CIR Objectivity In Safety Substantiation Questioned By Women's Voices for Earth
This article was originally published in The Rose Sheet
In a report released April 24, WVE highlights what it says are CIR’s shortcomings, pointing out a conflict of interest due to the group’s industry funding and governance, as well as its narrow scope solely focused on consumer safety – not the safety of workers or environmental impact – and the expert panel’s approach to inhalation hazards and data gaps.
You may also be interested in...
The Cosmetic Ingredient Review says it expects to finalize a package of “advancements” in early 2020 to highlight the independence of its Expert Panel. Driven by the Personal Care Products Council-led CIR Steering Committee, the initiative comes at a time of escalating NGO criticism and legislative proposals that would undermine the CIR program and put its future in question.
Halfway through the Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel’s September 24-25 meeting, Women’s Voices for the Earth was already blogging that the panel seemed set on declaring parabens safe (which it went on to do on a tentative basis) despite what the NGO sees as increasing evidence to the contrary. Panelist statements from previous meetings suggest a pro-industry agenda, WVE suggests.
Nearly 80% of the “toxins” detected in the Breast Cancer Prevention Partners’ cosmetics analysis were fragrance chemicals undeclared (lawfully) on product labeling, according to the NGO, which seeks regulatory changes to mandate full ingredient disclosure. Industry is calling the report misinformation, but it’s garnering media attention and being cited by the sponsor of a new cosmetic reform bill in the House.