PCPC: Cosmetics Legislation Unlikely To Move Forward This Year

With congressional elections on the horizon, industry-backed legislation to modernize FDA’s cosmetics regulations is not likely to be introduced in 2014, according to the Personal Care Products Council. However, the trade association expects to be kept busy lobbying against state-level bills that could impose burdens on the cosmetics industry.

While industry-backed legislation to modernize FDA’s cosmetics regulations is not likely to be introduced in 2014 due to the upcoming congressional elections, a multitude of bills being introduced at the state level could have major impacts for cosmetics firms, the Personal Care Products Council says.

During a “Washington Report” presentation at PCPC’s Annual Meeting Feb. 25 in Palm Beach, Fla., Executive Vice President of Government Affairs John Hurson said it is unlikely but possible that federal legislation will advance this year.

PCPC has been working closely with FDA to reach an agreement on a legislative plan for overhauling the agency’s regulation of the cosmetics industry (Also see "PCPC Reaffirms Commitment To FDA Negotiations On Regulatory Overhaul" - HBW Insight, 25 Oct, 2013.).

Hurson said the plan’s provisions fall into two “buckets.” The first bucket would make the current Voluntary Cosmetic Reporting Program mandatory, and the second would authorize FDA to order product recalls and require adverse-event reporting from manufacturers, as well as “creat[e] a system for defining what safety substantiation is.”

Chances of the legislative plan’s introduction might also be reduced by the retirement of Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., at the end of the term, announced Feb. 24. Dingell, the longest serving member of Congress, was previously chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee and is one of PCPC’s closest political allies.

“Losing John Dingell’s a big loss for PCPC” because of his stature among the Democrats, Bruce Mehlman, a partner with government affairs consulting firm Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti, said during a policy update presentation at the meeting.

According to Hurson, Dingell’s retirement will be a challenge for PCPC but the trade association continues to have “many other Democratic supporters” as well as bipartisan support in both the Senate and the House. “We’re going to have to not just keep our champions that we have, but expand on those champions on both sides.

He continued: “I’m not that concerned about the retirement of one member, although he was an important member, and I think even from the sidelines he’ll be very helpful because he’s an influential member of the Democratic party, particularly on energy and commerce.”

There is the possibility that Dingell could work to push PCPC’s plan through during his last few months in office.

“It may be that he will be helpful to us in trying to move this legislation as he’s getting ready to retire,” Hurson said. “I still think that it’s unlikely in an election year for it to move, but it’s always possible.”

Dingell’s wife, Debbie Dingell, has announced her intent to run for the vacant seat.

According to Linda M. Katz, director of FDA’s cosmetics office, the agency remains interested in negotiating a legislative proposal with industry. During a Feb. 20 presentation at the American Conference Institute’s Legal, Regulatory and Compliance Forum on Cosmetics in New York, she said that what happens this year is “anybody’s guess” (see related story, p. 6).

Keeping Pace With Speedy State Bills

At the state level, PCPC tracked 150 bills in 35 states in 2013 that would have impacted the cosmetics industry.

“We’ve successfully lobbied to dismiss these,” PCPC Chairman Scott Beattie said in a Feb. 24 welcome address during the conference. “These bills would have had a negative economic impact for our industry, costing millions of dollars and thousands of jobs.”

He continued: “We anticipate the state activity to continue again in 2014 and we will continue our efforts to oppose these bills as necessary.”

The trade association now has lobbyists in nine states and will likely hire more, according to Hurson.

The exec emphasized that state bills are important to act on promptly as states are more nimble than the federal government in their lawmaking process.

“Unlike Congress, states move very quickly. Some of the state legislative sessions are literally a month long, so when they get going on something it doesn’t take long,” he said.

Hurson pointed to recently introduced bills to prohibit the use of microbeads in personal-care products, which have rapidly picked up steam.

PCPC has sent team members to Albany, N.Y., to lobby against the recent Microbead-Free Waters Act introduced Feb. 11, which would ban the sale of cosmetic products formulated with plastic microbeads, used as abrasives in a variety of personal-care products (Also see "New York Proposes Ban On Cosmetic Microbeads; California Follows Suit" - HBW Insight, 17 Feb, 2014.).

“That’s a fast-moving issue across the country. We’ve got five states that have six pieces of legislation already on microbeads, [and] it’s a challenge,” Hurson said. In addition to New York, microbead legislation has been introduced in California, Michigan, Minnesota and Illinois.

Mehlman noted that “states aren’t waiting” regarding microbeads and characterized the issue as “a tsunami of a challenge because of the way it’s been portrayed and written about and the way it’s perceived as a scientific matter.”

Numerous state bills already introduced this year focus on green chemistry, an issue that has spread quickly from California into other states including Washington, and on chemicals in children’s products.

For example, a new bill in Connecticut would expand the traditional definition of a child to include a developing fetus, which would have implications for personal-care products used by pregnant women.

“So everybody’s products are going to be impacted” by the legislation, which builds on the premise that chemicals in formulations are transferred from the skin of the mother to the unborn child, he said.

The bill, titled “An Act Concerning Chemicals of High Concern to Children,” proposes setting a list of priority chemicals for review based on the exposure potential for children and developing fetuses.

The review would include “an evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of measures to reduce children's exposure to chemicals on the priority list, including reporting, product labeling, public advisories, product bans and steps to phase out the sale of products,” as well as “an assessment of the feasibility of phasing out or banning products containing chemicals on the priority list, including an analysis of the feasibility of replacing the use of priority chemicals with safer chemicals in such products.”

The bill was referred to Connecticut’s Joint Committee on Children Feb. 26.

Beattie emphasized that the plethora of state bills “underscore the need for a modernized FDA environment, with an enhanced federal regulatory structure for cosmetics which would prevent inconsistent state bills from being enacted.”