California’s Toxic Free Cosmetics Act And The Case For Iconclad Federal Preemption
Executive Summary
Limited to no federal preemption is included in cosmetics bills under consideration in the 116th Congress, which means that even if one were to pass in its current form, companies could still be at the mercy of states, typically California, imposing unique bans or restrictions on cosmetic ingredients.
You may also be interested in...
US Cosmetics Modernization Bill Relaunched, Now With Fragrance Allergen Labeling, PFAS Ban
The Personal Care Products Safety Act was reintroduced in the US Senate on 17 June with industry support including leading brands at big-name multinationals. The latest “Feinstein bill” for modernizing US cosmetics regulations purports to strengthen counterfeit product protections while floating additional requirements for fragrance allergen labeling and banning intentionally added PFAS.
ICMAD: Federal Cosmetics Legislation Without National Uniformity Not In Industry’s Interest
If the goal of bills like the proposed Personal Care Products Safety Act is to shore up consumers’ trust in the safety of cosmetic products, national uniformity is an indispensable component, says eos Products President Sanjiv Mehra, chairman of ICMAD’s board.
Toxic Free Cosmetics Act Underscores Question: Who Should Regulate US Market, FDA Or California?
Between the Safe Cosmetics Act, Cruelty Free Cosmetics Act, Safer Consumer Products, Prop 65 and now the proposed Toxic Free Cosmetics Act, California seems increasingly intent on setting the bar nationwide for cosmetics safety, testing and labeling requirements. The Environmental Working Group and other NGOs are by no means opposed.