Lead-In-Lipstick Issue Does Not Warrant Prop 65 Action – Calif. A.G.
This article was originally published in The Rose Sheet
Executive Summary
Lipstick containing lead in concentrations identified in a recent well-publicized report "could not plausibly" necessitate action under California's Proposition 65, according to California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown, Jr
You may also be interested in...
Brace For Impact: Lawsuit Challenges Prop 65 Safe Harbor For Lead
Environmental nonprofit contends there is no safe exposure level for lead in a lawsuit challenging the Prop 65 safe harbor for the substance, which has enabled many cosmetics firms to forgo warning labeling in California to date. Attorneys and regulatory experts discuss the suit’s potential large-scale impact while identifying diethanolamine as potentially the cosmetics industry’s next major headache under Prop 65.
Waiting For FDA Intervention On Prop 65? Don’t Hold Your Breath
Arbitrary or not, California's enforcement of Proposition 65 is likely to continue undeterred, with FDA currently in no position to intervene, experts say
Waiting For FDA Intervention On Prop 65? Don’t Hold Your Breath
Arbitrary or not, California's enforcement of Proposition 65 is likely to continue undeterred, with FDA currently in no position to intervene, experts say