States Scramble To Legislate Against Cosmetic Microbeads, Triclosan

Following bills introduced in February by New York and California that would ban plastic microbeads from personal-care products because of suspected environmental effects, Ohio, Illinois, Minnesota and N.J. follow suit. Triclosan also earns the attention of policymakers, with bans proposed in two more states.

More legislation is popping up across the U.S. to prohibit the use of synthetic microbeads in personal-care products as states follow the lead of New York and California, whose related bills launched in February.

Ohio, Illinois, Minnesota and New Jersey have introduced draft bills in the past month to restrict or eliminate plastic and synthetic microbeads, which function as exfoliants in facial scrubs and other products, due to environmental concerns.

Microbeads are found in more than 100 personal-care products in the U.S., the New York Attorney General’s office said when announcing the state’s proposed legislation Feb. 11 (Also see "New York Proposes Ban On Cosmetic Microbeads; California Follows Suit" - HBW Insight, 17 Feb, 2014.).

According to a client note from attorneys from Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, these types of bills are an “outgrowth of an effort by various environmental groups” and “follow a pattern of seeking action at the state level to address perceived environmental concerns in advance of federal government regulation.”

Reform of the U.S. Toxic Substances Control Act, a priority for years for environmental and public safety advocates, could help to stem the tide of state-level legislation aimed at addressing perceived deficiencies in federal chemicals law.

In the absence of strong federal controls, “should the [microbead] bills get traction, their introduction could prompt action by other states or broader voluntary industry action,” the attorneys suggest. “Even if other states do not act, few companies will have the resources to produce different product formulations to meet varying state requirements.”

In Ohio, S.B. 304 would ban the sale of cosmetics or personal-care products containing synthetic microbeads less than five millimeters in diameter. Sponsored by Sen. Michael Skindell (D-Lakewood), the bill was introduced March 27 and was assigned to the Energy and Natural Resources committee.

In a March 31 release, Skindell says that microbeads are polluting water and marine life in the state.

“Unfortunately due to their size, they are slipping through our wastewater management systems and ending up in Lake Erie,” he says, noting that some manufacturers have used natural exfoliants such as powdered pecan shells and sea salt as substitutes.

Also on March 27, N.J. State Assemblyman Patrick Diegnan Jr. (D-Middlesex) introduced A.B. 3083, which “prohibits manufacture, sale or promotion of cosmetic products containing microbeads.”

The N.J. bill could have even broader implications for the personal-care market. The state is one of the biggest chemical and personal-care product manufacturers in the U.S., so a ban on the manufacture of microbead-containing products could impact product availability in other states as well.

A bill introduced in Illinois contains the same prohibition on manufacturing. State Sen. Heather Steans (D-Chicago) filed S.B. 2727 on March 14. The bill would amend the state’s Environmental Protection Act to ban the production, manufacture or retail of personal cosmetic products containing microbeads. The manufacture of products would be banned starting Dec. 31, 2017, and the sale of products would be banned beginning Dec. 31, 2018.

According to the draft bill, microbeads “pose a serious threat to the state’s environment,” particularly to Lake Michigan. Microbeads from personal-care products would continue to pollute water “without significant and costly improvements to the majority of the State’s sewage treatment facilities.”

The Illinois bill initially proposed a $2,500 per-day fine for violators, but an amendment filed April 1 could increase the fine to up to $10,000 per day in some instances. The bill was approved by the Environment Committee March 21 and referred to the Senate Assignments Committee April 1.

In Minnesota, lawmakers are taking a more cautious approach to questions about the environmental effects of microbeads. Introduced March 19, S.F. 2802 calls for the state’s Pollution Control Agency to study the impact of synthetic microbeads in waters, on aquatic ecosystems and on human health and report its findings to various legislative committees.

Minn. Eyes Triclosan Ban

Antimicrobial triclosan is another controversial ingredient driving legislative activity. State-level movement against the preservative began in New York with a bill introduced in February that would ban personal-care products containing triclosan (Also see "In Brief: N.Y. Eyes Triclosan Ban; Avon To Sell Coty Scents In Brazil; More" - HBW Insight, 24 Feb, 2014.).

In Minnesota, bills under consideration in both the house and the senate target triclosan use in personal-care and cleaning products; however, the house version offers an out for manufacturers.

Introduced March 17, H.F. 3089 would permit triclosan to be used in personal-care and cleaning products if product labels carry the warning: “This product contains Triclosan, which is under investigation by the United States Food and Drug Administration.”

Iowa also has a draft bill in play that would ban triclosan in soap, hand sanitizer or toothpaste. Introduced March 31 by Sen. Joe Bolkcom (D-Iowa City), S.F. 2346 calls for the substance to be replaced with the “least toxic alternative.”

While maintaining triclosan’s safety, Avon Products, Inc. has decided to phase out triclosan use in its personal-care products in a move catering to consumer preferences, it says (see following story). Johnson & Johnson and Procter & Gamble have initiated similar programs.