The international cosmetics industry is watching closely for signs of regulatory changes that could be afoot under the incoming Obama administration and a new Congress in the US, with increased Democratic majorities. Perhaps the biggest question is over environmental policy, where the president-elect has pledged to be much more aggressive than George W Bush and may push for added regulations that would prove costly to leading cosmetics firms.
Obama has yet to detail specific policy initiatives but his appointments to top White House posts and his choice to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) signal a marked shift from the current administration, which has been seen as hostile to environmentalists and favourable to industry in general.
The incoming president said in a news conference announcing his environmental team on 15 December that his nominee for EPA director, Lisa Jackson, shared his goal of “restoring the EPA’s robust role” in protecting air, water and the broader environment, a hint that he is eyeing more substantial regulation of industry.
Congress is also likely to move further to the left on environmental policy after the surprise election of Representative Henry Waxman of California to replace Representative John Dingell of Michigan as chairman of the powerful House of Representatives energy and commerce committee, which has jurisdiction over the regulation of the cosmetics industry. Both men are Democrats, but Waxman is much more closely allied with the environmental movement.
Industry officials anticipate an effort in Congress to overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), a law first enacted in 1976 that gives the EPA authority to regulate certain chemicals. Currently, the TSCA excludes the cosmetics industry, but any major change in the law could well add cosmetics to the list of substances under its purview. An overhaul would almost certainly add environmental reporting and testing requirements for chemicals used in cosmetics. Under the current law, cosmetics manufacturers are only required to test chemicals for human safety, not for risks to the environment. A change would also mean that the industry would be directly regulated by the EPA in addition to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a move that worries some officials.
“There’s a lot of interest in trying to redo it,” said John Hurson, the executive vice president for the Personal Care Products Council (PCPC), a trade association whose members include Johnson & Johnson, Procter & Gamble, L’Oréal and other major cosmetics manufacturers and distributors. Hurson said the PCPC is willing to work on efforts to change TSCA but that it hopes any overhaul “is done in a way that does not eviscerate the authority of the FDA to regulate our products”.
As yet unapproved legislation to revamp TSCA and bolster requirements for chemical testing, known as the Kid-Safe Chemical Act, has already been proposed by Waxman in the House and by Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey in Congress’ upper chamber. A group of influential environmental groups endorsed the bill in a nearly 400-page report of recommendations sent to Obama earlier this month.
Hurson, along with officials from the Fragrance Materials Association, said the legislation backed by Waxman would go even further in terms of environmental health controls than the EU’s REACH system (the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemical Substances).
Another proposal that industry officials are monitoring is a proposed FDA Globalisation Act, a bill that includes a series of new registration requirements for cosmetics makers. The legislation would mandate that manufacturers register all new facilities, products and ingredients with the FDA. The proposal also requires the reporting of adverse effects and the establishment of best practices by the industry.
Finally the bill would establish registration fees for all manufacturers – US$2,000 for American-based companies and US$10,000 for foreign firms.
Registration with the FDA is currently voluntary for cosmetics manufacturers. Hurson said the PCPC is not opposed to making the registration mandatory but that the association is concerned about the fees. The association has been pressing lawmakers to increase federal appropriations for the cosmetics division of the FDA and taxpayers, not the industry, should be funding added costs associated with enforcing the new registration requirements.
The cosmetics component is only a small part of the much larger FDA Globalisation Act, which has not yet passed Congress. Hurson said the bill had been pushed by Dingell, the outgoing committee chairman, and may take much lower priority once Waxman takes over the panel next month. “He has other priorities,” Hurson said.
Officials also pointed to Obama’s selection for EPA of Jackson, who is known as an ally of environmental advocates who support more aggressive regulation. “The regulatory climate, we expect, will definitely undergo some changes,” said MJ Marshall, the director of governmental affairs for the Fragrance Materials Association (FMA), the American affiliate of the International Fragrance Association (IFRA). She indicated some of those changes could be detrimental to the industry.
The FMA and IFRA are also watching to see how recent changes to the US Lacey Act, which is the statute governing wildlife protection, are implemented. The amendments require additional disclosures of imported plant seeds, and depending on how the new law is enforced, could restrict materials commonly used in perfumes and cosmetics.