Cannabidiol (CBD) represents an intriguing opportunity for cosmetics, without the statutory obstacles faced by food and dietary supplement companies. Cosmetics marketers are taking advantage, but the FDA’s recent warning letter blitz is a reminder that CBD-infused beauty products are bound by the same rules that apply to other cosmetics.

House Energy & Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone underscores FDA’s lack of resources and insufficient “regulatory tools” in a memo to Health Subcommittee members going into a 4 December hearing on cosmetics safety issues. The committee’s last hearing on the subject was in 2012 when Pallone unveiled the first version of his Cosmetics Safety Enhancement Act.

Manufacturers of hair finishing sprays, no-rinse shampoos and personal fragrance products – eg, perfumes, colognes and body sprays – face significant reformulation challenges under a draft proposal from California’s Air Resources Board that contemplates fewer category impacts, but deeper VOC cuts, compared with previous considerations to help meet state-wide pollution-reduction goals.

CHART: The agency sent out 15 warning letters on 25 November, citing companies in 10 states for selling unapproved and misbranded CBD drug products in the guise of dietary supplements and cosmetics.

The agency announces that it cannot conclude cannabidiol is GRAS, potentially heading off GRAS notifications and making NDI notifications a likelier future for CBD use in the supplement sector if any “lawful pathway” is to be found. In addition to a barrage of warning letters to marketers of CBD products, the FDA issued a stark warning to consumers about potential hazards.

Dietary supplement trade groups reacted on 26 November – in CRN’s case with umbrage – to the US Food and Drug Administration’s latest barrage of cannabidiol (CBD)-themed warning letters and accompanying update to consumers regarding CBD safety.

Federal preemption of state and local requirements that differ from federal mandates came up repeatedly at the House Energy & Commerce Health Subcommittee’s 4 December cosmetics hearing. Meanwhile, both NGO and industry stakeholders generally support FDA review of cosmetic ingredients, but the details of such a framework likely will be contentious as work progresses.

House Energy & Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone underscores FDA’s lack of resources and insufficient “regulatory tools” in a memo to Health Subcommittee members going into a 4 December hearing on cosmetics safety issues. The committee’s last hearing on the subject was in 2012 when Pallone unveiled the first version of his Cosmetics Safety Enhancement Act.

The proposed bill in the US Senate could be seen as slightly friendlier to the cosmetics industry when it comes to continued use of animal testing data in limited, exempted contexts, compared with similar state laws enacted of late. But the federal bill includes stiffer penalties, addresses “cruelty free” labeling, and seeks to spur FDA acceptance of alternative test methods, a key objective for stakeholders overall.

Reportedly, the Council of the European Union is considering member state objections and requests to extend the current scrutiny period beyond 4 December for a Commission delegated regulation that would classify titanium dioxide as a Category 2 carcinogen by inhalation. The move threatens to impact the marketing of sunscreens and other cosmetics in the EU that contain respirable TiO2 particles.

Former Senate Appropriations Committee staffer expects FDA's FY 2020 budget will not be finalized until early next year and that it will be close to the sum in the appropriations bill passed by the Senate.

Beautycounter is among industry supporters of the Natural Cosmetic Act, introduced in the House on 5 October as the solution to greenwashing in the US personal-care sector.

Tarte admits no wrongdoing in its settlement with nationwide purchasers of its “high performance naturals,” and it put up little fight in order to minimize costs. Insight remains limited as to whether federal courts agree with plaintiffs that general “natural” claims on cosmetic products – as opposed to “all natural” or “100% natural” assertions – mean no synthetic ingredients at all.

US lawmakers and even two FTC commissioners are critical of the agency’s proposed settlement with skin-care marketer Sunday Riley, which allegedly misled consumers for almost two years with sham product reviews posted to Sephora.com. According to Venable partner Alexandra Megaris, the company isn’t exactly getting off easy, and broader industry compliance is likely to improve as a result.

Eighteen plaintiffs seeking nationwide class certification may proceed with their suit alleging that Monat hair-care products, deceptively advertised as anti-aging solutions, actually cause hair loss. A US district judge on 23 October largely denied Monat’s motion to dismiss, while noting that plaintiffs may have difficulty proving that the company’s products are to blame for their injuries.

Compared with regular Degree MotionSense Dry Spray Antiperspirant, deceptively advertised UltraClear Black + White contains no special added technology to reduce staining; it simply has less aluminum chlorohydrate, the active ingredient that causes the very problem the product purportedly solves, says a plaintiff seeking nationwide class certification in Missouri’s Eastern District.

For close to two years, Sunday Riley management allegedly led a company-wide practice of posting glowing reviews of its products on Sephora.com without proper disclosures. The company is barred from repeating such conduct under terms reached with the FTC, but two dissenting commissioners say the settlement falls short of what’s needed to address a growing problem.

Recall announcement doesn't mention litigation J&JU faces in multiple states alleging use of Johnson's Baby Powder causes cancer due from talc in formulation. But firm's sensitivity to consumer complaints or adverse event reports linked to brand is clear with talc-related litigation as backdrop.