Are you sure you'd like to remove this alert? You will no longer receive email updates about this topic.
Latest From Lauren Nardella
As in the case of plastic microbeads some four years ago, the personal-care industry finds itself in the position of having to reformulate potentially on a mass scale due to environmental rather than human safety concerns. And once again the legislation was driven in large part by shoddy science, industry says.
California Cruelty Free Cosmetics Act does not properly account for the fact that cosmetic animal testing still is required in many instances under foreign and domestic regulations, posing conflicts that could shake out unfavorably for California’s economy, says PCPC head Lezlee Westine.
NGO proponents’ apparent intention is to bar companies from testing new cosmetic ingredients on animals, limiting them to existing ingredients or alternative testing methods. However, draft legislation advancing in California could pose big problems for even the most committed cruelty-free brands.
The group released updated data on the cosmetics industry’s contribution to Europe’s economy in conjunction with its Annual Meeting in Brussels this month. The report also comes at a time of tense trade relations, with measures in the offing that could adversely impact the sector’s health.
“It’s an optimistic time for our industry in China,” PCPC’s Francine Lamoriello, executive VP of global affairs, observed in an interview. While there have been positive signs, recent government reorganization and escalating trade tensions with the US potentially complicate matters.
Industry no doubt is less disappointed by the state’s 2018-2019 budget, approved by lawmakers June 14, than the NGOs that pushed for additional resources to strengthen California’s Safe Cosmetics Program. The funding proposal was approved by Senate and Assembly committees but ultimately got the ax.