FDA Questions Constitutionality Of Proposed CIR Bridge, A Blow To CMA Bill
This article was originally published in The Rose Sheet
The Cosmetic Modernization Amendments of 2015 is touted by small business as a more appropriately sized update to the regulatory framework than the front-running PCPSA. However, some provisions seen as vital are absent from the bill, while its call for FDA to accept CIR safety decisions could be deemed unconstitutional, an FDA official suggests in a letter to Senate HELP Committee Chair Lamar Alexander.
You may also be interested in...
Limited to no federal preemption is included in cosmetics bills under consideration in the 116th Congress, which means that even if one were to pass in its current form, companies could still be at the mercy of states, typically California, imposing unique bans or restrictions on cosmetic ingredients.
With federal legislation on the table to task FDA with cosmetic ingredient reviews and provide accredited third parties with the opportunity to inform the agency's assessment work, the Personal Care Products Council plans to give the industry-funded Cosmetic Ingredient Review program a "fresh look."
Lillian Gill, director of the Cosmetic Ingredient Review, helped to bolster CIR’s international reputation during her four-year stint leading the group. CIR’s profile has risen as a result of her leadership, openness to outside stakeholder input and increased public interest in cosmetic ingredients’ safety overall.