Pallone/Lance Cosmetics Proposal Leaves Preemption Blanks To Be Filled
This article was originally published in The Rose Sheet
The New Jersey congressmen are still working on language regarding a key challenge facing cosmetics legislation. There is still no consensus among stakeholders on whether and to what extent states should be barred from imposing regulations on cosmetic companies that differ from or add to federal requirements.
You may also be interested in...
The offices of cosmetic bill sponsors in the last Congress say the Personal Care Products Safety Act and the considerably more industry-friendly Cosmetics Modernization Amendments proposal will both be reintroduced this year. The latter’s relaunch may be imminent, and the stage could be set for it – or at least some of its pro-business provisions – to earn a more serious look in the new Congress.
Representatives of industry big and small appealed to senators to institute a strong national standard for cosmetics regulation rather than the growing patchwork of state regulations that companies must contend with currently. Jack Black “would probably not exist today” had it faced such challenges out of the gates 16 years ago, the company’s CEO said in testimony before the Senate HELP committee.
Tucker Ellis attorney Ronie Schmelz discusses preemption language in the discussion draft from New Jersey congressmen Frank Pallone and Leonard Lance, which actually just confirms that state regulations could continue unchecked. The proposal could identify the Personal Care Products Safety Act in the Senate as the compromise between no preemption and the blanket preemption clause in another House draft bill.