“Carcinogen-Free” Labeling Bill Could Impact Cosmetics Industry
This article was originally published in The Rose Sheet
Executive Summary
A new bill, the Carcinogen-Free Label Act of 2012, proposes a voluntary labeling system for “carcinogen-free” products, which could help consumers avoid exposure to ingredients with suspected links to cancer. Cosmetics would be eligible for the program under the bill, which was introduced Nov 16 by Florida Democratic rep Ted Deutch.
A bill intended to help consumers identify products that are free of ingredients with suspected cancer links could have implications for the cosmetics industry.
Introduced Nov. 16 by Rep. Ted Deutch, D-Fla., and Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., the Carcinogen-Free Label Act of 2012 proposes a voluntary labeling system for products regulated by FDA, EPA, the Department of Agriculture and the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Under the bill, manufacturers could apply for and display a “carcinogen-free” label on products that do not contain known or likely carcinogens, which could help consumers avoid exposure to potentially cancer-causing ingredients.
It could also put the cosmetics industry in a precarious position, as some substances said to be carcinogenic are not intentionally added to cosmetic formulations but exist in finished products as a byproduct of manufacturing processes. The bill does not address trace contaminants.
In remarks introducing the bill, Deutch specifically named cosmetics as a product that could be eligible for the program.
“We all know that we can reduce our risk of getting cancer by wearing sunscreen, quitting smoking and steering clear of asbestos. But what about everyday products? Which makeup has carcinogens? … Which baby shampoos?” he asked.
The congressman suggested that consumers who want to avoid carcinogens have a hard time doing so because it’s sometimes not clear which products may contain them.
“Even if our constituents memorized the list of known and probable carcinogens, many substances in consumer products remain hidden,” he said. “Words like ‘fragrance’ and ‘artificial flavoring’ are used in place of specific ingredients to protect companies' trade secrets – and they should. But there is no denying that this protection makes it harder for consumers to make fully informed choices.”
If the bill advances, manufacturer applications to feature a “carcinogen-free” label on product packaging would be evaluated by the agencies that regulate specific products. The applications would include a full list of product substances as well as “a demonstrated adherence to best carcinogen-avoidance practices in manufacture, storage, and transportation.”
According to Deutch, product trade secrets would be maintained through the process.
“The voluntary application would protect manufacturers' hard-earned intellectual property and could not be used by any agency of government for any reason other than determining the product’s ‘carcinogen-free’ status,” he said in his remarks.
Agencies would be permitted to charge a “reasonable fee” for application submission and approval, according to the bill, and would compare product ingredient lists against existing lists of known and probable carcinogens from the National Toxicology Program’s Report on Carcinogens and EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System.
Formaldehyde, released in trace amounts by preservative ingredients, was added to the latest iteration of the NTP’s RoC as a known human carcinogen (Also see "NTP Determines Formaldehyde “Known Human Carcinogen” In New Report" - HBW Insight, 20 Jun, 2011.).
Other ingredients found in cosmetics that appear on NTP’s list as substances “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen” include hair dye disperse blue 1; 1,4 dioxane; diazeminobenzene; di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate; and lead.
Lead in particular may be problematic for cosmetics firms interested in pursuing the proposed carcinogen-free label. Lead is not intentionally added to cosmetics, but is often found in high-pigment products such as lipstick in trace amounts that are not considered hazardous to human health.
Last year, FDA released the results from a study testing 400 lipsticks on the market for lead content, finding a range of 0.026 parts per million to 7.19 ppm and deeming those trace concentrations safe (Also see "FDA Issues Final Lead-In-Lipstick Report, Postpones Decision On Cosmetic Lead Limits" - HBW Insight, 12 Dec, 2011.).
NGO the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics has pushed FDA to cap permitted lead levels in lipstick at 0.026 ppm (Also see "Campaign for Safe Cosmetics Wants Cap On Lipstick Lead, Proposes 0.026 PPM" - HBW Insight, 13 Feb, 2012.). Meanwhile, the Personal Care Products Council has advocated for a 10 ppm maximum (Also see "FDA Eyes Industry-Proposed Lead Limit, With Lipstick Report Slated For Fall" - HBW Insight, 29 Aug, 2011.).
Deutch noted that the potential legislation is not intended to mandate or ban substances, and that there is no penalty for firms that do not apply through the program.
“The labeling program is 100% voluntary. It would simply harness the power of the free market, enabling consumers to choose safer products for themselves and their families,” he said.
Deutch introduced a similar bill in July, the Cancer-Free Label Act of 2012, which sought to allow manufacturers to apply for a “cancer-free” label to affix to consumer products that do not contain known or probable carcinogens.
The bill was referred to the House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee and the Agriculture Nutrition and Horticulture Subcommittee.
Deutch presently holds positions on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Judiciary Committee, while Myrick is a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, serving as vice chair of the Oversights and Investigations subcommittee and on the Health subcommittee.