Preemption In Cosmetics Bill Would Offset Burden, But To What Degree?
This article was originally published in The Rose Sheet
Executive Summary
States would be barred from establishing cosmetic ingredient restrictions that conflict with final FDA review determinations, as well as requirements related to cosmetics registration, good manufacturing practices or adverse-event reporting, under a preemption clause in the Personal Care Products Safety Act, introduced April 20. The bill would help address the growing problem of inconsistent regulations from one state to the next, but exceptions and potential gray areas raise questions about how effective the provision would be.
You may also be interested in...
Sen. Feinstein’s Cosmetics Safety Bill Launches With GOP Cosponsor
The Personal Care Products Safety Act would preempt duplicative state-level requirements for ingredient use and manufacturer responsibilities, addressing what has become one of the foremost banes of industry in recent years, while increasing FDA’s authority over the sector and giving it new responsibilities with regard to ingredient safety review. Additional compliance requirements for industry could prove challenging, but the positive PR likely to result from the legislation could help soften the blow.
California’s Prop 65 List Grows With Addition Of Beta-Myrcene
California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has added beta-myrcene, a fragrance component, to its Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer following an NTP report’s finding linking the substance to carcinogenic activity in rats and mice. A group of industry associations strongly opposed the listing.
National Advertising Division Shuts Down Skincarebrandsreviews Website
NourishMax agreed to discontinue “top pick” claims for its Diamond Infused Eye Cream and fold up its website that looked suspiciously to NAD like advertising in the guise of independent, honest reviews.