More than two-thirds of likely 2016 voters nationwide support increased government oversight to ensure that chemicals in personal-care products are safe, a finding that advocates of the Personal Care Products Safety Act likely will highlight for Senate health committee members if a hearing is held this spring.

The Environmental Working Group and PCPSA sponsor Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., held a press call March 1 to discuss results from a survey probing consumer perceptions and interests related to cosmetics regulation in the US.

EWG worked in collaboration with research and survey firms The Mellman Group and American Viewpoint to poll 800 women and men – 53% and 47% of total participants, respectively – by phone in February.

"I really wasn't sure how this would go when we first came out with the bill, and I really want to thank many of the cosmetic companies for going right front and center and being very helpful in this." – Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

They found that 37% of consumers are under the impression that the government has "cleared" most of the chemicals used in personal-care products, and 67% believe at least some products have been greenlighted for sale, according to EWG.

Compared with the 68% who support increased government involvement in personal-care chemicals oversight, just 28% agreed that there are too many government regulations already and "people should decide for themselves if they want to use personal-care products without government interference."

The pro-government position was shared by majority numbers of Democrats, Republicans and Independents, EWG notes.

Further, 94% of respondents favored a system in which companies are required to report instances where their products "injure" consumers, and 87% said the government should have the authority to recall personal-care products containing toxic chemicals. High levels of agreement were seen across party lines for those points.

Feinstein touted the findings as evidence of strong backing for "common-sense safety rules for personal-care products," noting that she's hopeful a hearing will be held this spring on the PCPSA.

The proposed legislation, S. 1014 – introduced by Feinstein along with Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, in April 2014 – resides with the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, and the senators are working to urge the committee's chairman, Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., to take action on the bill.

Feinstein was grateful for support behind the PCPSA from both EWG and industry members.

"I really wasn't sure how this would go when we first came out with the bill, and I really want to thank many of the cosmetic companies for going right front and center and being very helpful in this," she said.

She added a request: "Please weigh in with the committee to encourage a public hearing. I think because this issue is personal products, there are men in the Congress who tend to not take this seriously. … So I would very much appreciate anything you can do to say to the committee, 'Look, have a hearing. This is important. The environmentals as well as the industry are now in lockstep, and we can get this done.'"

There may be conflicting views, however, on the PCPSA's prospects this year.

The PCPSA was a leading topic of interest at the Personal Care Products Council's annual meeting Feb. 28-March 2 in Palm Beach, Fla., where the trade group's leadership expressed doubts that the bill will gain the traction needed to pass in 2016.

[Editor's note: Stay tuned for "The Rose Sheet"'s coverage of key sessions at the conference addressing the PCPSA and other legislative issues.]

Cosmetic Chemical Review Is Top Priority

Feinstein provided an overview of the PCPSA during the call, noting that the legislation would require facility and product/ingredient registration with FDA and adverse-event reporting from companies, while empowering FDA to order product recalls and directing the agency to establish Good Manufacturing Practices for industry Also see "Sen. Feinstein’s Cosmetics Safety Bill Launches With GOP Cosponsor" - HBW Insight, 21 April, 2015..

The bill also would provide for cosmetic ingredient review at FDA.

In her remarks, the senator pointed to the oft-cited discrepancy between chemicals banned from cosmetic use in the EU, which total 1,300, compared with the US, where 11 are prohibited.

PCPC notes on its CosmeticsInfo.org site that "a large number of those [1,300] chemicals are not used and never have been used in cosmetics in the US or Europe." It cites jet aircraft fuel, various petroleum refinery byproducts and carbon monoxide as examples.

Nevertheless, Feinstein maintained that by having FDA evaluate the safety of five cosmetic ingredients annually, the PCPSA would boost consumer confidence in personal-care products and more closely align their expectations for government oversight, as signaled by the EWG poll, with reality.

Nearly three-quarters of EWG survey respondents (74%) said they would be less inclined to buy products from a brand/company that opposes such regulation, and more than half (52%) said they would be "much less likely" to do so.

She pointed out that the bill specifies the first round of chemicals that would be subject to FDA review, namely preservatives diazolidinyl urea, propyl paraben and quaternium-15, as well as hair-dye additive lead acetate and methylene glycol/formaldehyde, as used in professional hair-straightening systems such as Brazilian Blowout.

All of the flagged preservatives appear on FDA's recently updated compliance guide for internal employee use, which characterizes them as preservatives "commonly used" in cosmetics, as opposed to "natural" and other alternative preservative systems the agency is monitoring increasingly in its oversight activities Also see "FDA Has Eye On 'Non-Traditional Preservative' Use, Updates Internal Guide" - HBW Insight, 1 March, 2016..

EWG's VP of Government Affairs Scott Faber noted during the call that the PCPSA would require FDA to review cosmetic ingredients against the "reasonable certainty of no harm" standard used by the agency to make food-ingredient GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) determinations, as well as by the US Environmental Protection Agency in its evaluations of pesticide residues on foods.

Importantly, he said, setting the bar as such would ensure that FDA takes into account aggregate exposure to high-priority chemicals across product categories – "not just personal-care products."

It would have to be seen how that framework could possibly alter FDA's current outlook on preservatives with extensive histories of effective use. In its compliance program manual, it characterizes parabens, for example, as "one of the most effective classes of preservatives," while expressing reservations about emerging alternatives viewed by some stakeholders as safer options.

While FDA acknowledges concerns about parabens' endocrine-disrupting potential, the agency's foremost priority at present appears to be ensuring that products are adequately preserved to prevent microbial contamination. How such considerations would factor in a "reasonable certainty of no harm" safety-assessment model is not immediately clear.

Embrace Reform … Or Else

The final piece of EWG's survey highlighted during the call pertains to consumer attitudes about brands that fight personal-care chemicals regulation, which the NGO believes "could damage a company's reputation and bottom line."

In the survey, nearly three-quarters of respondents (74%) said they would be less inclined to buy products from a brand/company that opposes such regulation, and more than half (52%) said they would be "much less likely" to do so.

Mark Mellman, president and CEO of The Mellman Group, interpreted the finding as signaling "a clear sense from the public that they will not think highly of companies that oppose these efforts."

American Viewpoint President and CEO Linda DiVall concurred. "The results are unambiguous. Voters are certainly looking for a guarantee of safety for personal-care products they use on a daily basis. The fact that they believe this precaution is already in place [could] lead to an amount of anger that the government is being lax in this regard."

She added, "Consumers, I think, will revolt if they think that a company is not taking the precautions they should in terms of making certain that products are safe. I think they would basically boycott that particular product and make a public outcry about the brand that continued to produce it."

Small companies in particular have voiced opposition to the PCPSA, which they view as overly burdensome and costly, threatening to put startups out of business without adequately addressing the biggest challenge facing industry players – lack of federal-preemption protection to ensure uniformity in cosmetics regulation across the 50 states Also see "Feinstein Bill Lacks ‘Crucial’ National Uniformity Assurance – ICMAD" - HBW Insight, 23 April, 2015..

Faber emphasized that the PCPSA includes exemptions and accommodations for businesses "just getting off the ground."

Under the proposed bill, companies with less than $100,000 in annual sales would be exempt from facility-registration requirements, and those with less than $500,000 in annual sales would be exempt from registration fees and could qualify to provide FDA with "simplified" ingredient statements for the products they make.

Feinstein, EWG Gunning For Spring Senate Hearing On Cosmetics Bill

More from Archive

More from HBW Insight