Are you sure you'd like to remove this alert? You will no longer receive email updates about this topic.
Latest From Lauren Nardella
In a March 5 statement, FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb included labeling disclosure of known cosmetic allergens among elements that could be included in a modernized system for cosmetics oversight. The agency’s planned consumer survey, designed to assess “allergy to cosmetics,” could help to inform exploratory steps in that direction.
The Golden State may be running out of cosmetics laws to pass, but that doesn’t mean it can’t tighten up the ones it has. The Safe Cosmetics Program is being targeted for improvements, and now a proposed bill in the California Senate aims to speed up green chemistry substitutions in the Safer Consumer Products program, where toluene in nail care is under scrutiny.
The agency refers L’Oreal, Shiseido’s Bare Escentuals and Rapid Precision Testing Laboratories to its newly proposed sunscreen rule, which covers most of the points raised in their petitions. Seeking GRASE status for powder dosage forms and higher concentrations of avobenzone, among other asks, the rejected citizen petitions trace back as far as a decade.
FDA is committed to working with Congress to update cosmetics regulations and its related authorities, as “we have not been able to expand the scope of what we’re able to do commensurate with the expansion and the scope of this industry,” Commissioner Scott Gottlieb told House appropriators Feb. 26.
The proposal under the state’s Safer Consumer Products regulation marks the ingredient for alternative analyses and potential replacement in nail-care products. California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control cites possible dangers to salon workers in particular, including nervous system, respiratory and developmental toxicity risks.
If industry needs further incentive to drive federal cosmetics legislation with robust preemption, New York could have just provided it. The Consumer Chemical Awareness Act, proposed by Governor Cuomo, does not include any mention of a private right of action, but it would pave the way for hazardous chemical labeling à la California's Prop 65 while imposing extensive reporting requirements on industry.