Cosmetic Legislation Introduced – The Safe Cosmetics and Personal Care Products Act of 2013

legislationHere we go again, y’all! Reps Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) introduced the Safe Cosmetics and Personal Care Products Act of 2013, yesterday. According to the press release on Rep. Markey’s website, the bill is intended to “closes major loopholes in the federal law that allows companies to use ingredients in cosmetics and personal care products known to damage human health and the environment.”

I was curious as to when we would see a piece of cosmetic legislation show back up. It was last March and April when H.R.4262 Cosmetics Safety Enhancement Act of 2012  and H.R. 4395 Cosmetic Safety Amendments Act of 2012, were introduced.

From Rep. Ed Markey’s press release issued yesterday:

Key provisions in the Safe Cosmetics and Personal Care Products Act of 2013, which has 14 original co-sponsors, include:

–Cosmetic and Ingredient Testing and Safety: FDA would establish a list of ingredients prohibited from being used in cosmetics.  This includes carcinogens and reproductive and developmental toxins.

–Post Market Testing: Requires the Secretary of HHS to conduct annual random sample tests for pathogens or contaminants in cosmetic products.

–Registration of Cosmetic Companies and Registration Fees: Cosmetics companies would be required to register with FDA and pay a registration fee based on annual gross receipts or sales.  Small businesses with less than $2 million in revenues from cosmetics would be exempt from registration; businesses with less than $10 million in revenues from cosmetics would be exempt from registration fees.

–Market Restrictions: Provides the FDA with recall authority for products that are misbranded, adulterated, or otherwise fail to meet the safety standard and can request a voluntary recall or order the ceasing of distribution of any such cosmetic product.

–Mandatory Reporting of Adverse Health Effects: Cosmetic manufacturers, packagers, and distributors would have to provide the FDA with reports of adverse health effects associated with the use of a cosmetic.

–Worker Issues: Requires companies that manufacture cosmetics for salon use to provide information on any health hazards linked with those cosmetics.

–States Rights: States may set more stringent standards.

At the time of writing this post, the bill has not been made public. Please keep an eye out for an update. When the bill is made available, we will post it in its entirety.

To read Rep. Ed Markey’s press release, click here.

Stay tuned…………..

  • Dene Godfrey

    From the press release:

    ““The simple truth is that everyday products that women, men, and children use contain ingredients that can cause cancer as well as reproductive and developmental harm,” said Rep. Schakowsky.”

    The simple truth is that Rep. Schakowsky doesn’t understand the concept of risk.

    An example I’ve given many times before is that of paracetamol (or acetaminophen – why do you Americans have have so many different words to us Brits?!). 12 standard tablets is sufficient to cause irreversible liver damage and, consequently, death. 1 – 2 tablets every 4 hours is safe (and beneficial). Using the same logic that is behind previous versions (and, therefore, of this version), this extremely widely-used medicine should be banned. Many of the other provisions are extremely good, in my opinion, but if risk isn’t properly considered, this bill will be a disaster.

  • http://www.sterlingminerals.com/ Katherine

    Although the entire industry standard has always been about providing safe products for consumers, the main key sticking issue for me is allowing states to set more stringent standards. This is where the incredible, onerous paperwork would begin. My products are sold globally, yet primarily in the U.S. and to perhaps require me now to have different labeling practices, or different formulating practices, etc. so I can sell to various states, will become problematic at not only accomplishing success, but make many entrepreneurs either say “oh forget this” or won’t eve be able to start up at all due to the financial obligations it will require to accomplish this one task as it is written in the legislation.

    California is a prime example and epitomizes a “true nanny state” of always trying to push the envelope and taking away free choice in the market place. If you don’t believe me, just refer to the Dunkin’ Donuts issue over something as simple as Coffee and the natural constituent it has known as “Acrylamide”. And Starbucks was sued as well.

    Acrylamide isn’t added, and it is naturally occurring and coffee has been linked to many health benefits, such as reducing stroke, colon cancer, heart disease and many other forms of cancer. California continues to target ingredients based on ideology rather than on the practicality of products we have used for generations, safely. Frankly, I’ll keep drinking my cup of joe for the health benefits it is proving to provide to the coffee drinker. Provided is a link below to learn more about the coffee issue and dunkin’ donuts.

    http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/73558.html

    • Colin

      @Katherine – I have always thought that California should leave the US and join Denmark.