U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

54–695 PDF 2008

DISCUSSION DRAFT OF THE FOOD 

AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION 

GLOBALIZATION ACT LEGISLATION: 

DEVICE AND COSMETIC SAFETY 

PROVISIONS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 14, 2008 

Serial No. 110–117 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan, Chairman 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

Vice Chairman 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANE HARMAN, California 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

BARON P. HILL, Indiana 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Ranking Member 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING, 

Mississippi 

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

DENNIS B. FITZGIBBONS, Chief of Staff 

GREGG A. ROTHSCHILD, Chief Counsel 

SHARON E. DAVIS, Chief Clerk 

DAVID CAVICKE, Minority Staff Director 

(II)

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey, Chairman 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

Vice Chairman 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex officio) 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia, 

Ranking Member 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

JOE BARTON, Texas (ex officio) 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Jersey, opening statement .......................................................................... 1 

Hon. Nathan Deal, a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 3 

Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement .................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5 

Hon. Gene Green, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 5 

Hon. Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 6 

Hon. John D. Dingell, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, opening statement ....................................................................................... 7 

Hon. Michael C. Burgess, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Texas, opening statement .................................................................................... 10 

Hon. Jan Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, opening statement ....................................................................................... 11 

Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Tennessee, opening statement ............................................................................ 12 

Hon. Lois Capps, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 13 

Hon. Joseph R. Pitts, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania, opening statement ................................................................... 14 

Hon. Tim Murphy, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania, opening statement ................................................................... 15 

Hon. Edolphus Towns, a Representative in Congress from the State of New 

York, prepared statement .................................................................................... 165 

WITNESSES 

Stephen Sundlof, D.V.M., Ph.D., Director, Center for Food Safety and Applied 

Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration ......................................................... 16 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 19 

Marcia Crosse, Director of Healthcare, General Accounting Office .................... 35 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 37 

Stephen J. Ubl, president and chief executive officer, Advanced Medical Technology Association ................................................................................................ 75 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 76 

Kelvyn Cullimore, Jr., president and chief executive officer, Dynatronics Corporation; secretary, Medical Devices Manufacturing Association .................... 80 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 83 

Ami Gadhia, policy counsel, Consumers Union .................................................... 90 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 92 

Elizabeth George, vice president, Quality and Regulatory Affairs, Philips 

Healthcare ............................................................................................................ 102 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 104 

Pamela Bailey, president and chief executive officer, Personal Care Products 

Council .................................................................................................................. 116 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 118 

Jane Houlihan, vice president for research, Environmental Working Group .... 134 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 135 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL 

Discussion draft ....................................................................................................... 16 

(1) 

DISCUSSION DRAFT OF THE FOOD AND DRUG 

ADMINISTRATION GLOBALIZATION ACT 

LEGISLATION: DEVICE AND COSMETIC 

SAFETY PROVISIONS 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2008 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:09 a.m., in room 

2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Frank Pallone, 

Jr. (chairman) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Pallone, Eshoo, Green, Capps, 

Baldwin, Schakowsky, Dingell (ex officio), Deal, Buyer, Pitts, Murphy, Burgess, Blackburn, and Barton (ex officio). 

Staff present: Jeanne Ireland, Virgil Miller, Jack Maniko, Melissa Sidman, Chad Grant, Ryan Long, Lauren Bloomberg, and 

Brin Frazier. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Mr. PALLONE. The hearing of the subcommittee is called to order. 

Today we are having a hearing, actually the third, on the Food 

and Drug Administration Globalization Act, the draft bill that Mr. 

Dingell, myself, Mr. Stupak, and others have proposed, and today 

this hearing is specifically on medical devices and the cosmetic provisions as well. So I will recognize myself for an opening statement. 

Over the last few weeks, as you know, we have discussed the 

various food and drug-related provisions in this draft, and the focus 

today or the idea of having a separate hearing, if you will, on medical devices and cosmetics was because we do believe that these do 

not need to be basically singled out and some emphasis put on 

those specific provisions as they apply to those industries. In 2006, 

for example, 183,000 packages of contact lens solution, which is 

classified as a medical device, were called as a result of bacterial 

contamination, and this was a product that is classified as low risk, 

and that simply shouldn’t be happening. 

While Congress set out to address initial safety concerns with 

these and similar types of products under MDUFMA, or the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act, it is clear to me that 

more must be done. The FDA is simply incapable of meeting the 

requirements of that legislation to inspect domestic and foreign deVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:08 Apr 08, 2010 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\HEARINGS\110-117 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
2 

vice manufacturing establishments. In MDUFMA, we added a 2- 

year inspection requirement for device manufacturing companies. 

However, according to GAO findings, the FDA inspects these establishments on average only every 3 years for high-risk devices and 

every 5 years for medium-risk devices, and I would be curious to 

know what the inspection frequency is for low-risk devices. 

Perhaps even more disturbing are the inspection rates for international manufacturers of medical devices, which are estimated to 

be on average every 6 years for high-risk devices and an incredible 

27 years for medium-risk devices, and while the market for these 

products becomes increasingly global, the FDA has no requirement 

to inspect foreign establishments manufacturing medical devices, 

again a clear gap in authority, and it is up to us in Congress to 

act to allow the FDA to do its job and protect the American people. 

Of further concern is the FDA’s use of a risk-based classification 

system. While I understand that there are inherently more risks 

with Class III medically implanted devices as with the class I contact solution, this classification is based only on the nature of the 

product and does not take into account information related to the 

actual manufacturers, and this is especially concerning when the 

FDA appears unable to accurately report information on the number of medical device facilities both in the United States and internationally. Two databases exist at FDA to monitor and track inspections and yet these systems cannot exchange information and 

are fraught with inaccuracies. One system reports that there are 

nearly 5,000 foreign establishments registered with the FDA for 

Class II and III products while the other system reports that there 

were over 25,000 such establishments internationally. This difference is significant and again illustrates the FDA’s inability to 

meet current and emerging regulatory responsibilities. 

These concerns were echoed in a 2007 report issued by the FDA’s 

Science Board that found disparities between the FDA’s responsibilities and available resources including inadequate inspection of 

manufacturers, an obsolete technology infrastructure, an insufficient basis to access, integrate and analyze data, and frequent system failures. These weaknesses jeopardize the FDA’s ability to fulfill its mission of protecting the American people and must be addressed. 

Now, turning to cosmetics and personal care products, it seems 

to be basic logic for Congress to include this industry in our discussion today as this industry is largely governed by legislation established way back in 1938. Cosmetics and personal care products are 

used by Americans each and every day and yet these billion dollar 

industries have gone largely unregulated. Under current Federal 

law, the FDA cannot require companies to test cosmetic products 

for safety before marketing. They cannot review or approve cosmetic products before they are sold to the public. They can’t regulate cosmetic products until after they have reached the marketplace, and they cannot require product recalls and they can’t require manufacturers to register their cosmetic manufacturers, ingredient information or report cosmetic-related injuries. Instead, 

the FDA has to rely on a voluntary reporting system that clearly 

lacks the means for a systematic examination of the safety of the 

cosmetic industry. 

3 

Further, this voluntary system has been used as rationale 

against calls for reform in the industry. FDA estimates that over 

the 3 decades during which the voluntary Cosmetic Industry Review, or CIR, process has been in existence, only 11 percent of the 

ingredients used in cosmetic products have been reviewed. In addition, countries in the European Union have actually banned the 

use of certain ingredients in cosmetic products yet there are no restrictions in place in the United States, and some studies suggest 

that there are a vast number of products on the market that contain prohibited chemicals that have been deemed unsafe for use by 

the industry’s own CIR review process. This is to me overwhelming 

evidence that the FDA must be empowered with the authority to 

regulate this industry to protect the public. 

I just want to thank all the witnesses for appearing today. I 

know we are going to have a good discussion. 

Mr. PALLONE. I now recognize, Mr. Deal, the ranking member, 

for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. NATHAN DEAL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA 

Mr. DEAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We are each reminded every day on a regular basis of potential 

holes in FDA’s current inspection and safety system. As we hear 

of new threats presented by certain imported products. Just yesterday, I had an interview to discuss the possible lead contamination 

of dental crowns imported from facilities in China. Some fear these 

crowns may have contributed to adverse health events in patients 

who unknowingly were receiving a product made in China. 

Events like this one highlight the dwindling confidence the 

American public has in the FDA’s ability to ensure the safety of the 

products it regulates. As we discuss these issues at today’s hearing, 

I hope we can evaluate whether it is the case that the FDA has 

adequate authorities but insufficient resources or if the Agency 

does not even have the authorities necessary to protect the American consumer. My sense from some of our past hearings is, this 

problem ultimately comes down to insufficient resources at the 

Agency. 

While user fees may seem like the only option to some members 

of this committee, these fees only further raise questions about an 

inappropriate relationship between the regulated industry and the 

Agency. Just last year, this committee significantly increased the 

fees paid by the device industry for product reviews and it added 

a facility registration fee. Now it seems we are contemplating even 

further fee increases well above those negotiated less than a year 

ago. One aspect in particular of a facility fee structure which has 

concerned me is the possibility the fees paid by a domestic facility 

would help pay for the inspection of a foreign facility. If there must 

be a fee, it seems fair to me that the fee structure would account 

for the differences in the cost to do the inspections at different facilities. It is also my understanding some device manufacturers 

have expressed concern about the requirement for a facility inspection prior to marketing approval of certain devices. I would hope 

our witnesses could elaborate further on this particular subject. 

4 

We certainly should be examining these safety issues but I am 

also afraid our ability to evaluate the effectiveness of the current 

authorities for the FDA is undermined by their lack of resources 

to carry out these authorities. While user fees may be the only 

method to provide this funding available to this committee, we 

really must question whether or not our dependence on fees from 

the industry is supplanting money which more rightfully should be 

provided by appropriations. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Deal. 

I recognize the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Eshoo, for an 

opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ANNA G. ESHOO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very glad that we 

are having this hearing today. I think it is an important one to address FDA’s oversight of medical devices and cosmetics, and I want 

to thank the witnesses that are here today for being with us to testify. 

Medical devices, and I have done a lot of legislative work in this 

whole area on medical devices to reform our practices at the FDA 

relative to them. It was complicated work but I think that we did 

important work on it, established user fees for people that are a 

part of this. Why? Because it really plays a very important role in 

healthcare in our country, and I think it is critical that we ensure 

the safety of the devices as we struggle to do that. I don’t think 

we have accomplished everything on it relative to food and drugs. 

It is also important for us not to overlook the unique nature of 

these devices, which makes them different from drugs, and I think 

the Congress has come some distance on that, and that a singular 

regulatory scheme might not be suitable for all types of products. 

We are all painfully aware of what has made its way into the country and how it harms Americans. The newspapers are full of those 

stories, so we have a ways to go on this, and I want to be part of 

getting there. 

This legislation, Mr. Chairman, groups drugs and devices and 

holds them to the same standard of inspection, but I think that we 

have to look at the components of a device, and I think that this 

is where we need to hone in, because even a low-risk device has, 

I think, some other characteristics to it. A low-risk Class II device 

such as X-ray equipment or an ultrasound machine, there may be 

hundreds or even thousands of parts that comprise that machine 

and go into making that into a device. The devices are currently 

inspected and approved by the FDA as finished products and every 

component has to work correctly, of course. Otherwise the total of 

the device is not going to be effective for the patient. Now, under 

the Globalization Act, each facility which products every nut, each 

bolt and the circuit boards that go into a device would require an 

FDA inspection. I think we have to look closer at this. I don’t know 

if that is where we want to go. I don’t have the perfect answer but 

I think that in the draft of this that we have overlooked it. So the 

number of facilities that would have to come under inspection on 

5 

that could be insurmountable, and I don’t know whether inspecting 

every nut and bolt in different facilities is what we intend to do. 

So I think that this is an important journey that we are on. I 

want the highest standards for the American people and I think 

that that is what we have to keep our eye on, but if we go into 

semiconductor chips, circuit boards, software, flat panel displays of 

these sophisticated devices across many facilities, I don’t know if 

that is how we want to spend our time. 

So I look forward to working with you. I have some questions obviously for our witnesses. Thank you again for holding this very 

important hearing. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Eshoo follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. ANNA G. ESHOO

Thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this important hearing on legislation to address the FDA’s oversight of medical devices and cosmetics and my thanks to the 

witnesses for testifying today. 

Medical devices play an increasingly significant role in healthcare and it is critical 

to ensure the safety of these devices as we do with food and drugs. It’s also important for us not to overlook the unique nature of these devices which makes them 

different from drugs, and that a singular regulatory scheme might not be suitable 

for all types of products. 

I support periodic and consistent inspections of facilities that manufacture active 

pharmaceutical ingredients as well as fully constituted drugs. We know all too well 

the dangers of unsafe drugs that have made their way onto pharmacy shelves and 

the identification of potential hazards from the component ingredients of a drug can 

be critical. This legislation groups drugs and devices and holds them to the same 

standard of inspection, requiring that all components of a device, even a low-risk 

device, have their facilities inspected. 

For a low-risk Class II device, such as X-ray equipment or an ultrasound machine, 

there may be hundreds or even thousands of parts that go into making that device. 

These devices are currently inspected and approved by the FDA as finished products 

and every component must work correctly. Under the FDA Globalization Act, each 

facility which produces every nut, each bolt, and the circuit boards that go into a 

device would require an FDA inspection. The number of facilities subject to an inspection under such a regime could be insurmountable and cripple the FDA’s regulatory process. The unintended consequences of requiring component part inspections will be long and debilitating delays for medical imaging devices to come to 

market. It’s also not clear to me that the FDA has the appropriate expertise to inspect the high-tech equipment such as semi-conductor chips, circuit boards, software, and flat panel displays that go into many of these sophisticated devices. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today and the discussion we will 

have on ensuring the safety of medical devices. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Ms. Eshoo. 

The vice chair of the subcommittee, Mr. Green from Texas. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GENE GREEN, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the third and 

final hearing today on the Food and Drug Administration’s 

Globalization Act discussion draft. This week we will be discussing 

the device and cosmetic provisions in this draft. 

As we found in previous hearings, it is clear the FDA does not 

have the resources or the authority to effectively protect the American people from potential health risks. The FDA is responsible for 

medical device safety in the United States and for foreign devices 

entering the country, but as noted in our previous hearing on drug 

safety, FDA does not have ability to require foreign facilities to 

6 

allow inspectors even in the facilities. The GAO estimates the FDA 

has inspected foreign Class II manufacturers once every 27 years 

and foreign Class III manufacturers once every 6 years. Clearly the 

FDA does not have as many inspectors as it needs to conduct these 

inspections and has not effectively adopted a third-party inspection 

program. 

The GAO has also noted the FDA has two separate databases 

that are not compatible, which are used to provide the FDA with 

information on foreign medical device establishments. This has severely limited the FDA’s ability to track medical device establishments. 

While the FDA has some authority for regulating devices, they 

have very limited authority when it comes to regulating cosmetics. 

In fact, the FDA does not have the ability to recall cosmetics. It can 

monitor companies that issue recalls for a product, but if a company is unwilling to recall an unsafe product, the FDA only has the 

ability to issue a written request for a recall. The FDA does have 

the ability to inspect cosmetic manufacturing facilities but does not 

have a comprehensive or compatible database of manufacturers of 

product. Currently, registration for the database is voluntary. This 

means the FDA does not know what products are on the market 

and what ingredients are even in these products. 

It is astounding that the FDA has relied on manufacturers and 

industry to self-regulate medical devices and cosmetics for this 

many years. The risk-based approach that FDA has resorted to 

during this time of limited resources and restrictions seems like a 

disaster waiting to happen. We need to allocate resources and increase the FDA’s authority so they can protect Americans from potential health risks. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my time. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Green. 

Our ranking member of the full committee is here. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BARTON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Last evening on the House Floor, I had a very cordial conversation with Full Committee Chairman Dingell in which he strongly 

encouraged myself and other Republicans to work with you and the 

other Democrats on the subcommittee to craft a bipartisan food and 

drug safety bill, or I believe we talked about a food and drug import bill, and I told him that I had some concerns but that I would 

definitely encourage all Republicans to engage in a good-faith effort 

to see if we couldn’t find a bipartisan bill, and I have instructed 

my committee staff to do that. 

So in the spirit of that, I want to start off today by saying while 

it is a fact that in the draft that has been out for several months, 

medical devices were a part of that draft, so it is not that there is 

a surprise there, but the focus has been in our hearings and the 

focus has been in our discussions, at least my discussions with 

Chairman Dingell, that we were going to focus first on food safety, 

then drug safety, and we really hadn’t discussed medical devices. 

The draft on medical devices, in my opinion, doesn’t even deserve 

7 

to be a part of the discussion. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t look 

at medical devices but I think there are such differences that we 

should discuss the medical devices as a stand-alone issue. 

I would also say that what is in the draft on medical devices, in 

my opinion, seems to be overkill and probably non-implementable 

in the real world. There are between 35 and 50 Class III medical 

devices that are approved each year. These are complex devices 

and it might make some sense to require pre-approval inspection. 

However, there are another 3,500 of less complex Class II medical 

devices that are approved each year. To require each of those facilities to have a pre-approval inspection is a waste of resources. It 

will only increase costs to patients and, as far as I can tell, no demonstrable safety benefit, and would needlessly delay these therapies getting to the patients. 

The bill would also call for a pre-inspection of all device parts. 

This is another example of the draft failing to recognize the difference between drugs and devices. A medical device part could be 

a circuit board. It could be a battery. It could be even a screw. A 

battery is not the same thing as heparin. 

Finally, I want to reiterate a point that I made at the hearing 

several weeks ago. During the debate on medical device user fee reauthorization last year, I expressed and other members of the Committee expressed serious concern over the level of user fees being 

paid by the industry. Last year the medical device industry doubled 

its funding commitment to the FDA from $150 million to $300 million. We should pay some close attention to the clear warnings before we made the FDA even more reliant on the industry that it 

is supposed to oversee. This bill would create, in addition to that, 

a new set of user fees for medical devices. I would like to point out 

to the members of the Committee that the Congress already has, 

as I just said, a user fee for medical devices. 

So I am not trying to be too critical, Mr. Chairman. I just—if we 

are going to do a food safety bill, let us do a food safety bill. If we 

want to do drug safety, let us do a drug safety bill. I think you can 

combine those. I do not think medical devices should be a part of 

the bill. If we are going to really look at medical devices, I think 

you should split it up and do that as a stand-alone bill. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you. 

Next I next recognize the chairman of the full committee, Mr. 

Dingell. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your courtesy and 

I commend you for your diligence in holding this series of legislative hearings to focus on what resources and authorities the Food 

and Drug Administration needs to adequately protect the public 

health. 

The third and final hearing today will discuss and focus on the 

device and cosmetic industry safety provisions in the discussion 

draft. I want to indicate that the discussion draft has been produced to afford us the opportunity to receive the comments and unVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:08 Apr 08, 2010 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\HEARINGS\110-117 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
8 

derstand the concerns and feelings of everyone who would be affected by this legislation, from consumers to manufacturers to importers. And I am very anxious, as I have indicated to my good 

friend, the ranking Minority member, my friend, Mr. Barton, that 

we are anxious to work together with him to address this problem, 

which is a very real one and one which offers real threat and peril 

to the American people. 

The same issues that challenge FDA’s ability to properly oversee 

Food and Drugs in an increasingly global marketplace also plague 

the Agency’s ability to regulate medical devices and cosmetics, and 

I want to point out that it is not the intention of the authors of 

the draft to create undue burdens on American industry but rather 

to see to it that foreigners meet the same standards in terms of 

safety and efficacy to American consumers as do domestic producers, and I would point out that Food and Drug’s total inability 

to investigate the behavior of foreigners manufacturing goods elsewhere is a matter which hurts American manufacturers by assuring that American manufacturers face unfair, dangerous competition and they face the importation of substances and devices which 

offer real threat, not just to consumers but, quite frankly, to the 

goodwill that our manufacturers have been trying to build for so 

long. I would point out that were it not for the simple fact that our 

commitments under GAT and WTO force us to treat all marketed 

commodities in this country whether they are domestic or otherwise alike, we might perhaps be able to address this a little more 

focused on foreign misbehavior. 

It should be noted that the FDA Science Board in 2007 reported 

that FDA’s ability to carry out its mission in the case of medical 

devices is grossly inadequate and that due to constrained resources, lack of adequate staff, FDA is engaged in reactive regulatory priority setting or a firefighting regulatory posture instead 

of pursuing a culture of productive regulatory science. In other 

words, people should be concerned about the inadequacies of Food 

and Drug to carry out its mission and to protect the American consumers, and parenthetically, to protect American industry from unfair competition by people who are not being regulated by FDA, 

which unfortunately oftentimes doesn’t even know where the people abroad that they are supposed to be looking at might happen 

to be located or, indeed, who they are. 

This unfortunate news has been confirmed in recent testimony of 

the Government Accountability Office, the GAO, before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, which found that the 

FDA was not able to make the required inspection every 2 years 

of domestic facilities where the highest-risk medical devices are 

manufactured, and I would point out that in the hearings of this 

committee in time past, we found that things like heart valves 

were not being properly and safely manufactured and the result 

with failure of that kind of device was an instant heart attack with 

total fatality being the result to the person who happened to have 

that particular device implanted. 

So we need to address this. We need to understand that currently FDA is only able to inspect medium-risk medical device facilities once every 5 years and high-risk device facilities only once 

every 3 years. American consumers, beware. And the number of inVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:08 Apr 08, 2010 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\HEARINGS\110-117 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
9 

spections for foreign producers is much worse. The GAO estimated 

that FDA inspects foreign manufacturers of Class II devices only 

once every 27 years, and foreign Class III manufacturers only 

every 6 years. Despite the fact that there are more registered device manufacturers in China than in any foreign country, Chinese 

firms can expect FDA to visit them only once every 50 years. And 

while cosmetics currently represent 9 percent of FDA-regulated 

products imported into the United States, the number of these imports is growing, and in spite of small budget increases last year, 

FDA’s Office of Cosmetics and Colors has been unable to keep pace 

with the increasing numbers of foreign cosmetic products, and I 

would remind all that we are not talking just about finished products but we are talking about raw materials and components, 

which can offer us greater risk as can the finished products to 

American consumers. Witness heparin. 

We will hear from two FDA officials today, who I hope will be 

forthright in their testimony about the needs of the Agency. We 

want to help the Agency, and we look forward to the Agency helping us to help them. We in Congress can do a better job for American consumers if we receive frank, truthful testimony from the 

people vested with regulatory responsibility. 

I want to commend those in the device and in the cosmetic industry who have stepped forward and voiced their willingness to work 

with us to strengthen FDA, and I want to make it plain that we 

understand their problems and we are desirous of coming up with 

something with which they can live and which will enable them to 

compete fairly in a difficult market. 

And as we start this effort, we must all keep in mind that the 

dire straits which FDA is in and how they impact upon American 

consumers, and we need to understand that the Federal budget 

along cannot support the growing demands of the Agency, and we 

can find time after time where the heads of the Agency has come 

in to tell us what a good job they were going to do and how we 

could hope in some distant future that they would have a new and 

wonderful device and methodology for addressing these problems. 

We have been disappointed not only in their failures but also in 

them. Industries that benefit from global marketplace also must 

share the responsibility of the safety of products that they sell to 

American consumers, and they must face the same situation and 

the same regulatory impact that American manufacturers confront. 

Lastly, I want to thank the consumer groups and other stakeholders who recognize the crisis at FDA and who are committed to 

working with us on this effort. Following the conclusion of today’s 

hearing, I intend to begin to work immediately with my good 

friend, Mr. Barton, and other members of the Committee to try and 

build a strong, bipartisan piece of legislation using the discussion 

draft that we are considering at this particular time. 

Mr. Chairman, I commend you for this. I thank you for your 

courtesy. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Chairman Dingell. 

Next is the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Burgess. 

10 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank 

the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Dingell, for his draft of the 

FDA globalization legislation, and I do wish that there could have 

been more input from the Minority side. I understand I am relatively new, but it seems like if we could be present while you are 

drafting the draft, it would be easier to get to a true bipartisan 

compromise. But nevertheless, in a year where process and regular 

order seem to be jettisoned so easily, I am grateful for this comment and review period. We have got a lot of work to do, but I believe that this committee sincerely wants this to be bipartisan legislation, and I stand ready to offer my assistance to make this a 

reality. Obviously, while I can’t agree with all of the provisions 

within the chairman’s FDA Globalization Act, I do welcome the 

honest and open discussion about the legislation that will transform the system. 

This year, the subcommittees of Energy and Commerce have had 

hearing after hearing after hearing regarding the resources or lack 

thereof of the Food and Drug Administration. We have also had 

many important investigations such as the heparin issue, the melamine issue, the ongoing investigation of lead in dental devices, but 

while I sit on the Health Subcommittee, Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee, Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection, I 

cannot recall any discussion or any investigation regarding the cosmetic industry. So I am sure that there are some reforms that need 

to be made within the Office of Cosmetics and Colors and the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, but I would urge this 

committee, this subcommittee to move methodically and deliberately. We shouldn’t just be passing legislation because we happen 

to be here. 

I would like to address the issue of resources. I respect the fact 

that this bill attempts to garner more resources for the Agency but 

I do question some of the attempts. We all know that the Food and 

Drug Administration, which should be the premiere Federal agency, has been underfunded for decades. It is many administrations, 

both Republican and Democratic, it is many Congresses, both Republican and Democratic, that bear responsibility for this problem, 

but this bill seeks to solve that by imposing a pass-through tax to 

consumers disguised in the form of user fees. So, Mr. Chairman, I 

call on the leadership of this committee, the leadership of the Appropriations Committee and the Speaker of the House to come together and develop a plan to get the critical resources to this important agency. This is an authorization bill. Under the best of circumstances, when do we expect to see one dime delivered to the 

Food and Drug Administration? Yet we can do that through the appropriations process this year if we will simply pay attention to the 

process. This committee doesn’t appropriate money but every single 

member of this committee knows that this year we will be lucky 

to pass one appropriations bill. Chances are, most appropriations 

will be passed through on a continuing resolution and so the Agency will receive level funding yet for another year. Consequently, unless we take immediate steps to work within the appropriations 

process, the Food and Drug Administration will continue to be unVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:08 Apr 08, 2010 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\HEARINGS\110-117 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
11 

derfunded regardless of the number of hearings that we hold at the 

subcommittee level. 

So we must act and we must act methodically and deliberately, 

and Mr. Chairman, you have been generous. I will yield back the 

balance of my time. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you. 

The gentlewoman from Illinois, Ms. Schakowsky. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAN SCHAKOWSKY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the 

opportunity to have this hearing today on such an important issue, 

keeping our devices and cosmetics safe for American consumers. I 

applaud your leadership on these issues as well as other issues and 

concerns addressed in your draft Food and Drug Administration 

Globalization Act. 

Today I would like to address some of my concerns about the regulation of cosmetic products at FDA, or rather the lack of regulation. It is under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act that FDA receives its authority to regulate drugs, devices, cosmetics, and other 

products. But what many Americans don’t know and in fact, it 

came as a surprise to me, is that FDA has little to no authority 

to actually regulate the personal care products we use every single 

day. Furthermore, the original statute under the FDCA has remained essentially unchanged since 1938. Even the measures that 

FDA does have the authority to require such as safety substantiations, labeling requirements and facility inspections but without 

the resources to do so, cosmetics remain widely untested and unregulated. For example, tests for safety are done by the manufacturers themselves and are not overseen by the FDA. Additionally, 

without an actual standard for what is considered safe, it is hard 

to imagine what exactly is passing for safe and arriving on shelves 

across America. 

Unfortunately, even when FDA does find a deficiency or violation, it doesn’t possess the authority to issue a mandatory recall 

and often does not pursue legal action because the burden of proof 

rests on the FDA, which has no resources to carry out investigations or studies of its own. So think about it. How many personal 

care products does each of us use every day? Ten, 25? My concern 

is that more and more studies are coming out on the hazards of 

these products and we simply don’t know enough about them and 

their long-term effects. We are just told that they are safe, trust 

that the industry’s voluntary reporting program works and assume 

that the FDA has sufficient authority to act if necessary. Yet according to a letter send by the Environmental Working Group to 

FDA Commissioner von Eschenbach last September, well over 

22,000 products—that is 98 percent of all products—contain one or 

more ingredients that has never been publicly assessed for safety, 

not by the FDA, not by the Cosmetic Industry Review, which is the 

industry self-regulation panel, and not by any other publicly accountable U.S. institution. 

By contrast, the European Union has required cosmetic companies to remove reproductive toxins, mutagens and carcinogens from 

personal care products and it now bans more than 1,100 chemicals 

12 

from personal care products due to risks associated with cancer, 

birth defects or reproductive problems. In stark contrast, just nine 

chemicals are banned from cosmetics in the United States. 

That to me is unacceptable and I am so very grateful for the 

chairman’s efforts to rein in this unregulated industry by requiring 

manufacturers to register their facilities, their products, and their 

ingredients with the FDA and to submit serious adverse events relating to the use of its cosmetics to a registry. This draft legislation 

would also establish good manufacturing practices, a big step in 

the right direction. 

So I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, as well as 

the rest of my colleagues on the Committee to strengthen these 

provisions further. I think that the improving oversight authority 

of cosmetics is long overdue, and I look forward to hearing from our 

witnesses today. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you. 

Next is the gentlewoman from Tennessee, Ms. Blackburn. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE 

Ms. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing to discuss the device and cosmetic provisions contained in the 

draft Food and Drug Administration Globalization Act. I do appreciate the goal of the legislation, which is to increase consumer safety in the U.S. import system, and I continue to support increased 

transparency and enhanced public safety to reduce future 

incidences of tainted products that are entering the country. 

Of course, we have heard, debated, listened to quite a bit of evidence on that issue in this committee this year, and as this committee has learned through those numerous hearings, what we 

have is the FDA is a broken agency. What we have learned is, 

there seems to be very little interagency communication, that there 

are too few inspectors, that there are insufficient resources to complete its core mission, that there are inadequate IT systems, and 

as far as we know, since we have not heard differently, there seems 

to be a lack of best practices within the Agency. It seems somewhat 

out of order for this committee to legislate new requirements for 

FDA without fixing what appears to be their fundamental and 

structural underpinning, which is causing problems within the 

Agency. My hope is that by the time we get around to the final bill, 

that what we will do is prioritize consumer safety with a balanced 

approach for consumers and for manufacturers. When legislating in 

the name of increased consumer safety, it is critical that this legislation achieve its desired effect and not severely restrict the entry 

of life-saving medical technology into the U.S. healthcare system. 

This legislation should not limit patients’ access to important preventative screenings and diagnostic procedures. 

It is well known that the FDA is in need of resources. We have 

heard they need hundreds of millions of dollars in additional funding to increase inspections on both domestic and foreign manufacturing facilities and to do those in a timely and orderly manner. 

Last year, user fees, which are taxes and they all get passed to the 

13 

consumer, user fees were increased under the Medical Device User 

Fee and Modernization Act, which was authorized to help defray 

FDA review costs. Concurrently, some on this committee complained that increased user fees, there again taxes, created FDA 

dependence on drug and device companies. Well, it concerns me 

that what we have got is kind of a here-you-go-again with this bill 

with these user fees and, again, read that as taxes, are further increased and appear to unfairly burden domestic medical imaging 

manufacturers. 

I look forward to discussing the rationale for increased user fees 

without creating further dependence on the FDA. I know we are 

going to have quite a discussion on this and I have got more to say, 

but, Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield back the balance of my time 

and look forward to the continuing conversation on the legislation. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Ms. Blackburn. 

Next recognized for an opening statement, the gentlewoman from 

California, Ms. Capps. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LOIS CAPPS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. CAPPS. Thank you, Chairman Pallone. I appreciate your 

holding this hearing today and I want to commend our Chairman 

Dingell for his continued leadership on this very important issue. 

As a public health nurse, I believe there is no greater goal than 

protecting the public’s health and well-being, and of course, as part 

of its mission, the FDA is responsible for regulating all medical devices that are marketed in the United States, including those manufactured on foreign soil. 

Inspections are probably the most powerful tool that the FDA 

has to ensure that these devices are safe and effective, yet growing 

demands on the Food and Drug Administration have limited the resources it has available to adequately fulfill its mission. As a result, inspections are far too infrequent and unsafe devices have the 

potential of entering the market undetected. 

But device manufacturers also need to be part of this process. We 

need to form a working partnership in order to guarantee a safe 

supply. I am pleased that we will have an opportunity to hear 

today from both FDA and the medical device industry about how 

to make such a partnership work. It is abundantly clear that the 

Food and Drug Administration is in desperate need of additional 

resources. This fact has been acknowledged by colleagues on both 

sides of the aisle, and it was confirmed by FDA officials testifying 

before this committee just this month. 

Medical devices are not the only products that may be compromised by such limitations. The FDA’s authority to regulate the 

cosmetic industry has been historically limited. The cosmetic products and ingredients are not currently subject to rigorous pre-market FDA inspection and approval. It is left to the cosmetic industry 

to verify the safety of their products. This limited oversight, combined with a lack of product recall authority, greatly constrains the 

FDA’s ability to protect consumers from potential toxins hidden in 

cosmetic products. Without sufficient resources, adequate staff and 

robust regulatory authority, the FDA has been relegated to a reactionary role instead of taking preventive and proactive measures. 

14 

This is no way to protect the public’s health and safety. Changes 

do need to be made, and in order to do this, we must make a strong 

commitment to invest in the Food and Drug Administration, something I have supported throughout my tenure in Congress. 

So I thank the witnesses for taking the time to join us today, and 

I look forward to a productive discussion. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you. 

I recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Pitts. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. PITTS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH 

OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for convening this hearing today on the device and cosmetic provisions of 

the food and drug safety FDA. 

I have to admit, however, I am a bit confused as to why drugs 

and devices have been included in the same title of the discussion 

draft. The FDA Amendments Act of 2007 recognized the distinct 

differences between drugs and devices and addressed the two separately, yet several provisions in the draft before us apply the same 

requirements to both sectors. 

I would like to welcome all of the witnesses, particularly those 

from Avamed and Mita and MDMA. I look forward to all of your 

comments on this draft legislation. 

I think it is important to point out that foreign medical device 

manufacturing facilities are already subject to international quality 

and safety inspections at least annually as part of the International 

Standards Organization, the ISO 13485 standard, a standard virtually identical to the FDA Quality System regulations. Meeting 

this ISO standard is a requirement for medical device manufacturers in 47 countries worldwide. The FDA should make use of the 

valuable information gained from these already required inspections. 

Also, the discussion draft requires an inspection every time a 

change is made to a medical device and requires inspections of all 

component parts. Medical imaging devices, for example, are updated or improved on average once every 18 months. This could be 

updated software, the device may have an added functionality, or 

it may be able to image another part of the body. I do not believe 

that these updates to already approved products warrant an entirely new facility inspection. We have all heard about FDA’s lack 

of resources and lack of inspectors. We can’t wait until an FDA inspector comes to a facility to complete a new assessment to give the 

go-ahead to a product that has effectively an 18-month shelf life. 

Patients here in the United States need those technologies. 

It is also important to note that the FDA classifies medical imaging devices as Class II, which are considered low risk. The FDA inspects and approves medical imaging devices as finished products. 

I fail to see how inspecting every single component down to the 

screws used to hold a device together is an efficient use of FDA’s 

time or resources. Every screw, circuit board, and screen must 

work correctly for the completed device to function properly and 

pass its rigorous inspections. Examining component parts individVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:08 Apr 08, 2010 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\HEARINGS\110-117 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
15 

ually would be duplicative and not be a prudent use of funds. 

These new inspection requirements could ultimately end up slowing down the delivery of improved and updated technology to the 

U.S. market and ultimately to patients. 

Finally, medical device manufacturers currently pay a facility registration fee of $1,700 per facility per year to the FDA. They 

also pay fees for ISO inspections. However, this discussion draft includes additional annual facility registration fees as well as an annual $10,000 importer registration fee. Let us remember that device manufacturers voluntarily agreed to almost double the amount 

of fees they pay to FDA last year. These new fees are duplicative 

and do not provide a direct benefit to the manufacturer. I believe 

we need to be careful not to cross from valid user fees into new 

taxes on these manufacturers. 

I would like to thank all of our witnesses for testifying today. I 

look forward to your statements, and I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you. 

The other gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murphy. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TIM MURPHY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It seems as though 

much of what can be said has been said, and some of my friends 

say one thing and some another, and I agree with my friends on 

this, but nonetheless, I want to emphasize here too, and thank you 

for this hearing, and hope that part of what we get out of this in 

shaping a bill is one that recognizes we do need to have a more effective system of inspections, not just for its own sake, but on devices and on these other products. I want to make sure we are simply not adding more to the cost burden of these products without 

yielding results. 

In particular, some of the areas I hope our witnesses will talk 

about is in the areas of finding those who may manufacture or bypass or violate some of these rules, and when we are dealing with 

foreign companies, it is not hard for them to simply close that company and show up as another name and therefore stay under the 

radar screen with this. One of the great things about America is, 

we are able to still be seen as a leader in inspection and having 

product safety. However, we want to make sure that we maintain 

that position and not give it up to other countries who are able to 

bring other products in here that don’t have that. 

So I look forward to the hearing here and finding how we can 

carefully balance this issue of making sure that we are able to 

maintain product safety and not simply overburden the system 

with regulations that are not leading to that end, and I yield back. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you. I believe that concludes our opening 

statements, so we will now turn to our first panel. I would ask our 

witnesses from the FDA and the GAO to come forward at this time. 

Thank you. Let me introduce each of you. On my left is Dr. 

Sundlof, who is Director of the Center for Food Safety and Applied 

Nutrition at U.S. FDA. Next to Dr. Sundlof is Lillian Gill, who is 

Senior Associate Director of the Center for Devices and RadioVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:08 Apr 08, 2010 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\HEARINGS\110-117 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
16 

logical Health with FDA. I understand she is not going to be testifying but will answer questions and help us in that respect. And 

then next is Dr. Marcia Crosse, who is Director of Healthcare for 

the General Accounting Office. 

You know the drill, that we hear 5-minute opening statements 

they become part of the hearing record, but each witness may in 

the discretion of the committee submit additional statements in 

writing for inclusion in the record, and I will start with Dr. Sundlof 

for 5 minutes. Thank you for being here. 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN SUNDLOF, D.V.M., PH.D., DIRECTOR, 

CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY AND APPLIED NUTRITION, 

FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION 

Dr. SUNDLOF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

subcommittee. I am Dr. Stephen Sundlof, director of the Center for 

Food Safety and Applied Nutrition of the Food and Drug Administration, and as you indicated, with me today is Dr. Lillian Gill, 

Senior Associate Director, Center for Devices and Radiological 

Health at FDA. 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss challenges posed by imported medical products and components of cosmetics. We commend the members of this subcommittee and their staffs for developing the discussion draft entitled, the Food and Drug Administration Globalization Act of 2008. We recognize and appreciate the 

Committee’s efforts to include new authorities requested by the Administration in support of the Action Plan for Import Safety. 

Foreign-manufactured medical devices must meet FDA regulatory requirements in order to be imported into the United States 

or its territories. These requirements include establishing registration device listing, manufacturing in accordance with quality systems regulation, reporting of adverse events and pre-market notification or pre-market approval. Initial importers must register with 

the FDA. Foreign manufacturers must designate a U.S. agent to, 

among other things, facilitate interactions between the FDA and 

the foreign manufacturer. FDA inspects foreign manufacturing 

sites to assess compliance with FDA requirements and help inform 

decisions regarding admissibility into U.S. commerce. FDA cooperatively works with Customs and Border Protection in regarding imported products. Products that do not meet FDA’s regulatory requirements may be detained at the border. 

Cosmetic firms are responsible for substantiating the safety of 

their products and ingredients before marketing. In general, except 

for color additives and ingredients specifically prohibited or restricted by regulation, a manufacturer may use any ingredient in 

the formulation of a cosmetic, provided that the ingredient does not 

adulterate the finished cosmetic and the finished cosmetic is properly labeled. 

Cosmetic manufacturers are encouraged to register their establishments and file a cosmetic product ingredient statement with 

FDA’s voluntary cosmetic registration program. This program provides FDA with the best information available about the locations, 

business trade names and types of activities of the establishments 

that participate in this program. If manufacturers do not remove 

dangerous products from the market, the Agency can pursue enVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:08 Apr 08, 2010 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\HEARINGS\110-117 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
17 

forcement actions against violative products or against firms or individuals who violate the law. FDA works closely with all its partners including the international regulatory authorities on a wide 

variety of issues important to cosmetic safety including ingredient 

usage and labeling, marketing surveillance, and areas of emerging 

science. 

The Administration’s Action Plan for Import Safety presents 

broad recommendations and specific action steps to promote the 

safety of imported products under the organizing principles of prevention, intervention and response. One of the plan’s premises is 

that the United States must transition from an outdated snapshot 

approach to import safety in which decisions are made at the border into a cost-effective preventive focus model that identifies and 

targets critical points in the import’s life cycle where the risk of the 

product is greatest and verifies the safety of products at those important phases. 

Under the auspices of the Administration’s Action Plan for Import Safety, FDA has many initiatives underway to further protect 

and promote the public health. For example, FDA’s Beyond Our 

Borders initiative is a multi-pronged approach to promote and 

verify compliance of imported foods, cosmetics and medical devices 

with the FDA requirements prior to importation. This initiative includes increased FDA presence overseas, increased FDA inspections, greater sharing and use of foreign authority inspection reports and other information, use of third-party certification and increased capacity building with countries that have less-developed 

regulatory systems to ensure product safety. 

In order to target our intervention efforts related to foreign 

firms, FDA has several plans to enhance its IT systems in ways 

that will improve databases, enhance interoperability of systems 

within the Agency and among other regulatory agencies, and provide better analytical function to assess and control risk. 

Finally, when a health threat emerges with a regulated product, 

FDA must have the tools to facilitate the timely recovery of the violative produce, reduce the opportunity for harm, and secure the integrity of the supply. FDA is working to facilitate the adoption by 

industry of track-and-trace technologies to identify and track the 

product along the product’s life cycle back to the point of origin. 

Under the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 

2007, FDA is working to develop unique identifiers which may support product identification technologies. 

Under new authorities, the Action Plan for Import Safety called 

for providing a number of new authorities in order to enhance the 

safety of imported products. It requests authority to establish import certification programs using accredited third parties to verify 

compliance of foreign products with U.S. standards. The plan recommends authorizing FDA to refuse admission of a foreign manufacturer’s product when access to the foreign manufacturing site is 

hampered. The plan also requests authority to expedite destruction 

of refused medical products, which will prevent unsafe medical 

products for personal use from entering the U.S. market. Finally, 

asset forfeiture remedies for certain criminal offenses involving 

fraudulent or counterfeit products would allow the forfeiture of all 

vessels, vehicles, aircraft, and other equipment used to aid in the 

18 

importing, exporting, transporting, selling, receiving, acquiring, 

and purchasing of violated products. 

We are in the process of reviewing the FDA Globalization Act 

discussion draft in detail, and we look forward to working with you 

on this legislation. Let me reiterate some general principles that 

guided the development of the Action Plan for Import Safety. 

Mr. PALLONE. Dr. Sundlof, I hate to stop the FDA witness, in 

your case, but you are about a minute and a half over. But summarize. We don’t want to stop you completely. 

Dr. SUNDLOF. Thank you. I think I can stop at this point, Mr. 

Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Sundlof follows:] 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

Mr. PALLONE. Well, now I did stop you. That wasn’t my intention. 

Dr. Crosse. 

STATEMENT OF MARCIA CROSSE, DIRECTOR OF 

HEALTHCARE, GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE 

Dr. CROSSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I am pleased to be here today as you examine FDA’s 

oversight of medical devices. 

At the request of the full committee, we have been reviewing a 

number of issues related to FDA’s foreign inspection programs. A 

variety of medical devices are manufactured in other countries, including high-risk devices designed to be implanted or used in 

invasive procedures. Our work points to one conclusion: FDA’s programs have not kept up with the globalization of manufacturing 

and the products that FDA regulates. FDA’s inspections of foreign 

establishments are infrequent. The agency’s data systems have 

been rife with errors and lack fundamental capabilities needed to 

manage the programs, and the Agency has faced several challenges 

unique to conducting foreign inspections. 

Since I first testified about these problems, FDA has announced 

a number of initiatives to address these concerns, as we have heard 

today from Dr. Sundlof. FDA’s initiatives have the potential to 

strength FDA’s foreign device inspection program but they do not 

fully address the weaknesses. 

FDA is required to inspect every 2 years all domestic establishments manufacturing medical devices classified as being of high 

risk, or Class III, such as pacemakers and defibrillators, or medium 

risk, or Class II, such as syringes and hearing aids. There is no 

comparable time requirement for inspecting foreign establishments, 

but FDA is responsible for ensuring that they meet the same 

standards required of domestic establishments. We found that FDA 

has not met the statutory requirement for domestic inspections of 

medical device establishments and foreign medical device establishments are inspected less frequently, about every 6 years for Class 

III devices or 27 years for Class II devices. As of September 2007, 

there were about 5,000 Class II and III foreign device establishments registered with FDA, of which fewer than 300 were inspected last year. 

FDA has faced particular challenges in managing its foreign inspection program. FDA’s databases contain inaccurate information 

about foreign medical device establishments and the products they 

manufacture. A recent change to FDA’s medical device registration 

process could improve the accuracy of the registration data. The 

new process includes electronic registration with an annual registration fee currently set at about $1,700. 

Another initiative aimed at reducing duplication in its import 

database is a proposal that FDA has supported to change the data 

it receives from Customs and Border Protection on products entering the United States. However, the implementation of this proposal is not certain and would require action from multiple Federal 

agencies. In addition, inspections of foreign medical device establishments pose challenges to FDA in human resources and logistics. 

FDA depends upon volunteer inspectors, lacks independent transVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:08 Apr 08, 2010 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\HEARINGS\110-117 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
36 

lators and has difficulty altering the travel itinerary if problems 

are uncovered that might warrant further review. FDA has proposed establishing a dedicated cadre of staff to conduct foreign inspections but the overall time frame associated with this initiative 

is unclear. 

FDA has also announced plans to establish offices overseas with 

an initial eight FDA staff to be based in China and five Chinese 

nationals to provide translation and other support. However, the 

impact that these offices will have on the foreign device inspection 

program is unknown because these staff would be responsible for 

all FDA-regulated products. 

Finally, over the years there has been interest in using third parties to supplement FDA’s inspection resources. We found, however, 

that few inspections have been conducted through FDA’s two accredited third-party inspection programs. In the 4 years since FDA 

first cleared an accredited organization to conduct independent 

medical device inspections, a total of 11 inspections have been conducted, 6 of foreign establishments and 5 of domestic establishments. 

In conclusion, given the growth in foreign device manufacturing 

for the U.S. market and the relatively few foreign inspections conducted by FDA, the Agency will need to devote considerable resources to this area if it to increase the rate of inspections. The 

agency has recently taken some positive steps to improve its foreign inspection program including announcing plans to increase its 

presence overseas. However, it is too early to tell whether these 

steps will ultimately enhance the Agency’s ability to ensure the 

safety and effectiveness of medical devices marketed in the United 

States. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be 

happy to answer any questions that you or other members of the 

subcommittee may have. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Crosse follows:] 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50 

51 

52 

53 

54 

55 

56 

57 

58 

59 

60 

61 

62 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Dr. Crosse, and I am going to start the 

questioning by recognizing myself for 5 minutes. I was going to 

start with Dr. Gill because you are the device person but I guess 

I am directing it to Dr. Sundlof—to Dr. Gill through Dr. Sundlof. 

There has been industry interest in the international harmonization of standards for device inspection. Specifically, we have 

heard that industry would like FDA to adopt International Standards Organization—well, the standards of—they would like them to 

adopt the International Standards Organization standards. That 

sounds a little weird but that is what it is. Are there any substantive differences between the FDA’s standards and those of the 

International Standards Organization? And what is your opinion 

on asking the FDA to move to those standards? 

Dr. GILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have worked for quite 

a while, the Center for Devices, with the Global Harmonization 

Task Force. In fact, we chaired that task force this year. We have 

been working to harmonize our quality system regulation with 

many of the standards under the GHTF task force. We find that 

their quality system or their ISO inspection 13485 is pretty close, 

very similar to ours. In fact, the most recent FDA Modernization 

Act allowed us to evaluate foreign inspection reports, 13485 ISO inspection reports. So we find them to be very similar. We certainly 

are developing the criteria under which we could get the reports in, 

look at them, determine whether or not they have met the foreign 

standard requirements and to see if they are similar to ours, and 

we look forward in the future to figuring out how we can use these 

in lieu of an inspection. 

Mr. PALLONE. OK. Thank you. 

And then I wanted to ask Dr. Crosse, in your testimony you mentioned the third-party inspection programs that are currently in 

place and the fact that very few companies have taken advantage 

of those programs, even after improvements were made. Can you 

explain why this is and make any recommendations as to how to 

put in place more incentives for companies to actually partake in 

those programs? And then does the FDA need additional authorities or basically are there ways to make this work, and how would 

you go about it? 

Dr. CROSSE. Thank you. Yes, we did take a look at the accredited 

inspection programs and one of the issues that we hear from industry is that it is not clear at this point that a single inspection can 

meet the requirements of both the FDA and other foreign governments. Is it really that feasible? A few of the companies that had 

explored using this program had determined from the accredited 

inspectors that they would actually conduct separate inspections to 

meet the U.S. requirement from what they would conduct for, for 

example, the European Union, and so at this point I think there 

are still some issues to be ironed out. There also is a concern, I 

think, on the part of some industry organizations that if you are 

hiring an accredited inspector, you are ensuring then that someone 

is coming to your door and exposing you to possible regulatory action. Right now, FDA doesn’t come that often and so if you just sit 

back and wait for FDA to show up, it could be many years. So that 

has worked also as a disincentive for organizations to hire an accredited inspector, to pay for that inspection. Right now an FDA inVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:08 Apr 08, 2010 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\HEARINGS\110-117 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
63 

spection does not cost them any money, and then to face possible 

penalties that might be incurred. I think it is too soon to know 

whether the changes that were made in the bill last year are going 

to modify that but at this point under that accredited inspection 

program, only one additional inspection has been conducted since 

we testified in January on this. FDA itself has undertaken a separate pilot program with Canada to try to determine if they can iron 

out some of these problems. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you. 

Let me ask one cosmetic question. Dr. Sundlof, you mentioned 

several areas of concern with the rapidly growing nature of the cosmetics industry, including increasingly sophisticated technology 

and more complex ingredients. Will the provisions included in the 

discussion draft, and I am referencing the mandatory registration, 

mandatory adverse event reporting, GMP regulations, will they assist FDA in fulfilling its regulatory mission concerning cosmetics? 

Dr. SUNDLOF. In terms of requiring that the firms register and 

report all of the ingredients, it would at least alert us to the fact 

that there may be new ingredients that we may not otherwise have 

been aware of were in these cosmetics so in that respect, yes. The 

other ones I don’t think would particularly address that issue of 

the widely emerging new products that are coming out in terms of 

new chemicals, new ingredients, et cetera. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you. 

Mr. Deal. 

Mr. DEAL. Thank you. 

I want to follow up on the ISO issue. First of all, how many countries recognize the ISO 13485 inspections? 

Dr. GILL. I don’t have that number with me. I would be happy 

to provide that. But we do know that those that are in European 

Union recognize that. 

Mr. DEAL. Does China recognize those or do they participate? 

Dr. GILL. China has attended the last Global Harmonization 

Task Force meeting. They are scheduled, according to discussions 

we have had, to attend the next set of GHTF meetings. 

Mr. DEAL. But I would assume it takes action on the part of a 

country to incorporate the ISO inspection standards into their way 

of doing business in their own country? They have to formally 

adopt it. Is that correct? 

Dr. GILL. That is my understanding. 

Mr. DEAL. How long do you anticipate it is going to take to determine whether or not FDA standards can be harmonized with ISO 

standards? 

Dr. GILL. We are currently working through looking at the standards now, looking at the differences and preparing to have a public 

announcement of our adoption of some of the standards. 

Mr. DEAL. I would encourage you to do that as quickly as possible. 

The next question is, in the event that you determine that ISO 

standards are sufficient to cover FDA responsibilities, would it require legislation to allow you to use the ISO inspections as a part 

of your mandatory, if we go to a mandatory, time frames or numbers of inspections? Will it require that we legislatively build in 

language that allows you to accept the ISO inspections? 

64 

Dr. GILL. I think if they are harmonized inspections and we find 

that they are very equivalent to ours, I am not sure the legislative 

changes are absolutely necessary. 

Mr. DEAL. I would ask you all if you would look at that because 

I personally think that is the direction we need to go in. 

Second question is, do other countries require on-site inspections 

of American manufacturing facilities? In other words, the reverse 

of what we do in overseas inspections. 

Dr. GILL. Yes. 

Mr. DEAL. How do their fees compare with what we charge? 

Dr. GILL. I believe many countries may use the ISO inspectorate. 

I can certainly find out an answer to that. But that would be an 

agreement between the third-party inspector and the manufacturers. 

Mr. DEAL. In order for that to be accomplished, the reverse of 

what we normally think of here, would it require formal action on 

the part of the United States or of FDA to adopt ISO standards as 

our standard in order for them to accept our inspections under ISO 

privileges and grant reciprocity, in effect? 

Dr. GILL. I would be happy to provide a written response to that. 

Mr. DEAL. All right. Thank you. 

One of the issues that was mentioned was the Beyond Our Borders initiative that FDA has undertaken. I think it is going to be 

increasingly important for us to try as best we can to harmonize 

with other countries that are trying to do the right thing and be 

able to work cooperatively in that effort, and I think it is also going 

to require that we continue to apply pressure for those countries 

that do not move in that direction, and in that regard, reference 

was made in Mr. Dingell’s opening statement that we could not— 

we have to be careful, I guess under WTO, that we do not differentiate between domestic and foreign inspection costs, et cetera. But 

isn’t it true that it is significantly more expensive to do overseas 

inspections under our current system than it is to do domestic inspections? 

Dr. GILL. I do believe there are costs associated with travel in 

foreign inspections that we don’t have to pay for domestic inspections but we do try to cover at least three inspections while we are 

there to minimize that travel cost. 

Mr. DEAL. One of the things that the Administration asks us 

under their safety plan, has asked Congress to grant FDA the authority to refuse to admit for import products that were manufactured in facilities that denied FDA inspectors or hampered their 

ability to do inspections. Is it true that there is no authority to discriminate against those countries and products where you have 

been, in effect, denied or hampered in your inspections that we 

don’t have any authority to discriminate against them currently? 

Dr. GILL. Allowing an FDA investigator into a foreign facility is 

voluntary, so we— 

Mr. DEAL. No, I am talking about on our end. What I read is that 

apparently you are asking Congress to give you the authority to 

discriminate against those products from those countries or from 

those plants that have interfered with your ability to inspect their 

product. Is that something that needs statutory changes? 

65 

Dr. SUNDLOF. Yes, I believe it is, and right now we can detain 

product if we have reason to believe that it is adulterated but we 

have to establish at the port of entry that it is adulterated. Then 

we can issue an import alert, and that prevents it. But we don’t 

have that authority just on the basis—we can’t initiate an import 

alert on the basis that the country of origin refused our inspection. 

Mr. DEAL. Thank you. 

Mr. PALLONE. Chairman Dingell for questions. 

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you. 

Does FDA currently have an accurate, verified count of how 

many foreign device facilities are selling products to the American 

people, yes or no? 

Dr. GILL. Our new database will help us determine how many 

foreign facilities— 

Mr. DINGELL. So the answer is, you do not have such information? 

Dr. GILL. At this time, I don’t believe we have an exact number. 

Mr. DINGELL. All right. Now, you have got two—is it two or three 

databases? 

Dr. GILL. We have about three or four databases. 

Mr. DINGELL. OK. How many of them talk to each other and how 

many of them are integrated? 

Dr. GILL. Currently, we are working to make sure that they talk 

to each other, but as of— 

Mr. DINGELL. So at this time you have none of them are integrated and none of them can talk to each other? 

Dr. GILL. Well, we are integrating the electronic registration 

database. 

Mr. DINGELL. So the answer to the question is yes? 

Dr. GILL. We do have one or two. 

Mr. DINGELL. All right. Now, how much is it going to cost and 

when will this be done? First of all, how much is it going to cost, 

and second, when will it be done? 

Dr. GILL. I can certainly provide you an answer with the cost. 

Mr. DINGELL. Please submit that for the record. I have a grand 

total of 5 minutes here. 

Now, does FDA currently have an accurate and verified accounting of what products these companies are making? The answer to 

that question is no, is it not? 

Dr. GILL. Until our new system is in and they can list their products— 

Mr. DINGELL. I have a limited amount of time. Yes or no? 

Dr. GILL. I believe we don’t have the accurate account. 

Mr. DINGELL. Does FDA currently know how many foreign facilities are actually subject to inspection, yes or no? 

Dr. GILL. We are finding that out daily, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, Dr. Gill, as we move forward producing bipartisan legislation to this concern, it would be very helpful to have 

the Committee have the Agency’s plan of action for improving its 

device information system, both its funding needs and timelines. 

Does such a plan exist, yes or no? 

Dr. GILL. We are developing that plan. 

66 

Mr. DINGELL. You are developing it, but you do not have it. 

When will you have it and when can you submit it to the committee? 

Dr. GILL. I can certainly submit to you the dates when we will 

have the plan completed. 

Mr. DINGELL. You will submit that to us for the record. 

Now, Dr. Woodcock said that meeting the Agency’s obligations 

when she was here before the committee would cost an additional 

$100 million. Can you tell us how much you need to meet the required frequency for domestic device inspections? 

Dr. GILL. That also could be provided for you. 

Mr. DINGELL. Please submit that for the record. 

I am told here, according to Dr. Crosse, FDA inspects relatively 

few foreign medical device establishments despite the fact that over 

4,200 foreign facilities have been registered to sell medium- and 

high-risk devices to American consumers. Is that accurate? 

Dr. GILL. Could you repeat that question? 

Mr. DINGELL. FDA inspects relatively few foreign device establishments, according to Dr. Crosse, despite the fact that over 4,200 

foreign facilities have been registered to sell medium- and high-risk 

devices to American consumers. Is that accurate? 

Dr. GILL. Yes, that is what we have reported. 

Mr. DINGELL. Dr. Woodcock testified at the previous hearing that FDA would need another $225 million to inspect foreign drug facilities at the same rate that is required currently to investigate domestic facilities. Can you tell us what the figure would be for foreign device facilities? 

Dr. GILL. We will certainly make that part of the answer we supply to you. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, have you seen the GAO study? 

Dr. GILL. Yes, we have. 

Mr. DINGELL. I want you to submit any criticisms to this committee you have with regard to the factual and other questions associated with this study, and I will ask that the record be kept 

open so that that may be done. 

Now, they said this: ‘‘In summary, we found that FDA faces challenges in its program to inspect foreign establishments manufacturing medical devices. In January 2008, we testified that the two 

databases that provide FDA with information about foreign medical device establishments and the products they manufacture for 

U.S. market contain inaccurate information about establishments 

subject to FDA inspection and could not exchange information.’’ Is 

that true? 

Dr. GILL. According to the report, yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. All right. They went on to say this: ‘‘Few inspections of foreign device manufacturing establishments have been 

conducted through FDA’s two programs for inspections by accredited third parties.’’ Is that statement true? 

Dr. GILL. According to the report, yes, we responded. 

Mr. DINGELL. All right. Now, in this, they further say this: ‘‘FDA 

faces challenges conducting inspections of foreign establishments 

that manufacture medical devices,’’ and they go on to say, ‘‘FDA 

lacks accurate data on the number of foreign establishments subject to inspection.’’ Are those statements true? 

67 

Dr. GILL. I think our data is becoming more accurate with the 

electronic registration and listing, and we are finding— 

Mr. DINGELL. Are these statements true? 

Dr. GILL. As of the time of the report, yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. They are true? 

Dr. GILL. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. All right. I have so many questions, Mr. Chairman, 

I am sort of floundering in a morass. 

They go on to say this: ‘‘FDA inspects relatively few foreign medical device establishments.’’ Is that statement true? 

Dr. GILL. It is correct. 

Mr. DINGELL. Then they go on and say, ‘‘FDA officials told us it 

has been difficult to recruit investigators to voluntarily travel to 

foreign countries. However, they added that if the Agency could not 

find an individual to volunteer for a foreign inspection trip, it 

would mandate the travel. Logistically, foreign medical device establishment inspections are difficult to extend even if problems are 

identified because the trips are scheduled in advance.’’ Is that true? 

Dr. GILL. Yes, they are pre-announced inspections. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, what are you doing about that? 

Dr. GILL. Well, we are certainly cleaning up the database and 

finding out the inspections that are warranted, the Class II and 

Class III who actually registered with us who are actually exporting product to the United States that we should go inspect. 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask that I be permitted to submit additional questions in writing. I thank you for 

your courtesy to me, witnesses. I thank you, and I am sorry I can’t 

ask more friendly questions of you. Yours is a great agency, and 

regrettably, you are crippled by your inability to carry out your responsibilities. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, and without objection, so ordered to 

submit those questions. 

We do have a vote, 11 minutes left. I was going to ask the ranking member, Mr. Barton, to ask his questions and then we will recess and come back. There is just the one vote. Mr. Barton. 

Mr. BARTON. I just have two or three questions, Mr. Chairman. 

As I said in my opening statement, I am a little confused about 

medical devices being included in this particular bill. We have had 

major problems with food imports from China, we had major problems with drug imports from China, but I am not aware that we 

have had major problems from medical device imports from China. 

Dr. Gill, are you aware of any major medical device issues in terms 

of medical devices that are manufactured in China and sent to the 

United States? 

Dr. GILL. Well, the most recent with the heparin issues but— 

Mr. BARTON. Well, heparin is not a medical device. 

Dr. GILL. Well, it is used on medical devices but we did not have 

any serious issues with those devices. 

Mr. BARTON. I would ask our witness from the GAO, are you 

aware of that? 

Dr. CROSSE. No, sir, not specifically of devices manufactured in 

China, although, as Dr. Gill indicated— 

68 

Mr. BARTON. Are you aware of any major medical device issues 

in terms of medical devices that are manufactured in China and 

sent to the United States? 

Dr. GILL. Well, the most recent with the heparin issues but we 

did not— 

Mr. BARTON. But heparin, though, is not a medical device. 

Dr. GILL. Well, it is used on medical devices, but we did not have 

any serious issues with those devices. 

Mr. BARTON. I would ask our witness from the GAO, are you 

aware of that? 

Dr. CROSSE. No, sir, not specifically of devices manufactured in 

China, although as Dr. Gill indicated, the heparin has affected a 

number of devices that are now being recalled. 

Mr. BARTON. But heparin is a drug. 

Dr. CROSSE. Yes, but it is used to coat certain things like catheters that are sometimes used in invasive procedures to keep clots 

from forming. And so there is some heparin that is used in some 

of the medical— 

Mr. BARTON. And you are saying the heparin is coated on the 

medical device in China? 

Dr. CROSSE. On certain medical devices. The heparin manufactured in China has been used to coat certain medical devices. 

Mr. BARTON. But if we solve the heparin problem, the device 

itself is not— 

Dr. CROSSE. With those devices, that is correct. 

Mr. BARTON. OK. Now, on the issue of the number of inspections 

that are done on these facilities, I think each of you testified FDA 

doesn’t conduct its own inspections as frequently overseas as it 

does in the United States, and we have a law that allows the company to ask for a third-party inspection, but many companies don’t 

do that because they say, well, if the FDA is not inspecting me, 

why should I ask for a third-party inspection that then may result 

in an FDA inspection. What if we reversed that and allowed the 

FDA to direct a third-party inspection as a substitute for an FDA 

inspection? How would that work? 

Dr. GILL. Well, certainly in the Import Safety Action Plan we 

looked at what would help us to get more information about foreign 

facilities, and certainly asking for those foreign inspections reports 

would give us that information. 

Mr. BARTON. But currently the FDA can’t direct a third-party inspection. It has to be done at the request of the facility, isn’t that 

correct? 

Dr. GILL. It is all voluntary. 

Mr. BARTON. So if we changed it, you could still ask for the voluntary but if you gave the FDA the authority because of whatever 

reason, limited resources, limited time, probable cause, you name 

it, to direct a third-party inspector, would that help address this 

issue of lack of frequency of FDA inspections? That is my question. 

Dr. GILL. I think we would want to make sure that the third parties are trained to conduct them so we get the same quality in the 

inspection that we get with our own FDA inspections. It might 

help. 

Dr. CROSSE. I would just add that at the current time, there 

aren’t enough to fill the gap. There are not enough trained, accredVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:08 Apr 08, 2010 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\HEARINGS\110-117 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
69 

ited inspectors to be able to fill the gap to get inspections up to the 

level that is required, and also you would be asking the company 

then to bear the cost of that inspection. An accredited inspection 

program requires the company to pay. 

Mr. BARTON. But the concept on the face of it doesn’t seem unworkable? 

Dr. CROSSE. The accredited inspection program is set up with the 

goal that that inspection is equivalent to an inspection by FDA. 

Mr. BARTON. And we wouldn’t change that. That is all my questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Barton. We will take a recess. 

There is only one vote, so we should be back fairly quickly, and 

then we can take the rest of the questions for this panel. The Subcommittee stands in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. PALLONE. The Subcommittee will reconvene, and we left off 

with Mr. Barton, so I recognize the gentlewoman from California, 

Ms. Eshoo, for questions. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me ask the following 

questions. In the legislation, I believe there is a pathway for inspections, and how we operate today and where we want to go obviously, the legislation puts forth the way. What I would like to examine with the FDA is, what are the ISO standards today? How 

high are they? Do they meet with FDA standards? And what you 

bring to inspections of devices sent into our country, is it better to 

inspect in the facilities abroad? How effective is your inspection 

here? And so I would like to examine that area because most frankly I am not so sure how it works, how well it works, and what you 

think of it. 

What I want to say, and this is just a general observation, and 

we don’t have very many members here so I am going to be speaking to three other people. Most frankly, I think if I were the FDA 

Commissioner, I would bring forward a list to the Congress and 

this Committee and say, these are all of the responsibilities that 

you have charged us with in order to protect the American people. 

We have the resources to do the following. You know, we may have 

given the FDA 79 things to do, all very, very, important, and the 

Agency not having the resources to carry the rest out. I have said 

consistently here, we cannot remain content with user fees. They 

are important. I helped to establish them. But having said that, I 

don’t believe the Congress is funding the Agency the way it needs 

to be funded in order to carry out these all-important mandates including the ones that we are looking at in this legislation. 

So can you take us through the inspections? How robust are they 

and compare and contrast the two standards for us. I think Dr. Gill 

is going to address this. 

Dr. GILL. Yes. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you. 

Dr. GILL. First of all, we have our quality system inspection that 

we use to conduct our G&P inspection. There is an ISO standard 

that is very similar, and that is the 13485 that looks at many of 

the same components that our quality system inspection looks at. 

Where I think the major differences lie and it is what is covered 

in the FDA inspections. We include not only G&P— 

70 

Ms. ESHOO. Is it a higher standard? That is what I want to 

know. 

Dr. GILL. It includes many more element— 

Ms. ESHOO. It does? 

Dr. GILL [continuing]. And some of the difference is also in the 

depth of our inspection. We inspect to the regulation. We of course 

look at whether or not they have— 

Ms. ESHOO. And how often do you do that? 

Dr. GILL. We do the FDA inspection every time we go, and we 

have two levels of inspection. We have an abbreviated quality system inspection and we have a full inspection. 

Ms. ESHOO. This is when products are coming into the United 

States? 

Dr. GILL. This is the inspection technique process that we use regardless. We use it in foreign manufacturers, we use that in domestic manufacturers. We don’t inspect product at the border as it is 

coming in, we inspect the manufacturing facility. 

Ms. ESHOO. How often do you do that? 

Dr. GILL. As the report says, we are conducting domestic inspections for Class III devices about once every three years and Class 

II— 

Ms. ESHOO. Are you satisfied with that statement? 

Dr. GILL [continuing]. Every five. According to our risk-based scenario, it is covering our most critical high-risk issues. 

Ms. ESHOO. OK. Let me just get another question in. I still think 

this still needs some more exploration. I raised in my opening 

statement the whole issue of the component parts for medical devices, circuit boards, software, et cetera. Do you want to comment 

on that? I don’t think FDA knows how to inspect those things? 

Dr. GILL. Our current law requires the manufacturers to be responsible. Devices, as you stated, are made up of multiple components, and we have, in our law, said the manufacturer is responsible for making sure that the components that they purchased to 

include in the finished product— 

Ms. ESHOO. So if the device fails— 

Dr. GILL [continuing]. Still qualify for— 

Ms. ESHOO. If the device fails, then the responsibility is on the 

company? 

Dr. GILL. It is on the company. We do go in and inspect whether 

or not they have looked at all components to their product to make 

sure that they were acceptable according to the standard. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you. And my time is up. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you. The gentleman from Indiana. 

Mr. BUYER. Thank you. I would like to do some follow-up on the 

question that Mr. Deal had asked earlier just for clarity purposes 

to the FDA. During these inspections and you have a foreign government that will not cooperate or you have a company in a foreign 

country that doesn’t cooperate with an inspection, are you asking 

us for specific statutory authority so that you could prevent those 

products from entering into the United States market? 

Dr. SUNDLOF. Yes, sir. The Import Safety Action Plan specifically 

asks for authority to deny importation of products if we are denied 

access to those foreign firms. 

71 

Mr. BUYER. And if this Committee were to take affirmative action to include that in this bill, that provision, of course, you would 

support that? 

Dr. SUNDLOF. Could you repeat the question, please? 

Mr. BUYER. If we took that and put this in the bill, obviously 

that is something that you would support? 

Dr. SUNDLOF. The administration has support—now obviously, 

we would have to see exactly what the language said but— 

Mr. BUYER. All right. You don’t have to dance. I just want you 

to know, we are trying to help you, right? OK. 

Dr. SUNDLOF. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. BUYER. You don’t have to do that kind of answer. Are you 

aware of any trade agreement issues that might arise from the 

bill’s $10,000 import registration fee on how that could be interpreted? 

Dr. SUNDLOF. I don’t have the answer to that. We can get you 

an answer in writing. I think the kind of trade agreement concerns 

that we had specifically looked at having higher standards for imported products than we do for our domestic products. We need to 

make sure that any legislative language would not interfere with 

our trade agreement. 

Mr. BUYER. Well, that would be my hope also. To be helpful to 

us and to the GAO, if you, in cooperation with other departments 

or agencies, recognize that if we were to actually put a $10,000 import registration fee and it is against any of our trade agreements, 

we need to know about that. So please let the Committee know in 

writing. 

I have some concerns that there are approximately 3,800 premarket notifications a year and the majority are Class II devices, 

given your testimony on the drug side of this bill and how much 

effort it is going to take for you to do staffing and resources necessary to inspect on the drug provisions of this bill, what are your 

concerns regarding the provisions in the bill with regard to—how 

are you going to be able to do the staffing and how are you going 

to be able to do all of what is required in this bill given your 

present level of appropriations? 

Dr. SUNDLOF. I believe with all the new authorities that this bill 

would offer, we would need additional resources to be able to accomplish all of the new authorities that we would have. And exactly what that is, the dollar amount, I can’t say. One of the things 

that we say in our Import Safety Action Plan and that has been 

addressed in this bill as well, the use of third parties. Depending 

upon how extensively we took advantage of those third parties 

would have a major impact on what we need to staff. In other 

words, FDA inspectors versus what we would be relying on third 

parties to accomplish without us having to fund them. 

Mr. BUYER. Section 210 of the bill provides for civil penalties, 

and civil penalties were placed in the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act 

of 1990. Are you aware of how many civil cases the FDA has 

brought against the device industry since 1990? 

Dr. GILL. I don’t have that number offhand, but I know we have 

taken some civil money penalty cases. 

72 

Mr. BUYER. Would you please provide in writing the number of 

civil penalty cases since 1990 and at what amounts and why they 

were— 

Dr. GILL. We certainly will. 

Mr. BUYER. —by industry? You don’t have to do it by industry, 

I only want it for the device industry. 

At this moment, I am going to yield to Mr. Deal if he has any 

further questions he may have with regard to those foreign inspections so we can get the right and appropriate language given the 

questions he had asked earlier. I yield to the gentleman. 

Mr. DEAL. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I understand that 

there was a letter written to the Committee by the European 

Union. Do you have that here? I am trying to get a staff to get it 

for us. Apparently they are claiming that any import fee would be 

in violation of WTO rules. Are any of you aware of that issue being 

raised by the European Union? 

Dr. GILL. I am not aware of that issue. 

Mr. DEAL. I think it is a concern that we need to be looking at. 

Dr Crosse? 

Dr. CROSSE. No, I am not aware of that issue, either. There currently is a registration fee that is being charged to all medical device firms. 

Mr. DEAL. And I had earlier asked if foreign countries were also 

coming in and charging fees of our manufacturers, and I have had 

several people during the break assure me that they are and that 

the fees that they are charging to American manufacturers are significantly more than they are charging to their own domestic manufacturers. Hopefully I will have that copy of the letter and we will 

put it in the record perhaps before the end of the hearing. I would 

ask you all if you would take a look at that issue. We don’t need 

to do something that is going to provoke a WTO fight or retaliation 

and all the things that we know go along with those kind of disputes. If there is a way we can achieve our purposes short of that, 

then I would think we would all hopefully work toward that; and 

I would follow up, too, with Mr. Buyer on that line of questioning 

as to your action plan as it relates to the statutory language. I 

have not personally seen any suggested language on that. This 

would be the appropriate place in my opinion for us to try to get 

that statutory authorization that you think is appropriate, and I 

would urge you to make that available to us as soon as possible because I assume we are going to be marking this bill up some time 

in the very near future in this committee. 

I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Thank you. I will yield back. 

Mr. PALLONE. The gentlewoman from Illinois, Ms. Schakowsky, 

for questions. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Do any of you 

know whether or not balloon catheters are imported ever? 

Dr. GILL. I will check on that and get back to you. 

Dr. CROSSE. According to the registration date, certain types of 

balloon catheters used in angioplasty are among the top devices imported from foreign countries. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. There was a Supreme Court case, Regal v. 

Medtronic, where the Regals sued the medical device company for 

injuries that Mr. Regal sustained when the balloon catheter that 

73 

was used by this physician burst in angioplasty. And the Supreme 

Court ruled in favor of Medtronic and found that FDA regulations 

preempted state civil matters. And my concern is this. If we are 

doing an inadequate job of inspecting, of assuring the safety of the 

devices, and yet any other actions, either state actions or court actions, are precluded because the FDA is the final authority, then 

it seems to me that we are leaving people without options and at 

risk, and important ability for states and individuals through a private right of action that might be an incentive for these products 

to be safer is precluded. So I just wondered if anybody had a comment on whether or not the ultimate authority—if consumers can 

really depend now on the FDA to be the ultimate authority on the 

safety of these products. 

Dr. GILL. I don’t have any current comment on that. I think 

many of our products of our safe. We do have a reporting system 

that lets us know from all users as well as consumers when there 

are problems with products, and for the most part, we are finding 

devices are safe and we are actively investigating those that are 

not. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Would you argue, Dr. Crosse, that the GAO 

report would endorse that assessment? 

Dr. CROSSE. I think we have concerns about the current level of 

oversight that FDA is able to employ, both for medical devices and 

for drugs. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Let me ask about cosmetics. It is my understanding, Dr. Sundlof, that in response to an Environmental Working Group Petition in 2005 that the FDA responded, ‘‘The Food, 

Drug and Cosmetics Act contains no provision that requires demonstration to FDA of the safety of ingredients of cosmetic products 

prior to the marketing of the product.’’ Is that correct? 

Dr. SUNDLOF. That is correct. There is no pre-market review of 

cosmetics. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. But you do have a requirement that manufacturers adequately substantiate their products for safety, is that not 

correct? 

Dr. SUNDLOF. Yes, that is correct. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Are you able to provide our Subcommittee 

with FDA’s definition of safe? 

Dr. SUNDLOF. I can provide that to you in writing. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. My understanding is that there is no FDA definition of safe. 

Dr. SUNDLOF. In the area of cosmetics, I will have to go back and 

look into that. There certainly are definitions of safe for foods and 

medical products. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Check that. I would be interested because I 

have been told that there is no definition for safe for these cosmetics. Does the Agency develop guidelines for industry and what 

should be done on their part to substantiate safety? 

Dr. SUNDLOF. I am sorry, could you repeat that? 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Are there guidelines developed by the FDA to 

substantiate safety that manufacturers have to follow? 

Dr. SUNDLOF. The FDA participates in the international community with programs that establish what the criteria are, what kind 

74 

of testing criteria are used to demonstrate certain kinds of safety, 

and those have been in effect for a number of years. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And when the companies substantiate their 

products before they are sold, who do they submit the data to, the 

FDA? 

Dr. SUNDLOF. They are not required to submit data to the FDA. 

If it turns out that there is a safety issue associated with a particular cosmetic, the FDA has the authority to inspect that facility 

and determine whether or not the company has done an adequate 

job of demonstrating the safety before they entered the product in 

the market. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, may I ask one 

more question? It is my understanding that the industry-funded 

safety panel, the Cosmetic Ingredient Review Panel, has only reviewed 11 percent of the over 12,000 ingredients in personal care 

products over its 30-year history. So I am concerned that this panel 

might not be up to the job. And in your testimony you state that 

FDA estimates that within their voluntary registration system, 

there is product information from just a third of all domestic manufacturers. So what do you think it would take to review all ingredients used in personal care products, what kind of data does FDA 

currently have on chemical ingredients most commonly used in personal care products, and I guess finally, do you think that the work 

that is being done to guarantee safety currently is sufficient? 

Dr. SUNDLOF. Certainly, the law as it currently is written allows 

virtually anything to be incorporated into cosmetics with certain 

exceptions that are specifically prohibited under the Act. The reminder of your questions I think we would need to go back and we 

can provide you with an answer in writing. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I just wondered, Dr. Crosse, if I haven’t read 

the whole report, if you deal with that in your report? 

Dr. CROSSE. No, I am sorry, we do not look at cosmetics at all. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you. And that concludes our questions of 

the first panel. I want to thank you very much for answering the 

questions and for your testimony. As you know, we do intend to 

move toward the marking of this bill at some time in the near future. So we will continue to get back to you. Thank you. 

And if the next panel could come forward at this time? Well, welcome again. I am going to introduce each of you. Starting on my 

left, some of you, maybe all of you but certainly a lot of you have 

been here before. You are no strangers to the Committee. First is 

Stephen Ubl. Did I pronounce it right? 

Mr. UBL. Ubl. 

Mr. PALLONE. Ubl. OK. Stephen Ubl. I have met you many times. 

Stephen Ubl is president and CEO of the Advanced Medical Technology Association. And then is Kelvyn Cullimore. He is President 

and CEO of MDMA Secretary. Is that the organization? 

Mr. CULLIMORE. I am Secretary of the MDMA— 

Mr. PALLONE. Oh, I see. You are President and CEO and also 

Secretary of the MDMA of the Dynatronics Corporation. 

Mr. CULLIMORE. Dynatronics is the company. We are a member 

of MDMA, and I am on the— 

75 

Mr. PALLONE. Oh, I see. You are doing both. OK. And then we 

have Ms. Ami Gadhia with the Consumers Union. She is the Policy 

Counsel. She was here recently. And then we have Elisabeth 

George who is Vice-President for Quality and Regulatory Affairs at 

Philips Healthcare, and Pamela Bailey who is President and CEO 

of Personal Care Products Council, and Jane Houlihan who is VicePresident for Research of the Environmental Working Group here 

in D.C. 

Thank you all for being here. You know the rules: 5 minutes 

opening statement. They become part of the record, and we may 

submit additional questions in writing that we would ask you to 

get back to us about. And I will start out with Mr. Ubl. 

Mr. UBL. Thank you. 

Mr. PALLONE. Is that on? 

Mr. UBL. It is on now. 

Mr. PALLONE. OK. 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN J. UBL, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

ADVANCED MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION 

Mr. UBL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Deal. I 

appreciate the opportunity to share our views on the discussion 

draft of the FDA Globalization Act of 2008. 

Medical technology is one of the few manufacturing industries 

where there remains a strong, vibrant balance of trade. Every day 

our member companies export more medical devices that are imported to the United States. In fact, more than three-and-a-half 

times more exports than imports. In 2007, medical device exports 

were approximately $4.7 billion and imports were barely a third of 

that at $1.5 billion. 

Before I address our specific comments on the discussion draft, 

I would like to first emphasize the broad range of medical devices 

and the risk-based approach currently used by the FDA to effectively regulate devices. As you know, FDA classifies devices into 

three risk categories ranging from low-risk products in Class I to 

high-risk devices in Class III. Since its inception in 1976, the legislative framework, the Medical Device Law, has been to regulate 

based on risk. FDA’s regulatory regime, whether it is the approval 

process or setting of inspectional priorities, are based on a level of 

risk associated with the device. We believe FDA’s risk-based approach effectively focuses the Agency and its resources on the right 

areas to ensure public health and safety. 

I would like to now address three primary issues with regard to 

the discussion draft. First, we have concerns with the proposed new 

broad-based industry fee, but we are open to exploring a more targeted approach to inspections. Our view is that inspections are a 

core function of the FDA, and funding should come from the appropriations process, not industry fees. As has been mentioned earlier, 

last year’s FDA Amendments Act resulted in a 91 percent increase 

in industry user fees, including the establishment of the first-ever 

facility registration fee. A new, broad-based user fee would impose 

a potentially significant financial burden on top of the increased 

user fees enacted into law last year. We also believe there could be 

unintended consequences with a broad-based user fee. Many of our 

members, particularly small companies, do not even have foreign 

76 

facilities. Yet, through their fees, they would effectively subsidize 

inspections of foreign companies exporting their products to the 

United States. Consider that high-risk medical device imports overwhelmingly come from countries with established regulatory systems. According to our analysis of U.S. Customs data from 2007, 

93.7 percent of imported medical device implants come from the 

highly developed countries of the European Union, Canada, Australia, and Japan. In this category of devices, 0.01 percent come 

from China. I want to emphasize that we are willing to explore a 

targeted funding mechanism for inspections of foreign facilities 

that are located in countries with less developed regulatory systems and actually export products to the United States. 

Our second issue is with the proposed pre-approval inspection for 

Class II and Class III devices. As you know, FDA already conducts 

pre-approval inspections of all new Class III medical devices. There 

has been mention with regard to Class II devices, there are more 

than 3,600 approved each year. Simply put, the FDA approval process would come to a screeching halt if this proposal were implemented. Requiring a pre-approval inspection for this number of 

products before they are permitted to be marketed could inhibit the 

availability of lifesaving and life-enhancing devices. 

The third issue is with the catch-up inspections for all Class II 

and Class III facilities. According to the GAO, there are 10,600 facilities manufacturing Class II and Class III devices. Having FDA 

inspect all of these facilities within the next 2 years is an unrealistic expectation. We support FDA’s risk-based approach in determining its inspectional priorities. Moreover, for the purpose of setting those priorities, the recently enacted FDA Amendments Act 

permits FDA to accept submissions from companies of certifications 

through internationally accepted quality system standards set by 

the International Organization for Standardization, or ISO. To explain, ISO is an international standard-setting independent organization consisting of technical experts including FDA. FDA personnel are active participants in the ISO technical committees developing these important standards. We support a change in law 

that would go one step further by allowing FDA to accept ISO quality system standard as equivalent to FDA’s current quality systems 

regulation. Doing so would allow FDA to use a company’s compliance with the ISO standards in place of an FDA inspection. This 

also would bring FDA into harmonization with the internationally 

recognized and accepted quality systems regulations. 

In closing, we support a strong FDA and appreciate the Committee’s leadership in offering the discussion draft under consideration. Our members are committed to providing safe and effective 

products, and we look forward to working with you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ubl follows:] 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN J. UBL

Good Morning. My name is Stephen J. Ubl. I am President and Chief Executive 

Office of the Advanced Medical Technology Association, known as AdvaMed. I am 

pleased to be here today to comment from a medical device perspective on the Committee’s discussion draft of the FDA Globalization Act of 2008. Thank you, Chairman Dingell, Congressman Barton, and other members of the Committee for giving 

us the opportunity to share our views on this important topic. 

77 

AdvaMed represents manufacturers of medical devices, diagnostic products, and 

health information systems that are transforming health care through earlier disease detection, less invasive procedures, and more effective treatments. AdvaMed’s 

members produce nearly 90 percent of the health care technology purchased annually in the United States and more than 50 percent of the health care technology 

purchased annually around the world. AdvaMed members range from the smallest 

to the largest medical technology innovators and companies. Nearly 70 percent of 

our members have fewer than $30 million in sales annually. 

OVERVIEW

AdvaMed very much appreciates the Committee’s process of providing the public 

with an opportunity to comment on the Committee’s preliminary thoughts as the 

Congress considers how to address major challenges in our increasingly global economy. I would like to begin by making several general points. First, our members 

are committed to assuring that the medical devices we manufacture are safe and 

effective, perform as intended, and meet all the rigorous quality system requirements established by the FDA. 

Second, we share the Committee’s view that a robust and effective FDA inspection 

program is an essential element of FDA’s regulatory system. We believe that such 

a program can be achieved with a multi-faceted approach by leveraging FDA’s resources and expanding FDA’s existing risk-based analysis model that currently 

guides device facility inspections. We are willing to explore ways in which FDA’s resources can be leveraged with use of third party inspection information and mechanisms for financing foreign facilities inspections. 

Third, we share the Committee’s goal of increasing funding for FDA activities. 

This is why AdvaMed partnered with you last year during the FDA Amendments 

Act, and why it is a member of the Alliance for a Stronger FDA. We look forward 

to working with the Committee on finding innovative ways to assure the effectiveness of FDA’s inspection regime. However, while we understand the goals expressed 

in the Committee draft, we do have a number of concerns about specific provisions 

and we appreciate your interest in our suggestions. Our greatest concerns relate to 

requirements for pre-marketing inspection of plants making class II products, use 

of the two year statutory standard rather than a risk-based approach as the guide 

for frequency of FDA inspections of Class II product plants, and imposition of a 

broad-based facility user fee to pay for expanded foreign and domestic inspections. 

Fourth, as additional regulatory or cost requirements are considered by the Congress, it is important to keep the unique story of the industry in mind. Medical devices represent one of the few manufacturing industries where there remains a 

strong and vibrant balance of trade. According to 2007 data from the International 

Trade Commission, medical device exports approximated $4.7 billion. In contrast, 

imports were barely one-third of that amount, or approximately $1.5 billion. According to a 2007 analysis by the Lewin Group, these exports supported 357,000 domestic jobs, with average annual wages of $45,600, based on 2002 data, versus $40,300 

for the average U. S. manufacturing job. At the same time, medical device imports 

overwhelmingly come from developed countries with established inspection systems. 

For example, roughly 93.7% of imported medical device implants and 97.6% of imported medical device instruments and appliances came from the highly developed 

countries of Canada, Australia, the European Union, and Japan. In these categories 

of imported medical devices, only .01% are imported from China. This does not 

mean that inspections of foreign facilities should not be increased, but it does mean 

that there is no immediate cause for alarm. Clearly, in a global marketplace, significant changes to the cost structure of our companies could impact this very positive 

story for an industry in which the United States leads the world. 

SUMMARY OF CONCERNS

In order to properly consider changes to the FDA inspection process for medical 

devices, it is important to first understand the broad range of medical device products. This understanding is important as it logically leads to a view that different 

types of devices warrant various levels of regulation. The law currently anticipates 

these differences with respect to, for example, market access. 

The FDA currently classifies devices into three risk based categories: I, II, and 

III. Class I are the lowest risk devices such as tongue depressors, bedpans, and bandages. Class II devices are moderate risk devices such as contact lenses, tracheal 

tubes, and glucose test meters. Class III are high risk devices such as pacemakers, 

heart valves, and implantable cardiodefibrillators. 

There has been no demonstrated public health need for pre-marketing inspection 

of facilities making Class II products. Implementation of such a system would actuVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:08 Apr 08, 2010 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\HEARINGS\110-117 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
78 

ally harm the public health, by drastically slowing the introduction and availability 

of improved medical devices. FDA currently conducts pre-approval inspection of approximately 50 class III devices a year, and pre-approval inspection is appropriate 

for these high risk devices. Requiring FDA to conduct pre-approval inspections of 

the 3,600 plus class II devices that are approved every year would bring the approval process to a grinding halt. Appropriately, FDA inspects facilities that make 

class II products on a risk-based schedule. 

While we understand that the goals outlined in the draft will require a significant 

increase in FDA’s ability to gather inspections data, imposition of a broad-based 

user fee to pay for inspections would represent a serious departure from the principles that have governed device user fees. User fees were assessed under MDUFMA 

and FDAAA, based on negotiations between FDA and industry and approved by the 

Congress. These fees are used to finance improvements in the device approval process that benefit both industry and the public. Establishing a user fee to finance domestic inspections would transfer financial responsibility from the appropriations 

process to industry for what has rightfully been a public function. The industry just 

negotiated a new user fee agreement with the FDA and the Congress last year that 

have raised total fees by 91% and established a facility registration fee for the first 

time. An important premise of that negotiation was that user fees would remain stable for the 5-year life of the reauthorization. Under these circumstances, the industry would find it difficult to bear the increased burden of a new broad-based user 

fee program—particularly one that shifts the financing of public functions to its 

shoulders. 

In addition, a proposal to assess a broad-based user fee to fund an inspection program would raise a number of questions for our member companies: 

1. The costs of inspection would certainly vary significantly for a domestic facility 

versus a foreign facility in a developed country versus the cost of inspection in a 

less developed country. Is it fair to charge one price for these different facilities and 

potentially have domestic companies subsidizing the costs of inspections for foreign 

facilities? 

2. What guarantees would there be that the fees be additive to FDA’s current or 

future level of appropriated funds, rather than financing, in part or in whole, the 

current level of effort supported by general treasury funds? And what assurance is 

there that this change in the philosophy of user fees to support the device center 

would not, in tight budget times, be used to shift more and more of the burden of 

financing the center to industry? 

3. How would fees for FDA inspections interact with the existing third party inspection program for medical devices? 

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

The proposed pre-inspection requirement for all class II devices. Section 202 of the 

discussion draft calls for a new FDA inspection requirement for all class II medical 

devices. FDA already conducts such inspections for class III products. Under this 

proposal, an FDA inspection would be required prior to the distribution of all new 

products, and FDA would have just 2 years to inspect all facilities marketing such 

products today. This new requirement is not justified on public health and safety 

grounds, would be impractical to implement, and is premature, given the potential 

benefits of the third-party inspection program just streamlined through the FDAAA. 

Since its inception in 1976, the legislative framework of the medical device law 

has always been to regulate based on risk. This risk-based philosophy is embedded 

within the three classes of medical devices and particularly in the very different risk 

profiles of class II and class III medical devices. FDA already routinely conducts 

pre-approval inspections of new class III medical devices, but rightfully inspects facilities that make class II products on a risk-based schedule. If the current provisions of the draft bill were to be implemented, it would inevitably delay the availability to patients of thousands of new safe and effective therapeutic and diagnostic 

medical device products. To appreciate the order of magnitude involved, FDA currently conducts pre-approval inspections for about 50 class III devices approved annually, but more than three thousand six hundred class II devices are approved 

each year. 

Moreover, the ‘‘catch-up’’ requirement for FDA to go back and inspect the thousands of current class II facilities is also simply not feasible. The mere process of 

hiring, training, and deploying new inspectors could not realistically be accomplished during that time. 

Should more inspections of domestic medical device facilities be needed, one approach would be for FDA to fully implement the third-party inspection provisions 

of the FDAAA. Although Congress first authorized FDA accredited third parties to 

79 

conduct inspections of medical device establishments in the original MDUFMA legislation in 2002, legislative changes were needed and instituted in 2007 to make that 

process more attractive and feasible from both an agency and industry standpoint. 

We are hopeful that this program will free up significant FDA resources. 

Finally, we do not believe that the case has been made for an exponential increase 

in FDA inspections of domestic medical device facilities, such as the discussion draft 

envisions. There should be a well-documented public health and safety benefit from 

this expenditure of resources. It would be a more prudent course of action, as described further below, for Congress to allow the opportunity for the third-party inspection process that was streamlined in the FDAAA to work. As with many other 

times when Congress considers new legislation, we ask that any legislation addressing medical devices be geared specifically and uniquely to the existing legal and factual circumstances surrounding medical devices and that medical devices not be 

swept in with pharmaceutical and other products regulated by FDA. 

IMPORTER FEES

We believe the annual fee of $10,000 per importer may violate World Trade Organization (WTO) rules and respectfully suggest that the Committee examine this 

issue carefully before moving forward. 

‘‘COUNTRY-OF-MANUFACTURE’’ LABELING REQUIREMENT

We believe additional legislation is unnecessary and potentially counterproductive 

due to existing rules under U.S. Customs law. Under existing Customs law, any 

company that imports products, including medical devices, is already required to 

disclose the country of origin on shipping cartons, individual packaging, and, in 

some cases, the product itself. There are already sanctions in place for violating the 

Customs law, including both civil and criminal sanctions. See, e.g. 19 U.S.C. Section 

1304(h) and (k), Section 1592(a) and Section 1595a. 

The Customs ‘‘Country of Origin’’ marking requirement focuses on the individual 

unit so that the ultimate purchaser or user of the device can be informed of the 

country of origin. In addition, the entry documents for imported products state the 

country of origin. Therefore, an amendment to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) that requires device products to identify ‘‘country of manufacture,’’ as proposed by section 206 of the discussion draft, would be duplicative, costly, and potentially confusing if the regulations promulgated by FDA under a new 

FD&C Act mandate differ in any way from the standards used under Customs rules. 

UNIQUE FACILITY IDENTIFIER

We do not believe there is a need for additional legislation on this subject. FDA 

already assigns a unique identification number as part of its mandatory registration 

process for all establishments involved in the production and distribution of medical 

devices intended for commercial distribution in the United States when those facilities register with the FDA. This process provides FDA with the location of medical 

device manufacturing facilities and importers. To the extent that Congress wishes 

to authorize FDA to use the facility registration numbers for ‘‘purposes other than 

for registration,’’ as provided in the discussion draft, FDA also does that currently. 

For example, FDA already requires a medical device company to include its unique 

facility registration number on the Premarket Review Submission Cover Sheet, 

when being submitted to FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), 

to identify where the product will be manufactured. 

CONCLUSION

AdvaMed appreciates the opportunity to share its views with the Committee on 

the discussion draft of the FDA Globalization Act of 2008. We share your goal of 

an effective, risk-based inspection system that applies to both foreign and domestic 

manufacturers and is adequately funded. As I have outlined in my testimony, we 

have a number of concerns about specific provisions of the bill, and serious questions about the concept of a broad-based user fee to fund inspection activities. However, we share the overarching goals of the Committee as it pertains to safety in 

the global supply chain, and look forward to working with the Committee to achieve 

them. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Ubl. Mr. Cullimore? 

Mr. CULLIMORE. Thank you. 

80 

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Cullimore, let me just say, I just wanted to 

make it clear for the record that you are the President and CEO 

of Dynatronics Corporation, but you are the Secretary of MDMA, 

which is the Medical and Devices Manufacturing Association. 

Mr. CULLIMORE. Thank you. 

Mr. PALLONE. Did I get that right? 

Mr. CULLIMORE. Thank you for that verification. Our President 

got very nervous when you made that announcement. 

Mr. PALLONE. OK. 

STATEMENT OF KELVYN CULLIMORE, JR., PRESIDENT AND 

CEO, DYNATRONICS CORPORATION; SECRETARY, MEDICAL 

AND DEVICES MANUFACTURING ASSOCIATION 

Mr. CULLIMORE. Chairman Pallone and Ranking Member Deal, 

thank you for having me here today to testify. Many of my comments echo those of Mr. Ubl. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this draft legislation. We recognize and acknowledge the 

sincerity of concerns that motivate this legislation, and we really 

do support additional appropriations for FDA to accomplish their 

assigned mission. But I would like to spend my 5 minutes focusing 

on a few concerns about the draft legislation. As was mentioned, 

my name is Kelvyn Cullimore, and I am the President and Chief 

Executive Officer of Dynatronics Corporation which is a small publicly traded medical device company headquartered in Cottonwood 

Heights, Utah. We also have manufacturing facilities in Tennessee. 

Today I am here to testify on behalf of the MDMA, Medical and 

Devices Manufacturing Association, which is a national organization of more than 180 member companies representing the innovative, entrepreneurial sector of the medical technology industry. 

MDMA’s mission is to ensure that patients have access to the latest advancements in medical technology, most of which are developed by small research-driven medical device companies. MDMA 

was actually founded in 1992 to oppose attempts by Congress and 

large manufacturers to institute a device user fee program. While 

MDMA recognizes the appropriate role of government in regulating 

the industry, the Association believed that the government should 

fund such regulation through appropriations, not user fees. However, in 2002, as we know, MDUFMA I was passed and it established user fees. While MDUFMA I did include important provisions to ensure that smaller companies received fee relief, it did 

start the slippery slope of government reliance on industry fees. 

In 2007, this Committee led efforts to reauthorize the user fee 

program for an additional 5 years. The result was fees paid by industry almost doubled from $150 million under MDUFMA I to 

$300 million under MDUFMA II. The reauthorization also expanded fees beyond just device applications to include annual registration fees of $1,700 applicable to every registered manufacturer 

and fees for filing of annual reports. If we continue to add more 

and more fees, it will create a significant financial burden for the 

majority of small medical device companies that could literally 

mean the difference between success and failure to those companies. 

In light of the doubling of the medical device user fees under 

MDUFMA reauthorization last year, the current draft legislation’s 

81 

proposal to seek even more fees from industry is very alarming. 

While these fees may not be viewed as a hardship for multi-billion 

dollar drug and device companies, I can say for certain that it will 

be a hardship for the thousands of small medical device companies 

in this country which are responsible for much of the medical device innovation. Levying additional fees will further erode R&D 

budgets and have a serious detrimental effect on the operation and 

sustainability of these small companies. 

Enhancing FDA’s stewardship and oversight of importation of 

regulated products is a worthy pursuit, but such efforts that benefit 

the public at large should be funded from congressional appropriations, not additional user fees, particularly given that proposed paradigm that requires domestic and non-importing manufacturers to 

subsidize such efforts. When I testified before this committee last 

year, concerns were raised about FDA becoming too reliant on industry user fees for funding. I shared these concerns and strongly 

advocate for additional congressional appropriations to fund this 

proposed legislation. 

I would like to take a moment to discuss the bill’s provisions 

dealing with inspections. Congress and FDA have recognized the 

importance of establishing risk-based classifications for medical devices based upon the level of FDA control necessary to establish 

and assure the safety and effectiveness of the medical device. However, Section 202 of the draft legislation ignores the important distinction between Class II and III medical devices and proposes to 

subject all of these medical devices to equal, pre-approval, and preclearance inspection regardless of risk. The proposed Section 202 

appears to require FDA to conduct pre-clearance inspections of all 

510(k) pre-market notifications. Such a requirement would create 

a logistical nightmare for FDA and would effectively impose additional indeterminate delays on the applicant while awaiting for an 

FDA inspection, regardless of whether FDA determines that such 

a pre-clearance inspection was necessary. It could also result in 

manufacturers being inspected multiple times per year. Adding an 

additional waiting period for an FDA pre-clearance inspection 

would result in unacceptable and unnecessary delays for both patients and manufacturers, not to mention the untold pressure on 

FDA resources to conduct thousands of additional inspections each 

year. 

Finally, let me briefly address the issue of the proposed civil 

monetary penalties outlined in the draft bill. In particular, as currently drafted, Section 210 could be read as mandating the imposition of penalties for any violation. This section would appear to impose penalties on situations where FDA and manufacturers have 

historically worked cooperatively to remedy minor and technical 

violations. The legislation should permit FDA the flexibility and 

discretion to determine when civil penalties should be imposed and 

should specifically clarify that penalties would not be imposed for 

violations that can be addressed by the cooperative efforts of FDA 

and the industry. 

Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to testify today 

before the Committee. We look forward to working with you and 

your staff to improve the current FDA inspection process in an efficient and effective manner. 

82 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cullimore, Jr., follows:] 

83 

84 

85 

86 

87 

88 

89 

90 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Cullimore. Ms. Gadhia? 

STATEMENT OF AMI GADHIA, POLICY COUNSEL, CONSUMERS 

UNION 

Ms. GADHIA. Good afternoon, Subcommittee Chairman Pallone, 

Ranking Member Deal, and members of the Subcommittee. My 

name is Ami Gadhia and I am Policy Counsel with Consumers 

Union, the non-profit publisher of Consumer Reports Magazine. 

I am here today to testify about the medical device and cosmetic 

safety provisions of the discussion draft of the FDA Globalization 

Act. Consumers Union applauds Chairman Dingell for his leadership on the proposed legislation and commends members of the Energy and Commerce Committee for holding today’s hearing on this 

critical consumer safety issue. 

Some of the more high-profile failures of our medical device and 

cosmetics regulatory system are well-known at this point. The 2006 

recall of 183,000 packages of contact lens solution manufactured in 

China because of bacterial contamination and the June 2007 import alert about toothpaste made in China that contains the very 

dangerous chemical, diethylene glycol, which is used in antifreeze 

and as a solvent. Other frightening stories of recalls of medical devices include balloon catheters that failed to deflate and cause a 

heart attack and heparin lock flush syringes that were contaminated with bacteria. 

FDA is charged with overseeing these products, but due to a lack 

of resources and political will, the Agency has dropped the ball. 

There have not been enough inspections, enough authority, or 

enough enforcement of existing regulations, and consumers are 

paying the price. 

Consumers Union believes that the discussion draft of the FDA 

Globalization bill contains a number of strong provisions that will 

help make consumers safer. With regards to medical devices, CU 

supports the provisions of the bill that would require mandatory inspection of both domestic and foreign medical device facilities every 

2 years. This inspection provision, if implemented with protections 

against conflicts of interest, should help improve compliance with 

existing FDA safety regulations. We would respectfully recommend 

that this inspection occur annually and more often if there are 

problems, given the host of serious public health risks that have 

emerged from foreign facilities in particular. 

With regards to cosmetics, CU is in support of the provisions addressed in the FDA’s Cosmetic Adverse Event Reporting System, 

CAERS. In addition to mandatory reporting of adverse events by 

manufacturers, it is important that FDA’s processing and publicizing of these events occurs in a timely manner. 

With regards to both device and cosmetic safety, we are pleased 

that under the draft legislation FDA would track all registered establishments and, at least with regards to medical devices, have a 

firm number of establishments subject to inspection. Currently, the 

number of establishments the FDA should be inspecting is a ballpark figure with many establishments completely off FDA’s radar. 

The discussion draft would require destruction of adulterated, 

misbranded, or counterfeit drugs that a company attempts to import into the United States. However, a similar safeguard does not 

91 

exist for unsafe medical devices, and we would recommend that it 

be added. We also support the provisions in the bill creating a fee 

requirement for importers of cosmetics. It is not sufficient for 

FDA’s inspection resources to stay at their current extremely inadequate level with regard to imported cosmetics. This importer fee 

requirement is one step toward addressing this problem. 

There are, however, some provisions in the discussion draft affecting both medical devices and cosmetics that Consumers Union 

would encourage the Committee to consider strengthening. We 

would recommend shortening the timeframes for implementation. 

It appears that the effective dates of a number of the bill’s provisions are too far out into the future, sometimes 2 or 3 years out. 

These should be shortened. 

We support the provision creating a user fee schedule for various 

new FDA functions. However, we urge the Committee to ensure 

that the user fees do not turn into a pay-for-play scenario. We 

would not want to see regulated entities have the ability to exert 

undue influence over the FDA in its decision-making or other functions. 

In addition, like the user fees for food safety importation, the 

fees pertaining to device and cosmetic safety should be indexed for 

inflation. 

Consumers Union also believes that the monetary civil penalties 

for violations of the medical device protections in the bill are set 

too low. For a large manufacturer, producer, or other multi-national, a penalty of $100,000 is simply a cost of doing business or 

a few hours’ worth of profit. For the penalties to serve as a true 

deterrent against illegal actions, they should be set higher. 

FDA must also have the ability to perform unannounced inspections of foreign facilities. Because of advanced warning, these foreign manufacturers, unlike domestic companies, are able to clean 

up to ensure that they pass inspection, even if they are out of compliance every other day of the year. In addition, any provisions in 

the final bill that permit FDA to outsource any agency task to a 

third party should include protections against such tasks being performed by entities with a conflict of interest. 

We have a number of other concerns and recommendations about 

the draft bill that we would also like to bring to the Committee’s 

attention. These particular concerns are presented in detail in my 

written testimony. 

We wholeheartedly support providing FDA with new authority 

and resources. We are pleased that this discussion draft gives FDA 

a number of new and very necessary powers to better ensure the 

safety of our medical devices and cosmetics. We also urge that 

manufacturers and others who profit from the sale of medical devices and cosmetics to American consumers fairly shoulder their 

full responsibility for improving the safety and quality of the products that they sell. 

I thank the Committee for the opportunity to testify today, and 

we at Consumers Union look forward to looking with the Committee to help move forward on the strongest FDA reform bill possible. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Gadhia follows:] 

92 

93 

94 

95 

96 

97 

98 

99 

100 

101 

102 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you again. Ms. George? 

STATEMENT OF ELISABETH GEORGE, VICE PRESIDENT, 

QUALITY AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS, PHILIPS HEALTHCARE 

Ms. GEORGE. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Deal, and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify 

today. My name is Elisabeth George, Vice President of Quality, 

Regulatory, Sustainability, and Product Security at Philips 

Healthcare. I am testifying today on behalf of Medical Imaging and 

Technology Alliance, MITA, where I serve as a member of the 

board of directors. 

MITA understands and has a record of supporting the Committee’s desire to ensure that FDA is well-funded and that medical devices imported into the United States are safe for U.S. patients. 

MITA is the collective voice of medical imaging equipment manufacturers, innovators, and product developers whose sales comprise 

more than 95 percent of the global market. Medical imaging encompasses X-ray, CT scans, radiation therapy, ultrasound, PET, 

and MRI. Our members make the products that detect and treat 

serious illnesses such as heart disease, cancer, stroke, and 

osteoporosis. The equipment our member companies manufacture 

empowers doctors and medical professionals to view the human 

body with stunning and ever-increasing clarity and accuracy. This 

enables better diagnosis and more effective medical care for patients, often reducing the need for costly medical services and evasive surgical procedures. In fact, it is not an exaggeration at all to 

say the term exploratory surgery will become obsolete in medicine 

due to the power of medical imaging. 

The medical imaging industry is a net exporter economic engine 

and employs tens of thousands of skilled workers here in the 

United States. The research and development that led to the innovative technologies were invented right here in communities across 

America. 

As we continue working together to reduce healthcare spending, 

improve patient care and outcomes, MITA appreciates the support 

from leadership and members of this committee to protect medical 

imaging from further Medicare reimbursement cuts. We understand that there are significant concerns about drug ingredients 

and food that have been imported from foreign countries. However, 

we believe the device industry, a highly regulated industry globally, is vastly different. Medical devices are classified into Class I, 

II, and III based on the level of risk. Medical imaging devices are 

Class II. Our members’ foreign and domestic facilities are subject 

to international quality and safety inspections at least annually as 

a part of the International Standards Organization, ISO 13485 

standard. This inspection is virtually identical to the FDA quality 

system regulation system inspections. Meeting the ISO 13485 

standard is a requirement for medical imaging manufacturers in 47 

countries. MITA believes that the FDA should avail itself of valuable information gained from these inspections that are required by 

every other industrialized nation. 

I would like to turn to the discussion draft before us today. We 

believe the discussion draft places new unnecessary regulatory burdens on our products without taking into account the unique naVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:08 Apr 08, 2010 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\HEARINGS\110-117 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
103 

ture of how our devices are manufactured and extensively regulated. For example, the draft would require an FDA inspection for 

nearly every modification of the device. MITA believes this inspection requirement unduly stalls delivery of improved technology that 

benefits patients. On average, each medical imaging device is updated with improved technology once every 18 months. For example, a manufacturer may submit a device change to the FDA based 

on the fact that we can image another part of the body, we have 

updated the software, or added new functionality. These updates do 

not warrant a new facility inspection which will halt production of 

already-approved products until an FDA inspector completes the 

new assessment. 

Secondly, we are concerned that requiring registration and inspection of component parts may be duplicative and imprudent. 

Medical imaging devices are inspected and approved by the FDA 

as finished products. Components, including screws, circuit boards, 

monitors, and so forth, must work correctly for the device to function properly. 

Finally, we believe significant new fees are duplicative and are 

unnecessary. Last year, FDAA Act, the industry agreed to a 90 percent increase in user fees in order to provide stability to the Agency 

and ensure the life-saving medical devices would proceed to market. Medical device manufacturers currently pay fees for ISO inspections as well as for FDA-mandated facility registration fees. 

However, the draft includes additional annual facility registration 

and importer fees. These new fees unfairly burden domestic medical imaging manufacturers. MITA understands the need to fund 

the FDA, but any fees should be targeted at funding the actual inspection of the foreign facilities. 

In conclusion, medical imaging has become integral to best practices across so many disease states and plays a critical role in providing high-quality patient care. It is critical that patients have access to innovative medical imaging technology to help fight serious 

illnesses. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify at today’s hearing, 

and I welcome your questions later. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. George follows:] 

104 

105 

106 

107 

108 

109 

110 

111 

112 

113 

114 

115 

116 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you. Ms. Bailey? 

STATEMENT OF PAMELA BAILEY, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS COUNCIL 

Ms. BAILEY. Thank you, Chairman Pallone, Ranking Member 

Deal. I am pleased to be able to testify today on behalf of the Personal Care Products Council and to discuss the longstanding safety 

record of our personal care products companies. 

The Council is the leading national trade association representing the global cosmetic and personal care products industry, 

and our 600-member companies are the manufacturers, suppliers, 

and distributors of the vast majority of finished personal care products marketed in the United States. 

We would like to state up front that we appreciate and support 

the goal of this Committee in the cosmetic section in the pending 

legislation to ensure the FDA has the authority to provide strong 

oversight so that American consumers can be assured that imported products are safe. I also appreciate the opportunity today to 

provide additional information to the Committee on the existing 

nature of the regulatory framework governing personal care products. 

Consumer safety has always been the number one priority of our 

companies. Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, it is 

a crime to market an unsafe cosmetic product in the United States. 

Cosmetic products imported into the United States are subject to 

the same substantive standards as those produced in the United 

States and face an even higher regulatory threshold upon entry in 

that an appearance of adulteration or misbranding may subject 

them to detention at the border. They must be safe and contain no 

prohibitive ingredients, and all labeling and packaging must be in 

compliance with U.S. regulations. 

In addition, all colors must be listed and are pre-approved by 

FDA, and a number of color additives in addition must be pre-approved, batch tested, before they can be added to a personal care 

product either within the United States or outside. 

In addition, if a product contains an active ingredient that qualifies it for regulation under our OTC drug rules, then they are subjected to the stricter drug review standards that govern drugs in 

the U.S. What this means, Mr. Chairman, is that if a product is 

a sunscreen, an antiperspirant, and a dandruff shampoo, toothpaste, mouthwash, it must go through the pre-approval standards 

of the OTC program. In addition, any colors added to products 

must be pre-approved. So a product as simple as a lipstick that has 

SPF in it will be subject to pre-approval standards both for the colors and for the SPF. 

Product safety in a global marketplace is not only a matter of 

law for our members, it is the primary commitment for each of 

them and for our Association. For 40 years our companies have invested millions of dollars through our trade association in safety 

programs to enhance the regulatory responsibilities at FDA including our consumer commitment code, the Cosmetic Ingredient Review Panel, our FDA Company Registration Program, the International Cosmetic Ingredient Dictionary, our consumer information 

Web site, and our Import Safety Committee. The result of these 

117 

safety practices and initiatives, cosmetics and personal care products are the safest category of products regulated by FDA. This 

means, for example, that of the 11 billion individual personal care 

products sold in the United State each year, less than 200 instances of product adverse events are reported to FDA. It means 

that between the years of 2000 and 2005 of the warning letters 

issued by CFSAN, some 1,400 of them related to food and only 

three related to cosmetics. 

We recognize that ours is now a global industry and that our 

products and our ingredients are manufactured and sourced 

throughout the world. We agree with the Committee that FDA 

needs basic information about the safety of products and where and 

how they are manufactured. That is why three years ago, when we 

wrote our Consumer Commitment Code, we required member companies signing the code to register their cosmetic facilities with 

FDA and to report serious and unexpected adverse events to FDA. 

We are proud that in the first 16 months of its implementation, 

80 percent of all U.S. annual sales are covered by our board member companies who have certified to the code and are registered 

with FDA and have agreed to report their adverse events to FDA. 

We are proud that our industry helped craft global manufacturing 

standards and have worked with international regulatory agencies 

to encourage each nation to adopt those G&P standards, and we 

have encouraged FDA to issue guidance incorporating ISO G&P 

standards into current practice in the United States. 

The Committee and the draft bill challenge us to take the next 

step. Exactly how that is done is important. We have been working 

with the bipartisan staff to provide technical details on the draft’s 

regulatory provisions, and we appreciate the opportunity to continue those discussions. 

We believe the most effective way to enhance cosmetic safety is 

to provide additional resources to FDA. The budget for FDA for cosmetics in 1974 was $2.7 million. In real dollar terms, that would 

be $14.5 million today. In reality, it was $3.5 million last year before we successfully lobbied for an additional $1 million in appropriations. We are going to continue those efforts and urge the Committee to support additional appropriations. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to close with a note on the registration 

and import fees. Our industry has never been subject to fees. This 

is a topic of significant discussion. We are continuing to discuss 

that. We are going to continue to discuss it with the Committee, 

but we are going to need more time on that and other issues. 

In conclusion, we want to thank the Committee for the opportunity to work on this legislation. Our industry has always put 

safety first. We have always been aware of the necessity to take 

additional steps whenever that may be, and we look forward to discussing with the Committee the most effective way to take the next 

steps so that we can continue to ensure the American consumer 

that our products are safe. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bailey follows:] 

118 

119 

120 

121 

122 

123 

124 

125 

126 

127 

128 

129 

130 

131 

132 

133 

134 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you very much. Ms. Houlihan? 

STATEMENT OF JANE HOULIHAN, VICE PRESIDENT FOR 

RESEARCH, ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP 

Ms. HOULIHAN. Chairman Pallone and Ranking Member Deal, 

thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Jane 

Houlihan. I am Vice-President for Research at the Environmental 

Working Group. We are a non-profit research and advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C. We appreciate the interest of the 

Committee in addressing the regulation of cosmetics for the first 

time in a long time. 

Cosmetics, or personal care products, are essentially unregulated 

under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act. FDA can’t require companies to test products and can’t review or approve products or ingredients before they are sold. FDA can’t require product 

recalls. They must go to court to remove misbranded and adulterated products from the market. FDA can’t require manufacturers 

to register cosmetic establishments, file data on ingredients, or report cosmetic-related injuries. Instead, they rely on voluntary reporting for this data. And in the absence of government authority, 

the safety of personal care product ingredients is evaluated through 

a voluntary industry program, the Cosmetic Ingredient Review. 

This absence of accountability to a responsible government agency has created a culture of ignorance. Far too little is known about 

ingredient safety, and the FDA and industry maintain that everything is safe, even without full knowledge. 

In the committee discussion draft, you are taking vital steps that 

we support to close some of these gaps requiring that companies 

register and report their facilities, products, ingredients, and cosmetic-related injuries to the FDA and follow good manufacturing 

practices. 

We look forward to working with you on additional efforts as 

well. I want to tell you about seven major gaps in cosmetics safety 

that show why it is important to act. 

First of all, the vast majority of ingredients have not been assessed for safety by any publicly accountable body. Through three 

decades, the CIR has reviewed only 11 percent of ingredients in 

products, and at this pace, it will require another two-and-a-half 

centuries to complete reviews for all ingredients. 

Second, companies are free to use almost any ingredient they 

choose in personal care products. FDA has prohibited or restricted 

only nine ingredients in personal care products. In contrast, 244 ingredients are restricted and prohibited in Japan, more than 600 in 

Canada, more than 1,100 in the E.U. 

The third major gap in cosmetic safety, these ingredients can 

penetrate the skin, they can pose health risks, particularly for children. Americans use an average of nine products every day with 

126 unique ingredients. Cosmetic ingredients are found in blood, 

urine, breast milk, even in breast tumor tissue. These ingredients 

are linked to birth defects, allergies, thyroid problems and more. 

And children are particularly at risk. Their skin is thinner than an 

adult’s, their exposures are higher, their bodies are more vulnerable. 

135 

The fourth gap in cosmetic safety, despite these potential health 

risks, the FDA doesn’t even know how many ingredients are used 

in cosmetics. They have records of 4,100 product ingredients. We 

found an additional 5,000 ingredients not on record at FDA at all 

in our survey of products on the market. 

The fifth major gap in cosmetic safety, FDA doesn’t know where 

and how many companies make and distribute personal care products. Facility inspections are FDA’s primary enforcement tool for 

overseeing this industry according to GAO, and yet, FDA doesn’t 

even know where all these facilities are and they can’t mandate 

registration. 

The sixth major gap in cosmetic safety is that FDA doesn’t know 

the extent of health impacts from harmful ingredients in cosmetics. 

Companies aren’t required to report adverse events, and companies 

that have experienced major problems may be least likely to report 

them voluntarily. 

The seventh gap in cosmetic safety, consumers’ right to know, is 

hampered by lack of standards and labeling loopholes. Not all ingredients appear on labels, like ingredients in fragrance; and companies can use terms like natural and hypoallergenic to mean anything or nothing at all. More than a third of all children’s products 

marked as natural in fact contain artificial preservatives linked to 

allergic reactions and nervous system problems. 

We support the Committee’s discussion draft with mandatory reporting and manufacturing standards, but we also support safety 

standards for cosmetics and enforcement authority for FDA. These 

should be brought up to par with FDA’s authority over pesticides 

and food and color additives which meet a safety standard under 

the Act. Cosmetic ingredients are found in cord blood, they pollute 

the bodies of almost everyone in the population, and they should 

be as safe as pesticides, food, and color additives. FDA needs the 

mandate to ensure that ingredients are safe and the authority to 

demand the study it needs to make this finding. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Houlihan follows:] 

136 

137 

138 

139 

140 

141 

142 

143 

144 

145 

146 

147 

148 

149 

150 

151 

152 

153 

154 

155 

156 

157 

158 

159 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Ms. Houlihan. OK. We will have some 

questions from the members, and I will start out with myself. 

I wanted to first ask some questions relative to cosmetics, and 

I will start with Ms. Bailey. You mentioned the Cosmetic Industry 

Review, CIR. Actually, several of you mentioned it, but you mentioned it in your testimony. Can you elaborate a bit on this CIR? 

For example, how is the panel determined? How are the conflictof-interest considerations made? How are decisions disseminated? 

Ms. BAILEY. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The panel was set 

up in 1976, and at that time it was designed to mirror the same 

standards supplied for OTC drug reviews at FDA. In fact, my understanding is it was set up by the industry because the FDA did 

not then have the resources to do it itself. The conflict of interest 

standards are indeed as strict if not stricter. Nobody on the expert 

panel can have any tie whatsoever to the industry. The panelists 

are all chosen by existing panelists. The Chair, Dr. Wilma Bergfeld, 

is considered first lady, if you will, of dermatology and chairs the 

Department of Dermatology at the Cleveland Clinic. 

Mr. PALLONE. OK. I am still with you, Ms. Bailey. Now, Ms. 

Houlihan mentioned the CIR as well and also noted that they have 

identified 9 unsafe ingredients that are actually different from the 

9 or 10 unsafe ingredients that the FDA has identified. What has 

been the response from the cosmetic industry in reaction to those 

restriction recommendations, both from the CIR as well as the 

FDA, and are those ingredients found in products on the market 

today? 

Ms. BAILEY. I am sorry, are those ingredients found— 

Mr. PALLONE. Found on the market today in products that are 

on the market today? 

Ms. BAILEY. An ingredient that is unsafe, Mr. Chairman, should 

not be in any cosmetic product because the company cannot substantiate the safety of it. So the ingredients FDA has found to be 

unsafe should not be in any product, nor should the ones CIR has 

deemed unsafe. 

Mr. PALLONE. OK. Did Ms. Gadhia or Ms. Houlihan, do you want 

to add anything to what Ms. Bailey said or comment further? Go 

ahead. 

Ms. HOULIHAN. I would say that one shortcoming of the CIR 

process is that it is dominated by dermatologists who are primarily 

interested in allergic reactions and irritations with ingredients, and 

that means that a huge wealth of health impacts doesn’t get proper 

consideration by that panel. And it is one reason, in addition to 

many others, that we feel like the authority for assessing ingredient safety needs to be mandatory, needs to belong with FDA so 

we have a consistent, national standard, an FDA authority over 

cosmetic safety. 

Mr. PALLONE. Did you want to add anything, Ms. Gadhia? 

Ms. GADHIA. I would concur with what Ms. Houlihan said. The 

only thing I would add is that there is only one dedicated consumer 

representative on CIR representing that standpoint. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right. Let me ask Ms. Houlihan, do you think 

the provisions included in our discussion draft will assist the FDA 

in regulating the cosmetic industry which is growing rapidly? 

160 

Ms. HOULIHAN. I do and we support the provisions in the discussion draft that would make mandatory the registration of facilities, 

ingredients, products, and adverse effects. I think it is a great first 

step to get FDA that very basic data that it needs to determine the 

range of unsafe products that might be on the market and take action. 

Mr. PALLONE. With regard to ingredients, how many ingredients 

do you estimate are currently being used in cosmetic products, currently being used by American consumers? In other words, of those 

ingredients, how many would you say have been tested by FDA or 

other independent bodies for their safety? 

Ms. HOULIHAN. There is no mandatory reporting of ingredients 

to FDA, so it is not known the full range of ingredients that are 

on the market. FDA has estimated 12,500, but cosmetic industry 

officials have estimated it is only between 2,000 and 4,000. When 

we surveyed products on the market, we found 8,800 unique ingredients. It is an open question, and it is one reason that mandatory 

ingredient reporting needs to happen so that FDA has an understanding of what is on the market. We do know that of the estimated 12,500 ingredients that FDA thinks are on the market, the 

industry has reviewed only about 1,400 or 11 percent. 

Mr. PALLONE. OK. I wanted to get one more thing in but—that 

is all right. Go ahead, and then I will ask the other. 

Ms. BAILEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The number 12,500 indeed refers to the number that the discreet ingredient names that 

are listed in the cosmetic dictionary that we in fact publish. Not 

all of those ingredients are used in cosmetic products. By our 

count, 5,500 ingredients are commonly used in U.S. products. Of 

them, some 3,000 are ingredients such as botanicals. They would 

not reach the threshold of risk for the full peer-reviewed study. 

That leaves 2,500. By the end of this year, 2008, CIR will have reviewed 2,000. They are chosen by level of risk and complexity and 

by use on the common use. So that would leave some 500 that 

would be of lower risk, and CIR as I understand it is now reviewing how the best way would be to review those ingredients. But 

they are now reviewing them at the rate of 200 a year. If I could 

add, the issue of how many ingredients and what is commonly in 

use is also a reflection of the database problem that FDA has because until 2005, all of these files were made by paper and they 

have yet been able to complete the transfer of the paper filings into 

their new electronic system. 

Mr. PALLONE. I had a medical device question, but let us hear 

from the other two members, and then we will see if we have time. 

Mr. Deal? 

Mr. DEAL. I will try to go quickly. You all do the same. Going 

down the list of all of you there, do any of you disagree with the 

proposition that FDA needs greater resources in order to carry out 

the responsibilities they currently have and would particularly 

need more resources if they were given the responsibilities under 

this proposed legislation? Anybody disagree with the concept that 

they need more money? Apparently not. Let me go down the list, 

though. What should be the source of that revenue? Should it be 

further appropriations by Congress or should it be user fees or 

some combination thereof? Mr. Ubl, I will start with you. 

161 

Mr. UBL. We believe inspections are a core function of the Agency and as a result should be funded by appropriated dollars. In addition, I think FDA’s risk-based approach, together with greater reliance or leveraging of the ISO standard that has been discussed 

is our preferred approach for addressing the legitimate gap that 

has been raised as a result. 

Mr. DEAL. So primarily appropriations then? 

Mr. UBL. Yes. 

Mr. DEAL. Mr. Cullimore? 

Mr. CULLIMORE. We agree, appropriations are the way to do it. 

We feel that user fees have the risk of undermining a very essential element in regulatory prioritization and that is fiscal restraint. 

When there is no fiscal restraint, the regulatory prioritization is 

much more difficult to do. 

Mr. DEAL. Ms. Gadhia? 

Ms. GADHIA. Some combination of appropriations and user fees 

with the conflict of interest protections would be best in our judgment. 

Ms. GEORGE. I think one of the first ways better would be to leverage all of the ISO certificate reports that we are already paying 

for as an industry and get annually, and that would be a significant amount of information and data to the FDA to help them 

make that risk determination and determine whether they need to 

do further inspections of us. 

Ms. BAILEY. As I pointed out, we have a long way to go on the 

federal side of funding of cosmetics. The fee issue is one that is new 

to the industry, and we are under discussion about that right now. 

But it is a very difficult issue, and certainly the federal funding 

side needs to be significantly increased. 

Mr. DEAL. Ms. Houlihan? 

Ms. HOULIHAN. We would agree with Consumers Union on this 

point that a combination of appropriations and user fees would be 

appropriate with conflict of interest protections. 

Mr. DEAL. Most of you have sort of I think agreed that appropriations needs to be one of the primary, if not the primary source. 

I’m going to get Mr. Pallone to agree to sign a letter with me I am 

sure to our appropriators asking that they consider that proposition. 

Before I go further on questions, I do now have the European 

Union letter that I mentioned earlier. I would ask unanimous consent that it be admitted for the record. 

Mr. PALLONE. Without objection so ordered. 

[This information was unavailable at time of printing.] 

Mr. DEAL. Let me go back to the proposition that several of you 

have alluded to and I asked questions about and that is ISO. First 

of all, understand there are 47 countries and China is not one of 

them as I understand, those 47 countries that already require each 

of you to comply with ISO standards, I assume that they, in many 

instances, if you are exporting, they send inspectors to your facilities here in the United States and charge fees associated with that. 

Is that true? Yes, yes, yes. All right. Now, it would seem to me that 

we do need harmonization of these efforts, and I think if you could 

all help us in later responses or written documentation as to how 

do we harmonize what FDA is trying to do with what ISO regulaVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:08 Apr 08, 2010 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00167 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\HEARINGS\110-117 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
162 

tions are already doing? That would be very helpful. That seems 

to me to be a great way of saving a lot of money on both sides of 

the ocean, so to speak, in terms of what it costs to get products to 

the consumer. 

Now, Ms. George, your company has a lot of experience dealing 

with this, and you indicated that you participated in the ISO 

standard-making process, is that correct? 

Ms. GEORGE. Yes, we do. We have members that are on the committees that actually help define those as well as our members are 

on the Global Harmonization Task Force along with the FDA as 

well as other country members. 

Mr. DEAL. So FDA is also participating in that process already? 

Ms. GEORGE. Yes, they are. 

Mr. DEAL. I would just hope that all of us would work toward 

trying to achieve this purpose. I think it would safe a lot of money. 

The last thing I want to make mention of is I understand that 

since we did electronic registration that there have been like 

11,000 facilities that have electronically registered with FDA. Ms. 

Gadhia, am I pronouncing that correctly? 

Ms. GADHIA. Yes. 

Mr. DEAL. You indicated that you felt that everybody ought to be 

inspected at least once every 2 years. If there are 11,000 of those, 

and I don’t think that even includes what this bill would contemplate on component manufacturers that would be added to that 

list, is that a realistic thing that we can achieve or is it just pie 

in the sky to think we can inspect them all within a 2-year period? 

Ms. GADHIA. Something that is in my written testimony but for 

time purposes I could not fit in my oral testimony, we recognize 

that there are a lot of differing devices out there, a lot of things 

are classified as devices. We would support an approach that differentiates between say tongue depressors and how often those facilities are inspected versus, say, cardiac pacemakers. We recognize 

that there is a difference in— 

Mr. DEAL. A risk level? 

Ms. GADHIA. I don’t know if I would go as far as saying a risk 

assessment basis, but we recognize the differences of different 

types of devices. 

Mr. DEAL. OK. My time is up. Thank you. 

Mr. PALLONE. The gentlewoman from Illinois. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Bailey, you 

were talking about the large number of personal care products that 

are used. I was told you said something like billions? I mean, there 

are a lot. I use a lot of them myself. And you said that of that number, only 200 adverse events were reported. First of all, where 

would they be reported? 

Ms. BAILEY. I am talking about to FDA, and this is a number 

that has remained fairly consistent over any number of years. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. OK. Do you really think that that is the extent 

of adverse effects? Do you think it is representative of a true number? 

Ms. BAILEY. We do because in fact, adverse events are very rare 

with these products because they are inherently safe. And let me 

also point out that OTC cosmetics, for example, sunscreens, antiperspirants, anti-dandruff shampoos that have an active ingredient 

163 

are regulated. It is over the counter, drugs are, and those adverse 

reactions would be reported to the drug side of FDA on a mandatory basis. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Well, none of the research—does anybody else 

want to comment on that, that the 200 represents in fact a reasonable assessment of adverse reactions? Ms. Houlihan? 

Ms. HOULIHAN. Thank you, Representative. It is an absolute underestimate because adverse event reporting is not mandatory, and 

the GAO found that companies that experience the most serious effects from their products may be disinclined to report voluntarily, 

and until we have mandatory reporting, we won’t see the full scope. 

I will just give you one example is that fragrance in personal care 

products is considered one of the top allergens in the world, and 

we are certainly not seeing all allergic reactions to fragranced personal care products reported to FDA’s database. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Yeah, I would really caution against using 

that number. I mean, even when there are adverse effects, so few 

people actually end up reporting at all. But are you aware, Ms. 

Bailey, of any studies that have been done on the lifetime effects 

of your company’s products? Do we know how safe it is to use any 

one personal care product over the course of a person’s life, every 

single day? 

Ms. BAILEY. In fact, companies are obligated to substantiate the 

safety of individual ingredients and the safety of the product before 

it is marketed, and those assessments taken into account the 

knowledge that these products were used in combination with other 

products and may be used over the lifetime. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. OK. I have other questions that I wanted to 

ask. Ms. Houlihan, in your testimony you state the cosmetics industry review only 11 percent of the ingredients or 1,400 out of the 

12,500. And you go on to say that at this pace, it will require twoand-a-half centuries to review all the products, assuming nothing 

new is introduced. So what can we do to reduce this timeframe of 

two-and-a-half centuries for reviewing the safety of these ingredients? 

Ms. HOULIHAN. Well, clearly, one thing we need is a consistent 

safety standard and a law that would mandate pre-market safety 

testing of cosmetic ingredients and products before they go on the 

market, and that testing could be done by manufacturers. It should 

be public, it should be reviewed by FDA, and with so many ingredients on the market, one thing that can be considered is a 

prioritization system that would target first ingredients that might 

pose the highest risk, that would cross the placenta would be a risk 

to developing children that are known or suspected hazardous 

chemicals. But we certainly need to see the pace picked up to have 

an assurance that products on the market are safe. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And I wonder if anybody wants to comment on 

this. The European Union has required cosmetics companies to remove reproductive toxins, mutagens and carcinogens from personal 

care products and now bans 1,100 chemicals from the personal care 

products due to serious adverse effects, cancer, birth defects, reproductive problems, and just 9 chemicals, not 900 or 90, but 9 chemicals are banned from cosmetics in the United States. How do we 

account for this difference and does that mean that personal care 

164 

product consumers are at risk in the United States? Why has the 

E.U. banned 1,100 and we only nine? How do we explain that? 

Ms. BAILEY. Well, in fact, the list of chemicals that you are referring to includes many ingredients that aren’t even used in cosmetics either in Europe or in the United States. The reality is in 

the United States and Europe, there is the same principle that a 

company must substantiate the safety of its product before it is put 

on the— 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. How do we get the—OK. So what do we subtract? 

Ms. BAILEY. Yes, and so if there is an ingredient that has been 

proven under a peer-reviewed science-based basis to cause cancer 

or be a toxin and cannot be substantiated for safety, it cannot be 

included in a finished product. And FDA has the authority to ban 

certain ingredients any time it wants to. It has a list. The CIR 

findings are peer reviewed, published in peer-reviewed journals, 

and there is a substantial body of science in the United States behind every ingredient that is included in a finished product. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. How do we get that big difference? Does anybody want to speak to that? It would seem like even if we don’t use 

all those, that it is not explained sufficiently. 

Ms. HOULIHAN. What has happened in the United States is that 

for the past three decades we have had a voluntary industry system for evaluating ingredient safety, and FDA has stepped back 

and let that be the de facto safety standard in the United States. 

And one of the major problems is yes, there is a requirement in the 

law that ingredients and products be substantiated for safety, but 

there is no definition or guidance that FDA has provided to industry for what that means. And so when we look at ingredients that 

are on the market here in the United States, we see one in five 

products contain ingredients of chemicals linked to cancer. We see 

60 percent of all products contain estrogenic chemicals that can 

cause hormone problems, we find lead contamination in lipstick 

and cancer-causing impurities in baby products and in natural 

products. So companies are making very different decisions about 

what is safe enough to sell because they don’t have FDA guidance 

on the issue. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. My time is more than expired. 

Thank you. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, and the bells have run for our votes, 

so I guess we just finished up in time to go to the floor. And I just 

wanted to thank all of you again. As you know and I said before, 

you have the discussion draft and it is still a work in progress, and 

so we may very well get back to you with additional questions or 

comments as we move forward to a markup. If we get additional 

questions submitted in writing, they will be submitted within the 

next 10 days and then we will get back to you so that you can 

hopefully answer them. 

Thank you again. This is a very important issue, and this concludes our third and final hearing on the discussion draft. And 

without objection, this meeting of the Subcommittee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:15 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

165 

STATEMENT OF HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS

I thank Chairman Pallone and Ranking Member Deal for today’s hearing and applaud Chairman Dingell, Ranking Member Barton, and my colleagues for these 

much needed efforts to protect the American public from unsafe products manufactured outside of the United States. 

I find it interesting that in 2006, FDA-regulated manufacturers of medical devices 

sold $110 billion dollars worth of medical device products. Medical device imports 

to the United States have steadily increased since 2005. In 2007, the U.S. imported 

roughly $1.5 billion dollars worth of medical devices. The domestic cosmetic industry 

is also doing well and increasing use of foreign ingredients. The cosmetic industry 

has annual U.S. sales which are now exceeding $62 billion, according to current 

FDA figures. World imports have lifted the U.S. economy and supports U.S. jobs. 

But it hasn’t lifted all boats and may be responsible for sinking a few, since lives 

were lost because of bad products. We should proceed with caution. It’s also unfortunate that the FDA can’t keep pace with globalization and is not having success with 

two databases that supply inconsistent information about foreign manufacturers. 

FDA inspections of class 2 foreign manufactured medical devices, or mid-level risks 

devices, happen once in 27 years, but for class 3 medical devices that pose the greatest risks, the FDA inspects about every 6 years. Clearly, these inspection times are 

inadequate and do not come near what the U.S. has set as the bar for domestic 

standards. 

Today, I hope to hear more about user fees, third party certification and use of 

international standards organizations for product certification and inspections. I 

hope we are taking small business considerations into account, as well. I remain 

open to solutions and am committed to working with this committee, the administration, the industry, our foreign trade partners, consumers, and the public to get 

the FDA fully functional and actively protecting the safety of the American public. 

I thank the chairman and yield back. 

166 

167 

168 

169 

170 

171 

172 

173 

174 

175 

176 

177 

178 

179 

180 

181 

182 

183 

184 

185 

186 

187 

188 

189 

190 

191 

192 

193 

194 

195 

196 

197 

198 

199 

200 

201 

202 

203 

204 

205 

206 

207 

208 

209 

210 

211 

212 

213 

214 

215 

216 

217 

218 

219 

220 

221 

222 

223 

224 

225 

226 

227 

228 

229 

230 

231 

232 

233 

234 

Æ