The Caramel Case: Federal Preemption Would Be Sweet, Prop 65 The Sundae
This article was originally published in The Rose Sheet
Executive Summary
The federal/state regulatory disconnects under California’s Prop 65 – a priority target in the cosmetics industry’s preemption explorations on Capitol Hill – are distinctly embodied by caramel, a color additive approved by FDA that nevertheless may require warnings on products sold in the Golden State.
You may also be interested in...
California’s Advancing Cosmetic Animal-Test Ban Poses Liabilities, Industry Says
Universities and other accredited labs often test cosmetic ingredients on animals to assess potential health risks without manufacturers’ involvement or even their knowledge. Under a proposed bill advancing in California, such studies could render companies that use those ingredients non-compliant and subject to fines.
‘California’s A Problem,’ But Prop 65 Preemption For Cosmetics Could Be Out Of Reach
California is the poster child for regulation in excess of federal requirements, but the biggest challenges it poses to cosmetics companies will be difficult – if not impossible – to resolve via “national uniformity” provisions in legislation before Congress.
‘Something’s Going To Happen’: Former FDAer John Bailey On Cosmetics Reform Legislation
ICMAD leadership agrees with Bailey that, now more than ever before, the pieces are in place for cosmetics reform legislation to reach the finish line. At the same time, the small-business advocate remains opposed to leading proposals, signaling the significant distance that negotiations may still have to go.