Health Committee approves California cosmetics Bill
attempts to pass Bill 484 with Californian legislatures. If passed,
it will mean greater transparency for cosmetics labeling, against
industry claims that it will be extremely difficult to implement,
reports Simon Pitman.
Bill 484 received its fourth hearing from the Californian Health Committee on Wednesday, where it was passed with nine votes against five. The move leaves the Bill to face just the General Assembly, before it then goes on to face governor Arnold Schwarzeneggar.
The former Hollywood lead-man is said to not have a clear opinion on the proposal, but Senator Midgen's staff have been engaged directly with his office for several consultations on the subject.
The Senator's original campaign had also included a Bill that would have outlawed the inclusion of certain phthalates as part of cosmetics and personal care formulations, but that was killed off earlier in the year.
The campaign still hopes that the new bill will draw attention to safety concerns over phthalates. Although Bill 484 does not specifically target phthalates, it aims to help consumers identify products containing ingredients that have been linked to a number of health concerns, including birth defects and cancer.
Both Migden and campaign lobby groups have consistently said throughout the campaign that they want to prevent manufacturers from hiding potentially harmful chemicals in their formulations. Eventually they are hoping that having to list a potential carcinogenes will force manufacturers to stop including such ingredients in their products altogether.
Throughout the long campaign, parallels have been drawn to European legislation, where a number of chemicals, currently included in US personal care and cosmetic formulations, are in fact completely outlawed.
One specific comparison is the legislation for phthalates on both sides of the Atlantic. In Europe all but one specific chemical in the phthalates family has been banned. European authorities say that there is enough scientific data indicating that the phthalate family can have repurcussions on the health of cosmetics users.
In the US none of the phthalate family is currently banned for use in cosmetics or personal care formulations. And with no obligations to indicate potential safety hazards, Migden and other consumer lobby groups claim that this leaves the majority of US consumers in the dark.
Understandably, the industry response has been negative towards the legislation. Leading cosmetics companies claim that the legislation will be expensive to implement and will only serve to confuse consumers.
Many of the leading players also claim that they take a responsible attitude towards cosmetics formulation and that they have voluntarily removed many ingredients associated with health risks.
On the specific subject of phthalates, which are still widely used in many leading cosmetic and personal care products in the US, industry players say that the chemical is used in such small amounts so as not to pose any health risk.
However, Senator Migden and other lobbyists counter-attack this argument by stating that the chemical has an accumulative effect over a period of years, which is often further exacerbated when individuals simultaneously use several products containing it.
Either way, if the legislation does come in to force, it is going to mean big changes for cosmetics companies operating in the state of California.
We at CosmeticsDesign.com would like to get your opinions on this new legislation, so please feel free to email the editor, Simon Pitman, with both your experiences of the proposed legislation and the possible implications it might bring.
