US Cosmetics Modernization Bill Relaunched, Now With Fragrance Allergen Labeling, PFAS Ban
Executive Summary
The Personal Care Products Safety Act was reintroduced in the US Senate on 17 June with industry support including leading brands at big-name multinationals. The latest “Feinstein bill” for modernizing US cosmetics regulations purports to strengthen counterfeit product protections while floating additional requirements for fragrance allergen labeling and banning intentionally added PFAS.
The proposed Personal Care Products Safety Act is alive again in the 117th US Congress.
After grinding to a standstill in the prior three Senate sessions, the bill launched again on 17 June to the surprise of some industry stakeholders, based on HBW Insight’s discussions to date with industry sources.
The yet-unnumbered draft legislation includes some top-line changes that merit attention.
Notably, the comprehensive cosmetics industry reform bill, championed by Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-CA, and Susan Collins, R-ME, now includes sections for Fragrance Allergen Disclosure and a proposed Ban on Perfluoroalkyl or Polyfluoroalkyl Substances.
Regarding the first, the PCPSA would require companies to label cosmetic products within two years with fragrance allergens present in rinse-off cosmetics at a concentration above 0.01% (100 ppm) or in leave-on products at a concentration above 0.001% (10 ppm).
Such labeling would be mandated in a form and manner specified by the US Food and Drug Administration, the bill specifies.
Declarable fragrance allergens would include those already required for listing on EU cosmetics products, as well as any others identified by the FDA in related guidance. (Also see "US FDA Pushing For Cosmetics Industry Cooperation On Allergens, Other Priorities" - HBW Insight, 14 May, 2021.)
Under the bill, the FDA would have to issue a proposed rule to ban use of intentionally added PFAS in cosmetics within six months of the bill’s enactment.
That provision, at a time of increased interest in environmentally provocative PFAS, aligns with aims in a separate but related piece of legislation, the No PFAS in Cosmetics Act, introduced on 15 June.
Both bills are backed by Collins, certain industry segments, and NGOs including the Environmental Working Group. (Also see "US Senate Wants PFAS Banned From Cosmetics. Should FDA Have A Say?" - HBW Insight, 18 Jun, 2021.)
The proposed PCPSA would require or establish cosmetics facility registration and product/ingredient statements to the FDA, formal Good Manufacturing Practices, adverse event reporting, mandatory recalls, and systematic ingredient review by the FDA.
In terms of preemption – the biggest sticking point in cosmetics reform talks in recent years – the PCPSA would block state and local laws affecting cosmetics manufacturers only to a point.
Ostensibly, state or political subdivisions still could impose more restrictive requirements regarding the safety of cosmetic ingredients or trace contaminants, even if such terms conflicted with FDA safety assessment decisions. (Also see "California’s Toxic Free Cosmetics Act And The Case For Iconclad Federal Preemption " - HBW Insight, 1 Apr, 2019.)
On a potentially optimistic note for industry, the reintroduced PCPSA addresses the issue of Counterfeit Cosmetics for the first time. (Also see "Counterfeit Cosmetics Are A Click Away; SHOP SAFE Act Would Make E-Commerce Platforms Accountable" - HBW Insight, 1 Jun, 2021.)
Overall, Feinstein continues to cast the bill as a cudgel for stronger oversight of an industry gone astray.
“We use personal-care products every day, but most Americans don’t know the government lacks authority to ensure the safety of products we put on our bodies and hair,” she says. “What’s particularly striking is that when the FDA finds an unsafe product, it cannot force a company to stop selling it.”
Feinstein’s office lists brands from L’Oreal, Estee Lauder Companies, Revlon, Procter & Gamble, Unilever, and Johnson & Johnson among supporters of the PCPSA.