision?<\/h3>\n

    Not automatically. The report needs a documented link to the exact component and product context. Qualified packaging, formulation, safety, and regulatory reviewers determine applicability.<\/p>\n

    What does a lot code help show?<\/h3>\n

    A lot code can connect a stated component or finished product to packaging, handling, sample, and record sources. It does not prove traceability is complete or that the product is safe.<\/p>\n

    Does a supplier handling statement prove GMP compliance?<\/h3>\n

    No. It reports what the supplier states. FDA\u2019s GMP guidance is not a basis for a remote buyer to determine compliance or absence of contamination. [1]<\/p>\n

    Can a label resolve compatibility issues?<\/h3>\n

    No. A label identifies a stated product presentation. It does not establish the formula-package relationship, technical performance, safety, or legal validity.<\/p>\n

    What should I do if a component changes?<\/h3>\n

    Preserve the change record and compare the original package, product, lot, and assessment records. Qualified formulation, packaging, quality, safety, regulatory, and commercial specialists should review the effect.<\/p>\n

    When should a buyer escalate a cosmetic-package question?<\/h3>\n

    Escalate when component, formula\/product, report, label, lot, handling, safety, regulatory, legal, or commercial records conflict or involve a consequential decision.<\/p>\n

    Does sourcing cosmetic jars from China provide compatibility testing instructions?<\/h3>\n

    No. It is a source-scoped evidence guide. Testing and interpretation need qualified specialists working with the actual formula, package, market, and requirements.<\/p>\n

    Referencias<\/h2>\n

    [1] U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Good Manufacturing Practice Guidelines\/Inspection Checklist for Cosmetics<\/a><\/p>\n

    [2] U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA Authority Over Cosmetics<\/a><\/p>\n

    [3] European Commission, Cosmetics Legislation<\/a><\/p>\n

    Related reading<\/h2>\n

    Continue with GHs SDS authenticity<\/a>, lot coding traceability recall<\/a>, accredited testing lab selection<\/a>, remote labeling line audit<\/a>, and detected nonconforming goods arrival<\/a>.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Use sourcing cosmetic jars from China records to review components, lots, handling statements, report scope, changes, and formula-package links.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"rank_math_internal_links_processed":["1"],"_uag_page_assets":["a:9:{s:3:\"css\";s:263:\".uag-blocks-common-selector{z-index:var(--z-index-desktop) !important}@media (max-width: 976px){.uag-blocks-common-selector{z-index:var(--z-index-tablet) !important}}@media (max-width: 767px){.uag-blocks-common-selector{z-index:var(--z-index-mobile) !important}}\n\";s:2:\"js\";s:0:\"\";s:18:\"current_block_list\";a:15:{i:0;s:11:\"core\/search\";i:1;s:10:\"core\/group\";i:2;s:12:\"core\/heading\";i:3;s:17:\"core\/latest-posts\";i:4;s:20:\"core\/latest-comments\";i:5;s:13:\"core\/archives\";i:6;s:15:\"core\/categories\";i:8;s:25:\"greenshift-blocks\/heading\";i:9;s:22:\"greenshift-blocks\/text\";i:10;s:14:\"core\/paragraph\";i:12;s:18:\"core\/legacy-widget\";i:13;s:17:\"core\/social-links\";i:15;s:16:\"core\/social-link\";i:16;s:21:\"trp\/language-switcher\";i:17;s:9:\"core\/html\";}s:8:\"uag_flag\";b:0;s:11:\"uag_version\";s:10:\"1792486806\";s:6:\"gfonts\";a:0:{}s:10:\"gfonts_url\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"gfonts_files\";a:0:{}s:14:\"uag_faq_layout\";b:0;}"],"_uag_css_file_name":["uag-css-3247.css"]},"categories":[33],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3247","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supplier-verification"],"uagb_featured_image_src":{"full":false,"thumbnail":false,"medium":false,"medium_large":false,"large":false,"1536x1536":false,"2048x2048":false,"trp-custom-language-flag":false},"uagb_author_info":{"display_name":"admin","author_link":"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/es\/author\/admin\/"},"uagb_comment_info":0,"uagb_excerpt":"Use sourcing cosmetic jars from China records to review components, lots, handling statements, report scope, changes, and formula-package links.","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3247","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3247"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3247\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3474,"href":"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3247\/revisions\/3474"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3247"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3247"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3247"}],"curies":[{"name":"gracias","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}