Yesterday, I listened to the live hearing on ‘Examining the Current State of Cosmetics’. It lasted 62 minutes and went straight to the point with the issues at hand. There were two exchanges that stood out to me with great concern. Politics will definitely play a roll in new cosmetic legislation, because, well, it will be lawmakers deciding what that new cosmetic legislation comes to be. Below is the recording from yesterday’s hearing.
First, at the 54:17 mark, Rep. Schakowsky asks Peter Barton Hutt, J.D., Senior Counsel with Covington and Burling, LLP, the following:
Rep. Schakowsky: Mr. Hutt, the European Union has banned or restricted the use of over 1,200 chemicals linked to cancer, reproductive and developmental harm from cosmetics. So, just yes or no. Does the PCPC support a similar ban or restrictions here in the United States on carcinogens, mutagens and reproductive toxins?
Mr. Hutt: No, because those aren’t used in the United States.
We need sound science and facts when we discuss changing the current cosmetic legislation. Misinformation and hype will do nothing to make cosmetics more safe.
Second, Rep. Schakowsky demonstrates what a person does when the answer to the question is not what she wanted to hear. At 56:50, Rep. Schakowsky, rudely interrupts Halyna Breslawec, Ph.D., Chief Scientist and Executive Vice President for Science with The Personal Care Products Council while she was answering a question in regards to formaldehyde.
What do you think? Do you believe new cosmetic legislation should be based on the precautionary principle and educated guesses? Or do you favor new legislation based on science and facts?
Fear of ingredients that aren’t even used in the United States is a waste of everyone’s time. Do you really think manufacturers are making cosmetics that include jet fuel? It happens to be a chemical banned in the European Union.
Why don’t we deal with the issues at hand and the ingredients we presently use here in the United States? I also believe that pre-exemption should be including in any new cosmetic legislation. Allowing states to create their individual legislation would be extremely burdensome to all manufacturers. Imagine having to keep it straight as to which state requires this, while it’s not permitted in another state.The following quote sums up why pre-exemption is needed.
The science DOES NOT change from state to state. ~ Ms.Curran Dandurand Co-Founder, Jack Black Skincare
We’d love to hear from you!