Trade groups PCPC and CHPA say they likely will request that FDA defer further rulemaking on sunscreen ingredients that require additional data to retain their GRASE designations under the agency’s proposed rule for a final OTC sunscreen drug monograph, issued in February. For now, the associations are asking for an extension of the allotted comment period beyond May 28, 2019.

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 jewelry and cosmetics retailer announced March 11 that it is voluntarily recalling selected lots of three makeup products due to the “possible presence of asbestos fibers.” FDA issued a safety alert the previous week that has made Claire’s the latest poster child for cosmetics regulatory reform.

Cosmetics containing fluorinated compounds are no longer welcome in Coop Denmark’s 1,050 stores or its e-commerce platform. Meanwhile, consumer group BEUC proposes changes to the European Cosmetics Regulation to address endocrine-disrupting chemicals, and Australia passes legislation to bar new, cosmetics-only chemicals from market if their safety substantiation relies on animal testing.

The agency issued a safety alert March 5 advising consumers to avoid three makeup products sold – at least previously – in Claire’s stores, which cater to girls and young women. The situation throws into relief the limitations of the current regulatory framework for cosmetics, which FDA is committed to modernizing while exploring steps to improve oversight using existing tools.

The Federal Trade Commission is accustomed to seeking permanent injunctions (and monetary penalties) from companies for past violations under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, which it contends is an invaluable deterrent to bad behavior. However, the Third Circuit says FTC’s interpretation of the section’s provisions is an untenable stretch of statutory language.

Rep. Debbie Dingell, D-Mich., is taking another swing at legislation to require cancer warnings on talc-containing cosmetics marketed to children if they have not been determined asbestos-free via transmission electron microscopy to FDA’s satisfaction.

“If I were in your shoes or in Commissioner Gottlieb’s shoes I wouldn’t wait another day to require a warning on all [talc-containing cosmetic] products,” EWG’s Scott Faber told a House Oversight and Reform subcommittee March 12, while maintaining that large-scale regulatory changes are what's truly needed to protect users of talcum powders and other personal-care items.

A bipartisan proposal from new House Energy & Commerce chair Frank Pallone and Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., is a near-facsimile of the reintroduced Personal Care Products Safety Act in the Senate. This could set the stage for simultaneous consideration and expeditious movement in both chambers of Congress.

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.

Scott Gottlieb claimed higher profile than most previous FDA commissioners with frequent Twitter posts and by including his remarks in many agency communications to industries and consumers. In his nearly two years in post, he also had more central role in FDA initiatives in areas such as keeping unsafe products labeled as supplements off the market and explaining why hemp and CBD are available and supplements even though FDA considers the products noncompliant as dietary ingredients.

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 Federal Trade Commission is accustomed to seeking permanent injunctions (and monetary penalties) from companies for past violations under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, which it contends is an invaluable deterrent to bad behavior. However, the Third Circuit says FTC’s interpretation of the section’s provisions is an untenable stretch of statutory language.

“It is simply not in the best interests of our stakeholders to litigate these claims in perpetuity,” says Imerys Talc America President Giorgio La Motta of the company’s decision to reorganize its business and debts under Chapter 11 in negotiation with claimants in cosmetic talc-related suits.

Marketing insiders are denouncing the growing trend of beauty companies weaponing influencers against competing brands. Mary Engle, associate director of FTC’s Division of Advertising Practices, discusses the practice and lines that shouldn’t be crossed, blurry as they may well be.

The Federal Trade Commission has long held that Section 13(b) of the FTC Act authorizes the agency to seek permanent injunctions against, and monetary relief from, alleged violators of consumer protection provisions. But that understanding is being put to the test, and cracks are beginning to show, attorneys say.

Federal judge says plaintiffs “have at best shown that St. Ives Scrub could, in theory, alter the skin’s surface.” Drug and device law attorney says the complaint "is not really a labeling issue” and the court applied “a healthy dose of common sense” in ruling.