NPA’s Wish List For Cosmetics Bill Includes GMPs, ‘Natural’ Definition
This article was originally published in The Rose Sheet
Executive Summary
In an interview with “The Rose Sheet,” Natural Products Association Executive Director and CEO Dan Fabricant discussed the trade group’s priorities in developing cosmetics legislation while acknowledging that advocates may face an uphill battle in the current Congress.
You may also be interested in...
GMO Bills Differ On Labeling, But Agree On Pre-empting State Laws
H.R. 1599 would create a structure for codifying GMOs in foods and supplements and make labeling voluntary, but opponents say it keeps consumers in the dark while pre-empting state laws. S. 809 and H.R. 1699, meanwhile, would require labeling for genetically engineered products.
GMO Bills Differ On Labeling, But Agree On Pre-empting State Laws
H.R. 1599 would create a structure for codifying GMOs in foods and supplements and make labeling voluntary, but opponents say it keeps consumers in the dark while pre-empting state laws. S. 809 and H.R. 1699, meanwhile, would require labeling for genetically engineered products.
Fourth Time’s A Charm? President’s FY 2016 Budget Includes Cosmetic Fees
Continuing what has become a familiar refrain, the Obama administration’s fiscal 2016 budget request for FDA includes cosmetics user fees, marking the fourth consecutive year that such a system has been proposed. Legislation would need to be introduced – and passed – in order to establish cosmetics user fees.