EXAMINING THE CURRENT STATE OF COSMETICS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 27, 2012 

Serial No. 112–132 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

EXAMINING THE CURRENT STATE OF COSMETICS 

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

78–079 PDF 2013

EXAMINING THE CURRENT STATE OF COSMETICS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 27, 2012 

Serial No. 112–132 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

Vice Chairman 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

Ranking Member 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

Chairman Emeritus 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

Chairman 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

Vice Chairman 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex officio) 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

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

of Pennsylvania, opening statement ................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3 

Hon. Leonard Lance, a Representative in Congress from the State of New 

Jersey, opening statement ................................................................................... 4 

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

New Jersey, opening statement .......................................................................... 4 

Hon. Janice D. Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Illinois, opening statement .............................................................................. 6 

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

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

Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, opening statement ............................................................................. 8 

WITNESSES

Michael M. Landa, Director, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, 

Food and Drug Administration ........................................................................... 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 12 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 169 

Halyna Breslawec, Chief Scientist and Executive Vice President for Science, 

Personal Care Products Council ......................................................................... 109 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 112 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 181 

Peter Barton Hutt, Senior Counsel, Covington & Burling, LLP ......................... 118 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 120 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 519 

Curran Dandurand, Chief Executive Officer and Co-Founder, Jack Black, 

LLC ........................................................................................................................ 126

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 128 

Deborah May, President and Chief Executive Officer, Wholesale Supplies 

Plus, Inc. ............................................................................................................... 135 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 137 

Michael J. DiBartolomeis, Chief, California Safe Cosmetics Program, California Department of Public Health ................................................................... 144 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 147 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 521 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Statement, dated March 27, 2012, of Anne-Marie Faiola, Chief Executive 

Officer, Bramble Berry, Inc., submitted by Ms. Schakowsky ........................... 28 

Letter, dated March 25, 2012, from Jennifer Arce of Vista, California, to 

Mr. Upton and Mr. Waxman, submitted by Ms. Schakowsky .......................... 29 

Letter, dated March 26, 2011 [sic], from Janet Nudelman, Legislative Director, Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, to Ms. Schakowsky, submitted by Ms. 

Schakowsky .......................................................................................................... 36 

Letters, dated January 26, 2012, to March 8, 2012, from hair stylists to 

Dr. Linda Katz, submitted by Ms. Schakowsky ................................................ 41 

Letter, dated March 27, 2012, from Jamie Silberberger, National Coordinator, 

National Healthy Nail and Beauty Salon Alliance, to Mr. Upton and Mr. 

Waxman, submitted by Ms. Schakowsky ........................................................... 80 

Abstract, undated, ‘‘Overview of Research on Chemicals Included in Cosmetics 

and Potential Health Risks,’’ The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, submitted 

by Ms. Schakowsky .............................................................................................. 84 

Page

IV 

Statement, dated March 24, 2012, of Personal Care Truth, submitted by 

Mr. Pitts ................................................................................................................ 162 

Statement, dated March 23, 2012, of Indie Beauty Network, submitted by 

Mr. Pitts ................................................................................................................ 164 

Statement, dated March 23, 2012, of Handcrafted Soapmakers Guild, Inc., 

submitted by Mr. Pitts ......................................................................................... 166 

(1) 

EXAMINING THE CURRENT STATE OF 

COSMETICS 

TUESDAY, MARCH 27, 2012 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:15 a.m., in room 

2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joe Pitts (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Pitts, Shimkus, Blackburn, 

Gingrey, Latta, Lance, Guthrie, Barton, Pallone, Towns, 

Schakowsky, Markey, and Waxman (ex officio). 

Staff present: Clay Alspach, Counsel, Health; Debbee Keller, 

Press Secretary; Ryan Long, Chief Counsel, Health; Carly 

McWilliams, Legislative Clerk; Andrew Powaleny, Deputy Press 

Secretary; Heidi Stirrup, Health Policy Coordinator; Phil Barnett, 

Democratic Staff Director; Alli Corr, Democratic Policy Analyst; 

Eric Flamm, FDA Detailee; Elizabeth Letter, Democratic Assistant 

Press Secretary; Karen Nelson, Democratic Deputy Committee 

Staff Director for Health; and Rachel Sher, Democratic Senior 

Counsel. 

Mr. PITTS. This subcommittee will come to order. The Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

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

OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Cosmetics are regulated by FDA under the Federal Food, Drug, 

and Cosmetic Act, FFDCA, of 1938. The FFDCA forbids the introduction of adulterated or misbranded cosmetics into interstate commerce and provides for seizure, criminal penalties and other enforcement authorities for violations of the Act. 

The Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, the FPLA, also requires 

cosmetics to carry an ingredient declaration to help consumers 

make informed purchasing decisions. 

Unlike other products regulated by FDA, however, such as drugs, 

medical devices and biologics, most cosmetic products and ingredients are not subject to FDA premarket approval. Instead, cosmetic 

manufacturers are largely responsible for substantiating the safety 

of their products and ingredients before they go to market. 

Currently, cosmetic facilities can register with FDA on a voluntary basis, but FDA cannot compel them to do so. While FDA 

has the authority under FFDCA to enter and inspect cosmetic manVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:23 Jun 21, 2013 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-13~2\112-13~1 WAYNE
2 

ufacturing facilities, the industry does not pay user fees for this 

purpose. 

According to a June 2010 study by PriceWaterhouseCoopers, the 

personal care or cosmetics industry is responsible for 2.8 million 

jobs in the United States, and small businesses create the vast majority of these positions. 

For the past several years, the industry and members of both 

parties have been reviewing FDA’s regulatory authority over these 

products. One issue under review is the need for a national uniform standard for cosmetic products and preemption of State legislation. 

I want to welcome each of our witnesses today, and I hope you 

can share your perspectives on several matters, including what deficiencies, if any, you currently see in FDA’s regulatory authority 

over cosmetics; what new authorities, if any, do you believe FDA 

needs in this area; and if new authorities are needed, what will be 

the impact on small businesses across the country? 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pitts follows:] 

3 


78079.001
4 

Mr. PITTS. I would yield the balance of my time to Mr. Lance. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LEONARD LANCE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

The personal care product industry employs over 2.8 million 

Americans including over 176,000 in the State of New Jersey, the 

State where I am from. Their products generate over $30 billion in 

sales annually including a trade surplus of $5 billion in the last reported year, 2006. 

As the chairman has said, personal care products have been regulated by the FDA since 1938 with the enactment of the Federal 

Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act and that the law prohibits the introduction of adulterated or misbranded cosmetics into interstate commerce and provides for seizure, criminal penalties and other enforcement authorities for violations of the Act. Additionally, the 

Fair Packaging and Labeling Act requires an ingredient declaration 

for cosmetics so consumers might make informed purchasing decisions. These products are among the safest regulated by the FDA, 

and the agency has strong authority to regulate cosmetics. There 

is also a panel for cosmetic ingredient review, which was established in 1976 with the support of the FDA and the Consumer Federation of America. This panel is dedicated to a thorough and continuing review of cosmetic ingredient safety and is both independent and nonprofit and helps ensure the safety of cosmetics. 

Despite these standards, there does not exist a national standard 

for ingredients in cosmetic and personal care products. I believe a 

uniform standard for cosmetic ingredients would serve to enhance 

public health so long as it is based on sound science and rigorous 

safety standards. In doing so, we would ensure that the interstate 

flow of personal care products would not be disrupted by differing 

State standards. We need preemption in this area. 

I look forward to hearing from the panels as we discuss this important issue, and Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes the 

ranking member of the Subcommittee on Health, Mr. Pallone, for 

5 minutes for an opening statement. 

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

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Chairman Pitts. I appreciate your willingness to hold today’s hearing on the current state of cosmetic regulation. In fact, I welcome it because our subcommittee has had 

limited opportunity to examine cosmetics and their use in any substantive manner. 

Cosmetics like other products regulated by the FDA are used extensively throughout the United States by all types of people, men, 

women and children of all ages. According to the Personal Care 

Products Council, every day millions of consumers around the 

world rely on personal care products from moisturizers, lipsticks 

and fragrances to sunscreens, soaps and toothpaste. These products 

5 

have become an ordinary and in most instances habitual part to 

our lifestyles. Each of us in this room likely woke up today and 

used up to a dozen cosmetic products before arriving at work, 

which we will repeat day after day for the rest of our lives. From 

simply shampooing our hair to using complex-formula lotions that 

claim to improve the appearance of our wrinkles, cosmetics are a 

part of our lives. 

Meanwhile, these products are in such demand that there are entire retail stores dedicated to their sales so it is no surprise to me 

when I hear that the industry generates more than $250 billion in 

annual retail sales. However, what was surprising to hear was that 

the FDA has little, if any, authority over these everyday products 

and they certainly have little ability to ensure that the products 

are safe for the American consumers’ use. 

Now, no moisturizing lotion is going to kill me if I rub it on my 

skin, hopefully, but it could create a debilitating rash or have a 

longer-term health effect as a result of everyday multiple use. So 

these products are not high risk but they are by no means riskfree. So that is why I joined with my colleague and friend, Mr. Dingell, to introduce the Cosmetic Safety Enhancement Act of 2012, 

which is modeled after the Food Safety Modernization Act, to help 

address the lack of authority at the FDA to regulate cosmetics or 

actively ensure that cosmetic products are safe, and I believe it is 

important that consumers have a level of certainty about the products they are buying and using, and that if anything alarming were 

to come to light about one of these products, FDA would have the 

capability to respond accordingly. 

Specifically, I am concerned that the FDA has no knowledge of 

the domestic and foreign facilities operating in the marketplace 

that are manufacturing cosmetic products. Currently, FDA runs a 

voluntary program but that is of course incomplete. Our bill would 

require an annual registration for all companies along with a fee 

to help maintain that activity. The bill also gives FDA a number 

of new authorities to put in place, a comprehensive oversight program within the agency. It includes an annual listing of a company’s products, demonstration by the company of a cosmetic product’s safety, serious adverse-event reporting requirements, Good 

Manufacturing Practices for cosmetic facilities, and FDA recall authority. I hope that our bill can serve as a starting point to discussions moving forward as we look to address any further cosmetic 

regulations. 

Now, I know there are other approaches to regulating cosmetics, 

but what is clear from all perspectives is that FDA doesn’t have the 

authority it needs to properly monitor an industry that touches 

nearly every American consumer, and I believe it is time that Congress fix that problem. I hope that my colleagues on both sides of 

the aisle will continue to work with me in a productive manner to 

produce a fair, balanced and, most importantly, practical product 

that we can all support. 

And again, I want to thank the witnesses that are joining us 

today. I look forward to continuing to work with all of them and 

the stakeholders to ensure we have a strong system in place to regulate and monitor the safety of our cosmetics. 

6 

Mr. PALLONE. I would like to yield the remainder of my time to 

Congresswoman Schakowsky, who has also been a leader on this 

issue. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you very much for yielding, Mr. 

Pallone. 

The fact is this: Cosmetics contain ingredients that can cause 

cancer, mutate cellular structure and cause reproductive and developmental harm. Industry claims that these ingredients are present 

at such low doses that they aren’t a problem, but men, women and 

children are exposed every day to dozens or hundreds of ingredients in their shampoos, cologne, makeup, lotions and other products. We have to consider the cumulative effect of exposure. 

Any bill this committee considers needs to include as the 

Schakowsky-Markey-Baldwin Safe Cosmetic Act does the following 

elements: one, strong safety standards that ban carcinogens, 

mutagens and reproductive toxins; two, full ingredient disclosure 

and labeling—consumers simply have a right to know what is in 

their products; and three, mandatory recall authority for the FDA. 

There are certainly other important elements but I wanted to mention those. I think today’s testimony will underscore the need for 

these provisions as well as the complexity of this industry and the 

need for thorough consideration of any legislation making changes 

to cosmetics regulations, and I yield back to Mr. Pallone. 

Mr. PITTS. And Mr. Pallone yields back. The Chair thanks the 

gentleman and now recognizes the chair emeritus of the full committee, Mr. Barton, for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BARTON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Chairman Pitts. 

If you want to know the value of cosmetics, look no further than 

myself. I have a 6-year-old son, and he told me the other day that 

I was more wrinkly than former President Bush. We had seen 

President Bush, and he said Daddy, you are more wrinkly. Yet 

when I am on TV after I have been made up by the makeup artists 

at Fox or CNN or C–SPAN or one of the local television stations, 

he always tells me how good I look. I am a walking testimony to 

the value of cosmetics. 

This is an important hearing, not because of the controversial aspect of it but because of the potential mischief that could occur 

from it. I would caution my friends on the Republican side of the 

aisle to be careful what we ask for. We just heard Congressman 

Lance’s comments that we need a uniform standard, and I know 

that he says that with great sincerity, but we also just heard Congresswoman Schakowsky talk about a list of items that must be included in any legislation. We have an industry that is a $50 billion 

to $60 billion-a-year business, and if there are health problems that 

are occurring because of that business, I don’t know what they are. 

I have not heard of any health issues that resulted from the application of cosmetics, and when I read what the industry practices 

7 

are today and what the various voluntary groups are that work 

with the FDA, it would seem to me that we have got a system that 

is working. 

What seems to be driving this train is that some States are beginning to adopt State regulatory issues that make it difficult for 

the industries that sell, the businesses that sell, the companies 

that sell across State lines and operate in some of those States. I 

would think that the way to address that would be to work with 

each of the State legislatures rather than to have a national standard because make no mistake, if we give the FDA new authority, 

they are going to use it, and if we give the FDA user fee authority, 

they are going to expand upon it. I mean, it is almost a law of nature that if you give a Federal agency more authority, they use it 

and expand it, and if you give them more revenue, they consume 

it and then come back for more. At this stage, it seems to be somewhat benign but the longer we go, the further we go down the trail, 

the more cumbersome can be. I f you look at the user fee issue for 

medical devices that is currently before either the subcommittee or 

the full committee, the amount of user fees they are requesting has 

doubled from what it was in the last reauthorization period. 

So Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that you are doing the hearing. We have an industry that is competitive internationally, that 

is accepted domestically, that creates tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of jobs. One of the biggest in the world is located not in my district but near my district, Mary Kay Cosmetics, 

and I see those little pink cars everywhere I go from the women, 

primarily women, that are self-employed and have created thriving, 

independent businesses with their entrepreneurship and their hard 

work. 

So if it is not broke, don’t fix it. We certainly can have hearings 

and develop a record, but just as when I was a younger Congressman, I was campaigning in an area that was not known to be supportive of Republicans, and I knocked on this man’s door and I 

said, ‘‘I am Joe Barton. I am running for Congress. Will you vote 

for me?,’’ and he said, ‘‘Are you a Republican or a Democrat?,’’ and 

I said, ‘‘I am a Republican.’’ He said, ‘‘I am a Democrat,’’ and he 

said, ‘‘Are you a Dallas Cowboy fan or a Houston Oiler fan?’’—that 

is how long ago it was—and I said, ‘‘Well, I am a Cowboy fan.’’ He 

said, ‘‘I am an Oiler fan.’’ And finally he said, ‘‘Are you a Texas 

Aggie or a Texas Longhorn?,’’ and I said, ‘‘I am a Texas Aggie,’’ and 

he said, ‘‘I am a Texas Longhorn.’’ So I said, ‘‘Well, will you vote 

for me?,’’ and he said, ‘‘Son, I wouldn’t vote for you if you were the 

only one on the ballot.’’ So I went back to the car and my aide said, 

‘‘How do we put that voter down?,’’ and I said, ‘‘Undecided.’’ 

So Mr. Chairman, put me down as undecided, but I am going to 

listen with an open mind, and if we can get an agreement that 

doesn’t give too much authority to the FDA, I am a possible. With 

that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes the 

ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Waxman, for 5 minutes 

for an opening statement. 

8 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

We are all very familiar with cosmetic products. In fact, most 

Americans use cosmetic products multiple times every day. We 

apply lotions to our skin, we wash our hair—when we have it— 

using shampoos, and we brush our teeth using toothpaste. 

But most Americans probably do not realize just how little oversight the FDA, which is charged with ensuring the safety of these 

products, actually has exercised over them. Cosmetics companies 

are not required to register their facilities or let FDA know they 

even exist. Cosmetic companies are not required to report cosmeticrelated injuries to the FDA or to let FDA know what ingredients 

are in their products. FDA doesn’t even have the ability to recall 

these products if they are found to be unsafe. To illustrate just how 

small FDA’s role in cosmetics oversight truly is, it is worth noting 

that FDA’s cosmetics program is staffed by just 53 people, only 14 

of whom focus primarily on cosmetics, compared to the well over 

3,000 staff that make up FDA’s drug review program. 

When it comes to cosmetics, we are essentially in a buyers beware mode. For the most part, this may not be a problem, and because of this fact, many argue that there is no need for comprehensive regulation of cosmetics. Cosmetics are not ingested like foods 

or drugs or implanted like medical devices. Yet we know there are 

some cosmetics that contain harmful ingredients. Some lipsticks 

were found to contain lead, a known reproductive toxin. Certain 

hair products have been shown to contain formaldehyde, a known 

carcinogen. Even some baby shampoos were found to have carcinogens in them. 

There can be a distinction between ingesting a carcinogen and 

applying it to our skin. But what we do not know is what effect 

repeated, long-term exposure to these chemicals on our skin might 

have. We know that some toxins, such as the mercury recently 

found in a number of face creams, are readily absorbed through the 

skin. 

We should all be united in a goal of ensuring that the cosmetics 

we use, often on a daily basis, are safe. The difficulty will be in 

coming to an agreement on how to do this. Although there are 

many issues we need to resolve, I would hope we could all agree 

that some basic concepts should be embodied in any cosmetics program. Cosmetics companies should be required to register with the 

FDA, comply with good cosmetics manufacturing practices, demonstrate the safety of their products, provide adequate information 

to consumers about the ingredients in their products, and report 

cosmetics-related injuries to FDA. FDA should have the authority 

to recall unsafe cosmetics, and FDA should have adequate resources to oversee the cosmetics marketplace, which, in this budget 

climate, means industry should be required to chip in by paying 

fees. 

Most important, States should be free to supplement whatever 

Federal program we put in place so they can protect their own citizens from unsafe cosmetics. California, for example, has a safe cosmetics law that requires manufacturers to notify the State public 

9 

health authorities if their products are known to contain ingredients that could cause cancer, birth defects, or reproductive harm. 

California has a very reasonable and balanced law that explicitly 

protects from public disclosure protected trade secret information. 

It is the kind of State initiative that we ought to keep in place, especially if California has a strong law and the Federal Government 

will have a weak one. That is not a case for preemption, that is 

a case for letting States also operate in this sphere. 

As with many of the other proposals we have considered in the 

context of user fee reauthorizations, the issue of cosmetics reform 

is an important one that we need to address on a bipartisan basis. 

If we can’t do this in time to add cosmetic provisions to the fastmoving user fee bill, we should consider cosmetic reform separately. I would strongly oppose the addition of a cosmetics bill to 

the user fee package if we are not able to come to full agreement 

on its parameters. 

I want to close by saying how glad I am that we have Dr. Michael DiBartolomeis here today to talk about the success of the 

California program and what we can learn from it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

We have two panels this morning. We will call our first witness 

to the witness table. Our first panel will have just one witness, Mr. 

Michael Landa, Director of the Center for Food Safety and Applied 

Nutrition at the FDA. We are happy to have you with us today, 

Mr. Landa, and you are recognized for 5 minutes, if you can summarize your testimony. Your written testimony will be entered into 

the record. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL M. LANDA, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR 

FOOD SAFETY AND APPLIED NUTRITION, FOOD AND DRUG 

ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. LANDA. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I am Michael Landa, Director of the Center 

for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition at the Food and Drug Administration. I am pleased to be here today to discuss FDA’s oversight of cosmetics. 

Every day across the country, Americans use a wide variety of 

cosmetic products including shampoos, perfumes, hair colors and 

makeup. These consumers expect their cosmetics and the wide variety of individual ingredients in these products to be safe. FDA 

plays a critical role in ensuring that the Nation’s cosmetics are 

among the safest in the world. 

In my testimony today, I will describe FDA’s current authorities 

and activities to oversee the safety of cosmetics, the challenges we 

face due to changes in the industry and the increasingly global 

marketplace, and the new authorities the Administration is seeking 

to strengthen FDA’s regulatory oversight of cosmetics. 

Cosmetic firms are responsible for substantiating the safety of 

their products and ingredients before marketing. However, they are 

not required to submit safety substantiation data to the agency. In 

general, except for color additives and those ingredients which are 

prohibited or restricted from use in cosmetics by regulation, a manufacturer may use any ingredient in a cosmetic, provided the ingreVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:23 Jun 21, 2013 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-13~2\112-13~1 WAYNE
10 

dient does not adulterate the finished cosmetic and the finished 

cosmetic is properly labeled. If manufacturers do not remove dangerous products from the market once a safety concern emerges, 

the agency can pursue enforcement actions against violative products or against firms or individuals who violate the law. 

Regulations are in place that specify the labeling requirements 

for cosmetics. These requirements include, for example, the name 

and place of business of the manufacturer, packer or distributor, 

material facts about the product and directions for safe use, if they 

are needed, and a list of ingredients. Cosmetic product labels are 

not required to provide information on how consumers or health 

care professionals can report adverse events, and such reporting is 

not required. However, FDA has long encouraged cosmetics manufacturers and distributors to report adverse events on a voluntary 

basis. 

FDA also encourages companies to register their establishments 

through the Voluntary Cosmetic Registration Program and file cosmetic product ingredient statements with the agency. However, 

there is no requirement in the statute for firms to do either. The 

agency established this program and the cosmetic product ingredient statement program to gain more information about cosmetics 

that are being manufactured and marketed to consumers in this 

country. This information enhances FDA’s ability to identify potentially unsafe ingredients and finished products and to provide safety information to consumers. However, we estimate that only onethird of cosmetics manufacturers voluntarily file cosmetic product 

ingredient statements for their products with the agency. 

I would now like to discuss some of the challenges we have been 

facing. During the past several years, Americans have seen a dramatic increase in the number and types of cosmetic ingredients in 

products on the market. Over 8 billion personal care products are 

sold annually in the United States. Cosmetic products and ingredients are also entering the country from a growing number of other 

countries. From fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2010, the number of 

cosmetics imports has nearly doubled. 

To help address this challenge, FDA and its counterparts in the 

European Union, Canada and Japan established a forum in 2007 

to exchange ideas and better align practices for maintaining global 

consumer protections in the cosmetics arena. The forum, known as 

the International Cooperation on Cosmetics Regulation, meets annually to discuss topics of mutual interest in which cooperation 

may be possible. The FDA is holding a public meeting on May 15 

in advance of the annual meeting in July to solicit information 

from interested parties. 

In addition to the challenges posed by an increasingly global 

marketplace, the cosmetic industry is rapidly undergoing significant changes as the technologies used in manufacturing become increasingly sophisticated and the ingredients more complex. For example, the use of nanotechnology may result in cosmetic products 

or ingredients with different chemical or physical properties than 

their counterparts that do not contain nanomaterials. 

In response to these challenges and to ensure adequate oversight 

of cosmetics, the fiscal year 2013 President’s budget request includes new legislative authority for FDA to require domestic and 

11 

foreign cosmetics manufacturers to register with the agency and 

pay an annual registration fee. The user fees would support FDA’s 

cosmetics program and are estimated to generate $19 million in 

new resources. The product ingredient and facility information submitted with registration would expand FDA’s information about the 

industry and better enable it to develop necessary guidance and 

safety standards. It would also enable the agency to identify and 

address research gaps, for example, about the safety of novel ingredients. Specifically, the agency would conduct the following activities with the new user fee resources: establish and maintain a 

mandatory cosmetic registration program; acquire, analyze, and 

apply scientific data and information from a variety of sources to 

set U.S. cosmetics safety standards; maintain a strong U.S. presence in international standard-setting efforts; provide education, 

outreach, and training to industry and consumers, and refine inspection and sampling of domestic imported products and apply 

risk-based approaches to postmarket monitoring of domestic and 

imported products. Overall, the new authority for registration and 

user fees would strengthen FDA’s ability to product American consumers from potentially unsafe cosmetic products or ingredients. 

In conclusion, FDA is committed to ensuring the safety of cosmetics used by consumers across the United States. The agency 

will continue to work closely with all its partners on a wide variety 

of issues important to ensuring cosmetic safety. As Congress considers potential steps to address these issues, we look forward to 

working with you. 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss FDA’s activities to ensure the safety of cosmetics, and I would be happy to answer any 

questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Landa follows:] 

12 


78079.002
13 


78079.003
14 


78079.004
15 


78079.005
16 


78079.006
17 


78079.007
18 


78079.008
19 


78079.009
20 


78079.010
21 


78079.011
22 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thanks the gentleman, and I will begin the 

questioning and recognize myself for that purpose. 

First, on Cosmetic Ingredient Review, I understand that the Cosmetic Ingredient Review is an important part of ensuring cosmetic 

safety and that industry participates in the CIR along with consumer groups and FDA. Can you describe briefly the composition 

and activities of the Cosmetic Ingredient Review panel and what 

is FDA’s role in the CIR? 

Mr. LANDA. FDA is a participant. It does not vote. The membership is principally supplied by industry. It is a wide range of expertise in various disciplines, and reviews ingredients as they are 

brought to the attention of the CIR for possible safety problems, 

brought to CIR’s attention either by FDA or by industry or by FDA. 

Mr. PITTS. Have you ever questioned the objectivity of the Cosmetic Ingredient Review panel? Have there been instances where 

the FDA has disagreed with a CIR recommendation? 

Mr. LANDA. I’m not aware of any such instances. I think the 

question one might ask about the CIR is that because it consists 

of members from industry, one might ask about potential conflicts 

of interest, for example, the potential for bias or prejudice. 

Mr. PITTS. Now, I saw the President’s budget request for $19 billion in cosmetic user fees. Hasn’t the agency already received a 

substantial increase in appropriations in recent years and why do 

you need those user fees? 

Mr. LANDA. The agency has received a significant increase over 

the last several years but it still finds itself with a total of about 

50 full-time equivalents to regulate a very large and growing industry. We have little more than a dozen employees who are devoted 

full time to cosmetics regulation. There are other employees in the 

field, for example, who do cosmetics inspections along with engaging in other activities. There are employees who do research but 

not on cosmetics alone. It is a rather small program in light of the 

size of the industry. 

Mr. PITTS. Now, how would small businesses be taken into account in regard to these fees? 

Mr. LANDA. Well, I think the precise sort of nature of the fees, 

whether it would be based on size of the company, gross revenue 

would have to be negotiated, certainly preferably with industry and 

to a successful conclusion. The size of the fees could vary, for example, according to the size of a company or gross revenues. One 

could also consider the possibility of an exclusion altogether for 

companies below a second size or waiver provisions. I think it 

would be important to be flexible in that regard. 

Mr. PITTS. You are asking for new authority in the cosmetic area. 

Give us a little brief background on what authority FDA currently 

has and what new authorities you are asking for. 

Mr. LANDA. FDA’s current authority is principally post market. 

The premarket authority is limited to color additives. It is color additives used in this case, in cosmetics. We have the same authority 

for color additives used, say, in foods or drugs, but in this case, for 

color additives used in cosmetics. Premarket approval of those color 

additives is required. We have the authority to ban ingredients 

when we reach a finding that they are not safe. That is authority 

we exercise through rulemaking. We have the standard enforceVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:23 Jun 21, 2013 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-13~2\112-13~1 WAYNE
23 

ment authorities that have been in the Act since 1938 like seizure 

against product that is misbranded is adulterated, injunction authority to halt shipments of products that are adulterated or misbranded, and there are criminal penalties under the statute for 

having committed a violation by, for example, shipping in interstate commerce and adulterated or misbranded cosmetics. 

Mr. PITTS. And what new authorities are you seeking and why 

are seeking them? 

Mr. LANDA. The request is for mandatory registration for firms 

domestic and foreign because now there is no requirement for firms 

to register with us or for them to tell us about their products or 

about their ingredients. The request also, of course, is for user fees. 

Mr. PITTS. All right. My time is expired. I yield to the ranking 

member 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You asked some of the 

questions I was going to ask, so I just crossed them out but there 

a few things I still wanted to kind of get more clarification on. 

Mr. Landa, in your back and forth with the chairman, you talked 

about the Cosmetics Ingredient Review panel, or CIR. My understanding is that the reviews the CIR conducts and any conclusions 

it draws are not part of any official FDA activity or findings and 

some have proposed a regulatory scheme that would have CIR findings on the safety of ingredients become accepted and enforceable 

by the FDA unless the FDA makes a different determination 

through a process that includes public notice. Many of us have 

some real concerns about that model, so I wanted to ask, would the 

FDA be comfortable with this concept of having the findings of the 

CIR be binding on the FDA? 

Mr. LANDA. As you note, they are not now binding on the agency. 

Mr. PALLONE. I know they are not. 

Mr. LANDA. I think making them binding would raise a number 

of questions. As I indicated earlier, one is that the CIR is composed 

of individuals, experts, to be sure, who are employees of the industry. So I think there is always a question about conflict of interest, 

objectivity, bias, prejudice, that sort of thing. I think having private 

sector determinations be binding on the FDA would be an unprecedented approach to regulation. I think finally, there is probably a 

question, I certainly haven’t explored it, but a question to be asked 

about whether that type of delegation is even lawful, is constitutional. 

Mr. PALLONE. Well, I don’t think it is a good approach to put the 

FDA stamp of approval on what are essentially industry findings 

about the safety of their own products, so I agree with you. 

Then my second area, again, the chairman went into it a little 

bit, in your testimony, you mentioned that FDA encourages cosmetic companies to voluntarily report adverse events to the FDA 

and it encourages voluntary registration. You also mentioned that 

the President’s fiscal year 2013 budget calls for establishment of 

mandatory registration and fees that would cover the registration 

and more analysis based on, among other things, adverse-event reporting. It seems to me that if the FDA were to collect fees and expend resources on these efforts that we would make to make sure 

that they were leveraged to full capacity in ensuring the safety of 

cosmetic products, and I think at a minimum, we would want to 

24 

consider making serious adverse-event reporting mandatory, giving 

the FDA mandatory recall authority and giving the agency more 

authority to understand review the safety of cosmetic ingredients. 

So do you agree that these authorities and activities would be important to creating a more effective safety system for cosmetics? 

Mr. LANDA. Well, of course, the President’s request here is for 

mandatory registration legislation and for user fees. The Administration has not taken a position on any other authorities. I do think 

it would be useful to consider the value of mandatory adverse-reaction reporting and valuable to consider making explicit the establishing of current Good Manufacturing Practice requirements for 

cosmetics. We believe we have that authority but it always helps 

to make it more explicit. And there are probably other authorities 

that would useful to consider and certainly the agency would be 

happy to work with the committee on that. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right. Thanks. I am just trying to get a little 

specific. I know the chairman asked about a small business exemption. You know, Mr. Dingell and I had that in the Food Safety Modernization Act. We had small food processes that made most of 

their sales directly to consumers and have less than $500,000 annual sales were exempted from some of the requirements of the 

Act. Do you believe a similar small business exemption would be 

necessary? Do you want to comment on that a little more about 

what kind of—— 

Mr. LANDA. Perhaps I was unclear. When I was responding to 

the question, I meant to respond to it in the context of user fees 

and to say that in the context of developing a structure for user 

fees, one could tie them to the number of employees, gross revenues, have different fees depending on size. One could also consider 

exclusions altogether for businesses below a certain size as well as 

I think waivers. But my comments were addressed to the effect of 

user fees on small business. 

Mr. PALLONE. So you wouldn’t argue for an exemption from other 

requirements other than user fees? 

Mr. LANDA. Again, the Administration hasn’t taken a position on 

any of these requirements so I don’t really have anything to add 

beyond my observation that I was focused on user fees. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes the 

chair emeritus of the full committee, Mr. Barton, for 5 minutes for 

questions. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am just going to ask 

one or two questions and yield the balance of my time to Congresswoman Blackburn. 

Mr. Waxman in his opening statement seemed almost insulted 

that there were only 53 people at the FDA that dealt with cosmetics. I don’t think that is necessarily a bad thing if things are 

working pretty well. More regulators doesn’t automatically make 

for a better America. 

Where is the fire at the FDA that we have to have these authorities and these user fees? What is the huge problem here that all 

of a sudden we need to enact some sort of additional Federal authority? 

25 

Mr. LANDA. Let me make two observations. The first is that in 

the most recent year for which we have information from a voluntary system, there are several hundred reports of problems and 

I think more than a hundred instances of some harm, and that is 

a voluntary system which I think by definition does not capture the 

universe. The second point I would make, though, is the request 

here is for mandatory registration that would encompass facilities, 

products and ingredients from which we learn about the universe. 

It is pretty clear at the moment we don’t really know how many 

facilities there are, how many products there are, how many ingredients. 

Mr. BARTON. Well, wouldn’t some sort of an increased disclosure 

pretty well handle it? I mean, I cannot imagine any consumer in 

America that would knowingly purchase a cosmetic that had a real 

health issue. I mean, all it takes is one Facebook or one Twitter 

message and that product is deader than a doornail. I mean, why 

increase the regulatory burden if in fact you said hundreds, where 

there are 300 million consumers in America. You know, I guess 

there are probably people that abuse aspirin, take too many aspirin. We don’t take aspirin off the market because of that. 

Mr. LANDA. The hundreds we are talking about, the several hundred I mentioned is in a voluntary system which surely does not 

reflect the total number of complaints. I think this is an area in 

which it is hard to imagine that label disclosure alone would provide adequate protection. People are, it seems to me, unlikely or 

may well be unlikely to know just from reading a label—— 

Mr. BARTON. I am going to yield to Ms. Blackburn because I 

promised her some time, and it is only 2 minutes left, but I don’t 

see a problem here. I really don’t. And if you need another $19 million, do a little internal soul searching and find $19 million in savings out of the hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars that 

the budget of the FDA is. 

With that, I am going to yield the balance of my time to Congresswoman Blackburn. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. And I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Landa, I want to talk to you about one specific product. I 

have been on this issue now for a while, and we have got some cosmetic companies that are out there. They are marketing products 

with the active pharmaceutical ingredients that are used in 

Latisse, and we have written letters, we have tried to get an answer. We would love to get these products off the market because 

they have an active pharmaceutical ingredient. So what else beyond warning letters can the FDA to to prevent these companies 

from marketing pharmaceutical products as cosmetics and why do 

you think the FDA might be so hesitant to take some action on 

these cases? 

Mr. LANDA. Well, if a product—a product can be both a cosmetic 

and a drug, and if it is a drug, by virtue of the uses, its intended 

uses to cure, treat, mitigate disease, for example, it is subject to 

the drug requirements of the Act, typically the New Drug requirements of the Act, meaning that—— 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. But the FDA doesn’t seem to be taking any action, even though this has been brought to their attention and followed forward on. 

26 

Mr. LANDA. Could you give me the name of the product? 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Latisse, and I will be happy to give you additional information. I think that our issue is this. You requested 

funding, so in 2005 the Office of Cosmetics and Colors had been reduced to $3.5 million and 10 FTEs to oversee $11 billion of products sold annually. In 2007, it went to $10 million. And then we 

responded, and FDA’s cosmetic activities were funded in 2012 at 

$11.7 million with 20-plus FTE positions. The concern is this: in 

order to keep the marketplace safe, in order to provide confidence 

to the millions of American women that use cosmetic products and 

also use some products that have active pharmaceutical ingredients 

in them like Latisse, what we want to do is make certain that you 

all are doing the work and carrying forward on this workload. 

So my time is up, and we will give you the appropriate information so that you can give us a written and detailed response, and 

I yield back. 

Mr. LANDA. I will do that. Thank you. 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thanks the gentlelady and recognizes the 

gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Schakowsky, for 5 minutes for questions. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Director Landa, and I want to associate myself with the remarks and 

the questioning, the line of questioning of Congresswoman 

Blackburn that we need to follow up when questions are raised 

about the safety of products. 

How many cosmetic companies are there? 

Mr. LANDA. We don’t have a complete list. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And how many chemical ingredients are used 

to formulate cosmetics? 

Mr. LANDA. We don’t have a complete list. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And how many chemical ingredients have 

been banned for use in cosmetics in the United States? 

Mr. LANDA. I think the number is about a dozen. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Actually, I believe it is 10. And how many 

chemical ingredients have been banned for use in cosmetics in the 

European Union? 

Mr. LANDA. I don’t know. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. That is over 1,200, and you talked about how 

we are working with the European Union to deal with this issue. 

So you might want to look at what they are doing. 

In its 37-year history, the industry-funded Cosmetic Ingredient 

Review panel has reviewed just 11 percent of the 10,500 cosmetic 

ingredients cataloged by FDA. According to a 2004 study by the 

Environmental Working Group, the 89 percent of ingredients that 

remain unassessed are used in more than 99 percent of all cosmetic 

and personal care products on the market used by pregnant 

women, children and the elderly. So what kind of premarket testing and safety substantiation is required by the FDA of cosmetic 

ingredients before they are allowed to go into cosmetic products? 

Mr. LANDA. The statute, setting aside color additives, which I 

mentioned earlier, there is no premarket approval requirement 

that applies to cosmetics. Companies are responsible for ensuring 

that the products they market are safe. We certainly encourage 

them to do testing that is both adequate and appropriate to the 

27 

task but they are not required to submit the results of testing to 

us. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And even of the 10 ingredients that have been 

banned, is there postmarket testing? Does the FDA check and see 

if these ingredients are showing up? 

Mr. LANDA. We do some monitoring. So for example, we have 

found mercury in products offered for import and have prohibited 

their importation. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. So when you check, you have actually found 

those ingredients appearing? 

Mr. LANDA. From time to time, yes. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I wanted to in part respond to Chairman 

Emeritus Barton, that everything is just fine. I wanted to just read 

a portion of a letter from a Jennifer Arce, a salon worker. She said 

‘‘I have loved every minute of my career as a stylist until a product 

called Brazilian Blowout completely changed my life as I knew it. 

The FDA has found hair smoothing products including Brazilian 

Blowout contain between 8.7 and 10.4 percent of the carcinogen 

formaldehyde but these products have been labeled as formaldehyde-free.’’ First of all, let me just ask you this. If they are labeled 

as formaldehyde-free, even though they have formaldehyde, what 

authority do you have to deal with that? 

Mr. LANDA. Such a product would be misbranded, and in fact, we 

wrote—issued a warning letter to a company marketing such a 

product—— 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. But the FDA—— 

Mr. LANDA [continuing]. Citing both safety grounds and the labeling issue you have just alluded to. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Right. But she goes to say, ‘‘The FDA does not 

have mandatory recall authority and could not recall these products, leaving salon workers and consumers at risk.’’ Is that true? 

Mr. LANDA. It is correct that we do not have mandatory recall 

authority. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. So here is what the says, though, ‘‘that when 

clients’ hair is blow dried, flat ironed, curled or is processed under 

the hood dryer, the fumes that come out of her hair upon heating 

make me and several of my coworkers symptomatic all over again. 

Instantly, I get a sore throat, dry mouth, difficulty breathing, dehydrated, a migraine, cough. My tongue gets completely numb, burning and watering eyes, blurred vision, burning lungs. I now get 

scabs on the inside of my nose. I become almost bedridden from 

how raw my throat becomes.’’ She goes on about the inhalers that 

she has to use. ‘‘I am getting sicker and sicker with every exposure. 

It is taking me longer to recover each time. I have never had any 

type of respiratory problem nor have I ever used an inhaler before 

my Brazilian Blowout exposure.’’ 

It just seems to me that when we have the average consumer 

using 10 personal care products—we use them on our children, 

men use them as well—that we need to give the FDA more authority, and I would yield back. But Mr. Chairman, if I could ask for 

unanimous consent to put some documents in the record? 

Mr. PITTS. Without objection, so ordered. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. 

[The information follows:] 

28 


78079.012
29 


78079.013
30 


78079.014
31 


78079.015
32 


78079.016
33 


78079.017
34 


78079.018
35 


78079.019
36 


78079.020
37 


78079.021
38 


78079.022
39 


78079.023
40 


78079.024
41 


78079.025
42 


78079.026
43 


78079.027
44 


78079.028
45 


78079.029
46 


78079.030
47 


78079.031
48 


78079.032
49 


78079.033
50 


78079.034
51 


78079.035
52 


78079.036
53 


78079.037
54 


78079.038
55 


78079.039
56 


78079.040
57 


78079.041
58 


78079.042
59 


78079.043
60 


78079.044
61 


78079.045
62 


78079.046
63 


78079.047
64 


78079.048
65 


78079.049
66 


78079.050
67 


78079.051
68 


78079.052
69 


78079.053
70 


78079.054
71 


78079.055
72 


78079.056
73 


78079.057
74 


78079.058
75 


78079.059
76 


78079.060
77 


78079.061
78 


78079.062
79 


78079.063
80 


78079.064
81 


78079.065
82 


78079.066
83 


78079.067
84 


78079.068
85 


78079.069
86 


78079.070
87 


78079.071
88 


78079.072
89 


78079.073
90 


78079.074
91 


78079.075
92 


78079.076
93 


78079.077
94 


78079.078
95 


78079.079
96 


78079.080
97 


78079.081
98 


78079.082
99 


78079.083
100 


78079.084
101 


78079.085
102 


78079.086
103 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thanks the gentlelady and now recognizes 

the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Latta, for 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Landa, thanks 

very much for being here today. I would like to just ask a couple 

questions this morning. 

The first is, I think that Chairman Emeritus Barton kind of 

asked a little bit on, how many—I think you said there were several hundred reported instances every year of products that—— 

Mr. LANDA. Several hundred in fiscal year 2011, the most recent 

for which we have information. 

Mr. LATTA. And that is what would be reported to FDA? 

Mr. LANDA. Yes. 

Mr. LATTA. Is there any idea how many that are reported in the 

news? Do you follow that at all? 

Mr. LANDA. Not in a way that would permit compilation. 

Mr. LATTA. And the next question is, as I was looking at your 

testimony on page 6 when you are talking about how many cosmetics have been imported from fiscal year 2004 to 2010, it has 

nearly doubled from a million to about 1.9 million imports. Of those 

that are imported, do you see a change in those, that those are 

ones that might have more problems being reported? Do you check 

those? 

Mr. LANDA. We do some monitoring. Obviously with numbers 

like that, the agency cannot even eyeball, much less do much testing. 

Mr. LATTA. When you say monitoring, what do you do? Do you 

have, like, selected products that you just kind of randomly take, 

bring in and check, or how do you do that? 

Mr. LANDA. We will look for products of certain type. We will 

look for certain types of ingredients. I mean, one example, there 

was a problem several years ago with face paint, a product from 

China. It was the kind of product that Boy and Girl Scouts would 

use at various parties. And so that is an example of a type of product we keep an eye out for, there having been a problem with it 

once. 

Mr. LATTA. OK. And then also in the testimony, you also pointed 

out a little bit later that the United States, the European Union, 

Canada and Japan are all kind of in a consortium—would that be 

best way to say it—looking at products? 

Mr. LANDA. And ways of dealing with the industry. So, for example, there is an agreement on looking at a certain international 

standard or a set of principles for current Good Manufacturer Practice regulations. We are trying to reach agreement on ways of reducing animal testing. 

Mr. LATTA. Do other countries adhere to that that aren’t part of 

that consortium? 

Mr. LANDA. I think it varies. 

Mr. LATTA. Are there some countries, again, going back to the 

importation, are there some counties that are making cosmetics 

that you would say would be having more problems than others? 

Mr. LANDA. I think in some cases, we know more about manufacturing so we probably know about manufacturing, for example, in 

western Europe than we do in China or India. 

104 

Mr. LATTA. OK. Again, when these—I guess that kind of goes 

back to the earlier question about looking at the products that are 

coming in that are imported. Are those countries then looked at 

with a keener eye than others? 

Mr. LANDA. We try to do that. 

Mr. LATTA. Any idea how many of those imports come from those 

countries that aren’t part of Japan, European Union, Canada, 

United States? 

Mr. LANDA. I don’t know. I can see—if you like, I can see if we 

can get a handle on that. 

Mr. LATTA. OK. And then also, when you are talking about the 

Voluntary Cosmetic Registration Program, you say that you have 

currently got about 1,600 domestic and foreign registered cosmetic 

establishments. What percentage would that be of overall then that 

would be out there? Is it a very, very small percentage or a large 

percentage? 

Mr. LANDA. I don’t think it is very, very small, but I think the 

answer is, we don’t really know. I mean, I don’t think it is 2 percent but I don’t think we know that it is 35 or 28 or 17. 

Mr. LATTA. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my questioning. I yield 

back. 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes the 

gentleman from New York, Mr. Towns, for 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me thank you, Mr. Landa, for being here to testify today. I 

want to follow up on the question that was sort of raised by Congresswoman Blackburn. I would like for you to just let me know 

exactly what can the FDA do to protect consumers in cases where 

the agency knows that there is a misbranding. What can you do? 

Mr. LANDA. Working through the Department of Justice, we can 

effect a seizure of such a product. Also, again, working through the 

Department of Justice, we can obtain an injunction to prohibit 

manufacture and shipment of the product. There is also—under the 

Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, there are criminal penalties 

so that is another remedy available. 

Mr. TOWNS. So in the event that you are now able to get the user 

fees, you know, what difference would it make? 

Mr. LANDA. I think user fees would help us set safety standards, 

say, for microbiological safety. To the extent we found it necessary, 

it would enable us to focus on ingredient safety. I think it would 

help us establish current Good Manufacturing Practice regulations. 

The process is difficult. It would enable us to have more investigators in the field doing inspections of cosmetic facilities. The fees 

would enable us to do training, to do education, to do outreach and 

to perhaps strengthen the voluntary reporting system. And just a 

word about training. In some ways, for sort of the easy part of this, 

‘‘easy’’ in quotes, is establishing the standards. The hard part is securing compliance, which requires training of investigators but also 

outreach to industry and training and technical assistance because 

the idea is that you want to bring everyone along to comply. It is 

not practical to seek to obtain compliance simply by using the 

standard enforcement tools. 

Mr. TOWNS. Just assuming that you get the user fees as you request, would you also ask for recall authority? 

105 

Mr. LANDA. The Administration has not taken a position on that. 

I think the question there is, what one might want to do is look 

at the utility of that kind of authority in other contexts, I mean, 

before making a judgment about its utility in this context. 

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, on that note, I yield back. 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes the 

gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Lance, for 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for being 

with us, Mr. Landa. 

Congresswoman Blackburn began the discussion, and I would 

like to continue it, regarding the Latisse example, originally used, 

as I understand it, for glaucoma and more recently for enhancement of eyelashes. We know that the pharmaceutical company—I 

believe it is Allergen—did the right thing. It submitted its product 

for appropriate approval with clinical testing data through the 

FDA’s drug approval pathway despite its being costlier and resulting in the products taking longer to reach market. Are you concerned that if the FDA does not adequately prevent the illegal marketing of pharmaceuticals as cosmetics, we will be creating an incentive for companies simply to bring new products to market as 

cosmetics, avoiding the costs and delays associated with the drug 

approval pathway? 

Mr. LANDA. I think that is a possibility, yes. Obviously, it is 

much more expensive to bring a product to market as a drug. It 

entails going through the New Drug Approval process. And I 

should have said earlier, we will get back to you about the question 

that Ms. Blackburn asked. But Latisse, now that I am remembering, is marketed as a drug and not as a cosmetic. 

Mr. LANCE. Correct. And those companies doing the right thing 

are at a market disadvantage with those companies not doing the 

right thing, many of them from abroad. 

Mr. LANDA. If they are marketing as a cosmetic a product that 

is truly a drug, that is correct. 

Mr. LANCE. Yes. 

Mr. LANDA. Claims can make a difference, so depending on the 

nature of the claims, a product may be a cosmetic alone and not 

a cosmetic and a drug. 

Mr. LANCE. Well, thank you. I hope to continue to work with you 

on this issue. I think we need an even playing field, especially for 

the companies that are doing the right thing, American companies, 

in my judgment, and others are not doing the right thing. 

You mentioned an increase in products that are marketed as cosmetics but list ingredients that are themselves drugs or would normally cause the product to be classified as a drug. How does the 

agency handle products that do not list the ingredients in question 

or modify claims in such a way to mask the inclusion of an active 

pharmaceutical ingredient? 

Mr. LANDA. Well, if the ingredient is of the type you have described is not listed, then the product is misbranded. 

Mr. LANCE. Yes. 

Mr. LANDA. The listing of that sort of an ingredient is required. 

Mr. LANCE. And do you take enforcement action in that case? 

106 

Mr. LANDA. We certainly can, ranging from a warning letter at 

the administrative letter to the types of actions I described earlier, 

seizure and—— 

Mr. LANCE. Are we not more likely to continue to see an increase 

in these types of products if the FDA allows products to be illegally 

marketed in this manner? 

Mr. LANDA. I think if companies look at a market and see that 

there is an opportunity that the government is not attending to, 

they are more likely to continue focusing on that market. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you. I think that is certainly accurate and obvious, and I hope to work with the FDA in a way that makes sure 

that we all play by the same rules on an even playing field. I do 

not believe that is the case now, and I respectfully suggest that the 

FDA needs to do a better job in this area, and I look forward to 

working with you and certainly with other members of the subcommittee on this important issue. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes the 

gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, for 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have to be honest with you. I am not a cosmetic expert, and 

I am not going to try to be one, but I do know that, you know, in 

downtown, even in rural America and Main Street America, you 

have beauticians and in the malls you still have a kind of vast 

array of consumer goods and economic activity in this sector. I 

think in your opening testimony, you talked about $60 billion in 

sales per year. Do we know how that is broken down as to large 

versus small businesses and the number of jobs that are in this 

sector? 

Mr. LANDA. I think that information is knowable but I do not 

know it. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Of course, you know, it is the constant debate 

about the balance, and as we want to protect consumer safety, we 

want to also make sure that we are not providing a great disincentive to some of these very small businesses that really rely on the 

cosmetic sector in their own families’ welfare. I mean, it is a very 

vibrant aspect of our economy. 

So let me go to a debate on the whole safety of this cosmetic debate, and I guess one of my concerns was that when we talk about 

the scientific evidence, when the scientific evidence suggests that 

a certain tolerance level be set for a constituent to ensure safety, 

then the scientific evidence would suggest that the tolerance level 

is appropriate for all areas of the country to ensure safety. That is 

a question. If you have scientific evidence, that should be—that 

should apply across the board regardless if you are in—let us pick 

a State like California versus a State like Illinois. Would you agree 

that really the scientific evidence should be the base and that 

should move decision making on the regulatory regime? 

Mr. LANDA. Yes. The only caveat is that sometimes the scientific 

evidence and experts’ opinions of it aren’t completely clear or there 

isn’t a complete consensus. So there may be a view that level X is 

sufficient to provide protection, and there may be another view 

107 

based on the same data that level Y, which is lower or higher than 

level X, is sufficient to provide adequate protection. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And I appreciate that, but I mean, that is why it 

is science and methodology and the scientific method versus opinion. The concern is allowing opinion to rule or overrule what is a 

scientific consensus, and I know you are going to be careful not to 

upset the apple cart here but I am just making that point, you 

know, establishing that, because not just in this sector but we see 

that in other sectors of the Federal Government as the Energy and 

Commerce Committee and the Health Subcommittee. I mean, we 

eventually—people eventually come to us and say please help us 

get to a scientific point in the debate so that there is one standard 

versus 50 different standards. I think the other thing that drives 

me a little bit crazy is when large States might be able to extort 

the private sector based upon their view of what the scientific evidence might be and really change market dynamics on products, 

goods and services. 

Mr. LANDA. The only point I was trying to make about data is 

that different and equally qualified experts applying the same criteria can look at the same data set and reach different conclusions 

about a level that is intended to be protected. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And I am not going to disagree with that. I am 

just going to say in an international market and an interstate commerce clause having a single standard eventually nationally you 

have to make a decision and that decision ought to arrive across. 

You did confirm—excuse me, Mr. Chairman, let me just go on— 

that the current FDA law requires manufacturers to substantiate 

the safety of their products before marketing. You did make that 

statement earlier? 

Mr. LANDA. Yes. The law in effect places on companies the burden to market products that are safe and to not market products 

that are not safe. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thanks the gentleman. That completes the 

questioning for the subcommittee members. We have a member of 

the full committee here who would like to ask questions. Without 

objection, the Chair recognizes the gentleman, Mr. Markey from 

Massachusetts, for 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. 

Most people assume that their favorite beauty and bath products 

have been approved by the FDA before they hit the shelves but 

looks can be deceiving. The products that are labeled purifying, 

cleansing or safe and gentle for baby are among the least regulated 

consumer products on the market. And when you talk about cosmetics, we are talking about men as well. We are talking about 

their shaving cream, their shampoo, their deodorants, their after 

shave, all the way down the list. This is the modern world we live 

in. 

So more than 12,000 unique chemical ingredients are used in 

personal care products. Many of these have been linked to cancer, 

infertility, behavioral problems in children and other chronic conditions. The majority of these have never been assessed for safety in 

cosmetic products by any independent or government body. 

108 

The only Federal agency that has jurisdiction over cosmetic products, the FDA, currently operates with their hands tied. The cosmetics department within FDA operates with only a handful of employees and lacks a significant authority to address these concerns. 

Representative Schakowsky and Representative Baldwin and I 

introduced a bill in the last Congress and then again in this Congress, and we spent the Congress before that doing the research 

and putting the concept together to regulate this area, and I look 

forward to working with my colleagues in order to ensure the safety of all personal care products. 

Mr. Landa, does the FDA have the authority to ensure that products like bubble bath or baby lotion are free from toxic chemicals 

like formaldehyde before they hit the shelves? 

Mr. LANDA. The agency does not have premarket approval authority for cosmetics, as I mentioned earlier. Our premarket approval authority extends only to color additives used in cosmetics. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. If the FDA believed that the level of 

formaldehyde found in a baby bubble bath was harmful, could it require a recall of that product from market shelves? 

Mr. LANDA. It could not under current law. 

Mr. MARKEY. In the 1800s, arsenic was sold by pharmacists everywhere as a soap to rid the skin of liver spots, blotches, wrinkles 

and other signs of aging. It turns out, you never have to worry 

about aging if you rub arsenic on your face every day because arsenic helps you avoid the aging process altogether. If a company 

decided to include arsenic in 2012 as a component of a face cream, 

would they even have to notify the FDA first? 

Mr. LANDA. It would not. 

Mr. MARKEY. It would not? 

Mr. LANDA. Correct. There is no premarket notification requirement. 

Mr. MARKEY. There is no premarket notification to the FDA that 

a company would include arsenic in a face product. Now, if the arsenic was used as a component of a fragrance mixture, would the 

company be required to list arsenic on the product label? 

Mr. LANDA. As a component of a fragrance, it would not. 

Mr. MARKEY. It would not. So that would come, I think, as a 

shock to most people because, you know, we are in a consumer society today where everyone assumes that on the box of cereal or any 

other product which they are going to use for their family that they 

can turn the box around and check it out, see what is in it, but 

arsenic is just not something that would have to be listed because 

the FDA does not have the authority to require that to be disclosed 

to the public, and I think therein lies the problem. Give the public 

the information they need, and once they do, boom, you are going 

to see the changes that are needed. As well, the FDA should be 

able to do what it takes in order to protect the public in this sector. 

So from my perspective, I think, you know, whether it be the 

male or the female in the family, whether it be the baby in the 

family, that everyone has a right to be protected, everyone has a 

right to know what could happen to them because of exposure to 

these chemicals. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the courtesy of being allowed to 

ask these questions. 

109 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

That concludes our questioning for the first panel. The Chair 

would like to thank Mr. Landa for your testimony, your answering 

of questions, and if we have any follow-up questions, we will send 

them to you and ask you to respond. 

Mr. LANDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PITTS. Thank you. 

We will call our second panel to the witness table at this time, 

and I would like to thank all of them for agreeing to testify before 

the subcommittee today, and I would like to quickly introduce our 

expert panel. First, Dr. Halyna Breslawec is the Chief Scientist 

and Executive Vice President for Science for the Personal Care 

Products Council. Mr. Peter Barton Hutt is Senior Counsel at the 

Washington, DC, law firm of Covington & Burling and a lecturer 

on food and drug law at Harvard Law School. Ms. Curran 

Dandurand is the Chief Executive Officer, co-founder and co-owner 

of Jack Black LLC. Ms. Deborah May is the President of Wholesale 

Supplies Plus in Broadview Heights, Ohio. And Dr. Michael 

DiBartolomeis is the Chief of the Occupational Lead Poisoning Prevention Program and California Safe Cosmetics Program for California’s Department of Public Health. 

Again, thank you all for coming. We have your prepared statements, which will be made a part of the record. We ask that you 

summarize your opening statements in 5 minutes. Dr. Breslawec, 

we will begin with you. You are recognized for 5 minutes to summarize your testimony. 

STATEMENTS OF HALYNA BRESLAWEC, CHIEF SCIENTIST AND 

EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT FOR SCIENCE, PERSONAL 

CARE PRODUCTS COUNCIL; PETER BARTON HUTT, SENIOR 

COUNSEL, COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP; CURRAN 

DANDURAND, CO–FOUNDER AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, JACK BLACK, xxLLC; DEBORAH MAY, PRESIDENT AND 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, WHOLESALE SUPPLIES PLUS; 

AND MICHAEL J. DIBARTOLOMEIS, CHIEF, OCCUPATIONAL 

LEAD POISONING PREVENTION PROGRAM AND CALIFORNIA 

SAFE COSMETICS PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

PUBLIC HEALTH 

STATEMENT OF HALYNA BRESLAWEC 

Ms. BRESLAWEC. Chairman Pitts, Ranking Member Pallone and 

distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you on behalf of The Personal Care Products 

Council. My name is Halyna Breslawec. I hold a Ph.D. in medicinal 

chemistry and am the Chief Scientist and Executive Vice President 

for Science for The Personal Care Products Council, the trade association representing more than 600 member companies that manufacture, distribute and supply the vast majority of finished personal 

care products marketed in the United States. 

Prior to joining the council, I spent 14 years at the U.S. Food and 

Drug Administration, worked in the private sector as a medical device consultant, and served as the Deputy Director of the Cosmetic 

Ingredient Review, CIR. 

110 

Cosmetics are among the safest category of products regulated by 

FDA. The safety of our consumers and their families is always the 

number one priority for our industry. Careful and thorough scientific research and development are the most important aspects of 

cosmetic formulation and the foundation for everything that we do. 

The cosmetics industry invests more than $3.6 billion each year on 

research and development and to ensure product safety. Companies 

conduct thorough product safety evaluations using the same 

science-based approaches embedded in FDA, EPA and other regulatory agencies around the world. Numerous health questions are 

addressed, including but not limited to the potential for cancer, reproductive harm and allergy. A complete safety assessment also accounts for who uses the products, how they are used and how often 

they are used over a lifetime. 

The foundation of science-based safety assessment is that any ingredient has a safe range and an unsafe range, whether it is water 

or a vitamin or a newly discovered compound. An ingredient’s safe 

range is defined through many studies. In formulating cosmetics, 

companies choose ingredients that can be used well within their 

safe range and avoid ingredients that cannot be used safely. Once 

a product is in use, companies continue to monitor consumer experience in the marketplace. 

Our industry also supports independent programs to review 

product and ingredient safety. The most significant example is the 

Cosmetic Ingredient Review, or CIR, which was established in 1976 

with support from the FDA and the Consumer Federation of America. Today, CIR is the only scientific program in the world dedicated to a systematic, thorough and continuous review of cosmetic 

ingredient safety in a public forum. The CIR expert panel is an 

independent body of world-renowned physicians and scientists, 

most of whom are affiliated with academic institutions, who assess 

cosmetic ingredient safety data in an open and public manner. The 

FDA, Consumer Federation of America and the council are non-voting members of CIR. CIR has reviewed the safety of more than 

2,400 cosmetic ingredients, some of them specifically at the request 

of FDA. 

Consumers, scientific and medical groups nominate the expert 

panels who must meet strict conflict of interest standards. The expert panel members are not industry employees. CIR maintains a 

completely transparent process. All meetings and safety data are 

open to the members of the public, who can raise issues for consideration by the CIR panel. Their findings are published in the peerreviewed journal, the International Journal of Toxicology. 

We strongly recommend that FDA incorporate the CIR into its 

cosmetic regulatory process by formally recognizing its findings. 

Science and safety are the cornerstones of the cosmetic industry 

and collectively we must remain steadfast in our commitment to 

safety. 

I would like take off my science hat for a minute and say a few 

words about the enormous contributions our industry has in making the U.S. economy stronger, especially how the cosmetic industry plays a unique role in empowering American women both as 

consumers and professionals. Women make up 66 percent of our industry’s workforce and hold more than half of the management poVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:23 Jun 21, 2013 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-13~2\112-13~1 WAYNE
111 

sitions. Our member companies offer women strong entrepreneurial 

opportunities that offer personal growth and economic freedom. 

Chairman Pitts, Ranking Member Pallone, distinguished members of the committee, the cosmetic industry puts consumer safety 

first and we will continue to proactively work to ensure the products we manufacture contribute to the well-being of American consumers. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Breslawec follows:] 

112 


78079.087
113 


78079.088
114 


78079.089
115 


78079.090
116 


78079.091
117 


78079.092
118 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thanks the gentlelady and recognizes Mr. 

Hutt for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF PETER BARTON HUTT 

Mr. HUTT. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Pallone and members of the committee, I am Peter Barton Hutt. I am Senior Counsel in the Washington, D.C., law firm of Covington & Burling and 

a lecturer on food and drug law at Harvard Law School, where I 

have taught a full course on food and drug law for the past 19 

years. During 1971 to 1975, I served as Chief Counsel for the Food 

and Drug Administration. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of The Personal Care Products Council, the trade association 

representing the cosmetic industry in the United States and globally. 

First, let me briefly describe the council and the United States 

cosmetic industry. The council represents not only well-known 

United States and global brands but the majority of the members 

have 50 or fewer employees. Over 90 percent of all cosmetic companies in our country are small businesses that have 50 or fewer employees. We are here today to discuss future FDA regulation of this 

cosmetic industry. I would like to make three points. 

First, the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938 creates 

a strong framework for FDA regulation of cosmetics. Under this 

law, it is a crime to market an unsafe or mislabeled cosmetic. Cosmetic companies are required to substantiate the safety not only of 

their products but also their individual ingredients before being 

marketed to the public. 

My second point is that the basic statutory provisions that govern FDA regulatory authority today were put in place in 1938. 

Since 1938, FDA and the cosmetic industry have worked together 

to keep pace with changing technology by promulgation of creative 

regulations and the establishment of new regulatory programs. But 

even though FDA has repeatedly stated that cosmetics are the 

safest products they regulate, it is time to bring FDA’s statutory 

authority up to date. 

My third point is that we believe that Congress can address 

these developments by making simple but important changes in 

FDA’s statutory authority over cosmetics. We offer the following 

seven principles to guide this effort, and we support enactment of 

legislation that includes all of them. 

First, enacting into law the existing FDA programs for registration of manufacturing establishments and listing of cosmetic products. Second, requiring submission of reports on adverse reactions 

that are both serious and unexpected. Third, mandating FDA regulations establishing good manufacturing practices for cosmetics. 

Fourth, establishing programs to require FDA to review and determine whether controversial cosmetic ingredients and constituents 

are or are not safe, followed by strong FDA enforcement. Fifth, requiring FDA review of all Cosmetic Ingredient Review determinations on cosmetic ingredient safety and either acceptance or rejection of those determinations, again followed by strong FDA enforcement. Sixth, FDA establishment of a national cosmetic regulatory 

databank for use by everyone in the country. And seventh, an unVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:23 Jun 21, 2013 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00124 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-13~2\112-13~1 WAYNE
119 

ambiguous Congressional determination that, as modernized, the 

revised statute will apply uniformly through the country. 

Concerns about safety of cosmetic ingredients must be addressed 

as rapidly as possible by FDA science. Congress should define a 

clear path for anyone to request that FDA review the safety of a 

cosmetic ingredient or constituent. We believe this will allow concerns about cosmetic ingredients and their constituents to be resolved expeditiously by the appropriate Federal agency, the experts 

in the field, the Food and Drug Administration, rather than by 50 

disparate State agencies. 

Under recently enacted laws, cosmetic companies must now submit ingredient reports to four different States, and there are copycat legislation efforts pending in additional States as well. None of 

these laws is consistent with the others. 

It is extremely important for the protection of the public and the 

vitality of this industry that FDA establish national standards on 

safety so that they apply in every State. It is impossible to formulate innovative products if different safety standards apply in different States. That is why national uniformity of these regulatory 

changes is critical to our support of this legislation. 

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Pallone, members of the committee, thank 

you again, and we look forward to working with you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hutt follows:] 

120 


78079.093
121 


78079.094
122 


78079.095
123 


78079.096
124 


78079.097
125 


78079.098
126 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now recognizes 

Ms. Dandurand for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF CURRAN DANDURAND 

Ms. DANDURAND. Good morning, Chairman Pitts and Ranking 

Member Pallone. My name is Curran Dandurand, and I am the 

CEO of Jack Black LLC, a company I founded 12 years ago with 

my husband and my colleague, Emily Dalton. We founded the company with our combined life savings and a vision of a market segment that we believed was underserved. Our company develops 

and markets quality personal care products for men under the 

brand name Jack Black. 

When we started, it was just the three of us operating out of our 

homes. We now employ 39 people plus another 30 part-timers and 

we have office distribution and warehouse facilities. 

Jack Black is sold in all 50 States and in international markets 

and virtually all of our products and packaging are manufactured 

here in the United States. 

I am here today as a small business owner. When we started our 

business, there were only a small number of companies that marketed a full line of personal care products for men. Today, and in 

part due to our own success, this has dramatically changed and 

there are many more brands in the category. Some of these brands 

are being marketed by large, very powerful multinational companies with significant advertising and marketing resources. 

For smaller companies like ours that don’t have these resources, 

the key to our growth is product innovation. New product innovation is the lifeblood of our business and drives our success. 

Product safety is the cornerstone of our brand philosophy. The 

first step in our product innovation process is to conduct an extensive ingredient review of the proposed new formula, and we confirm that the individual ingredients are safe and the combination 

of the ingredients is safe. The next step is to test the new formulation using the human repeat insult patch test, or HRIPT, and this 

ensures that the formula is non-irritating and non-allergenic. Once 

the product has passed the HRIPT, then we proceed to consumer 

panel testing to confirm product performance and consumer acceptance. 

The other key concern in the product development process is 

making certain that our products can be produced within our cost 

parameters and that they are fully compliant with the laws of all 

jurisdictions. 

Currently, within the United States, there has been a movement 

to create separate State requirements. These regulations would be 

separate and apart from, and inconsistent with, the Federal standards established by FDA. Having to be knowledgeable about and 

comply with potentially 50 different standards on labeling, ingredient safety, registration requirements would be burdensome and 

impossible for a small company like hours, even successful ones. 

Smaller companies simply do not have the resources to develop 

and maintain separate inventories to meet the different State laws, 

and we cannot afford to have the regulatory staff needed to monitor 

and meet the registration requirements contained in some of the 

proposed State legislation. Compliance with separate State laws 

127 

would trigger an avalanche of costs as companies have to make labeling and packaging changes, formulation changes, undergo new 

testing for each and every unique State requirement. I can tell you, 

if this had been the regulatory landscape 12 years ago when I 

started Jack Black, we would have had a very difficult time getting 

out of the starting gate, much less become successful, and our company and product line would probably not exist today. 

It is absolutely clear that myriad diverse State regulations would 

substantially increase the cost of producing and distributing personal care products with a disproportionate impact on smaller companies. Consequences for small business owners would be disastrous. Many would have to stop doing business in States where 

they cannot afford to comply. Others would go out of business altogether. For those that remain in the market, they will have to pass 

along significant price increases to their consumers to cover the 

higher costs of doing business. The end result is significant additional costs to small business plus jobs and revenue losses for the 

economy, but without any corresponding consumer benefit or improvements in product safety. 

The science does not change from State to State. Therefore, it 

does not make sense for varying State regulations regarding cosmetic safety standards. For the benefit of all stakeholders, consumers, personal care marketers as well as regulators, there is a 

need for one consistent national standard which protects consumer 

health and safety and provides clear direction and certainty for the 

regulated companies and the regulators. 

Do I need to stop? 

Mr. PITTS. Are you finished? 

Ms. DANDURAND. I have, like, two more sentences. 

Mr. PITTS. Go ahead. You may finish. 

Ms. DANDURAND. This would mean transparency in all health 

and safety decisions and a single forum where all can participate. 

We support the modernization of FDA laws that creates a national 

standard for cosmetics. I believe this will best protect the health 

and safety of our consumers and provide a strong foundation for 

growth and success of our small entrepreneurial companies that 

create jobs here in the United States. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Dandurand follows:] 

128 


78079.099
129 


78079.100
130 


78079.101
131 


78079.102
132 


78079.103
133 


78079.104
134 


78079.105
135 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thanks the gentlelady and now recognizes 

Ms. May for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF DEBORAH MAY 

Ms. MAY. Good morning, Chairman Pitts, Ranking Member 

Pallone and members of the Subcommittee on Health. Thank you 

for this opportunity today. My name is Deborah May and I am 

President of Wholesale Supplies Plus in Broadview Heights, Ohio. 

I am honored to offer my testimony on behalf of the members of 

the handcrafted soap and cosmetic industry. 

Sixteen years ago, I was working as a registered nurse in the 

ICU at the Cleveland Clinic. On August 1, 1996, I gave birth to my 

second daughter, who was eventually diagnosed as being cortically 

blind and having severe autism. In the months that followed, I lost 

my job because of my daughter’s around-the-clock medical needs. 

Our bills became overwhelming. My husband, a Catholic high 

school teacher, and I were drowning in debt. Our secure, predictable, middle-class life was gone. I sought support through online forums with other mothers facing similar challenges. Through one 

exchange, I was introduced to the art of making handmade soaps 

and cosmetics. I was amazed at how easy it was to make high-quality small batches of products for my family and friends. 

I registered for a local high school craft show and sold out. My 

first wholesale account was from a craft show customer whose 

brother owned a shop in California. He was delighted I would make 

10 bars of a custom soap in any combination of scent and color and 

fill that order within 48 hours. At home, I built my business and 

it worked. I loved what I was doing, and most important, it saved 

my family from foreclosure and allowed us to pay overwhelming 

medical bills. 

In 1999, I founded the company Wholesale Supplies Plus. My 

goal was to teach others how to make their own handcrafted cosmetics and provide supplies in very small quantities that start-up 

businesses could afford to purchase. Today, Wholesale Supplies 

Plus has 100,000 unique customers buying from us in the United 

States. We will exceed $10 million in sales this year and have 35 

employees. 

In a recent collaboration of data sharing, it was concluded that 

there are over 200,000 businesses hand producing cosmetics in the 

United States today. Ninety-five percent of these are women-owned 

businesses and average between one and three employees. That 

translates to between 200,000 and 600,000 jobs in the United 

States today. 

The handmade cosmetic industry supports the Congress’s efforts 

to ensure safe cosmetics. We believe our products are the safest on 

the market. We personally inspect each ingredient and have our 

hands in every part of the manufacturing process. Most ingredients 

we use are food grade and can be found at grocery stores. We support the principles of giving the FDA recall authority. We support 

the principles of mandatory adverse-event reporting for serious reactions that cause loss of life. We support the closing of labeling 

loopholes such as current incidental ingredient exclusions that are 

used to hide things such as preservatives from the consumer. We 

support small business exemptions for facility registration. These 

136 

exemptions would allow individuals to make products for themselves, their friends, their family without the fear of breaking Federal laws. Small business exemptions will encourage entrepreneurial growth and create local jobs. We support small business exemptions for fees. Fees are a barrier for entering into our market 

and will shut down all but a few of the 200,000 companies now producing handmade cosmetics and soap in our industry. 

We do not support reporting to the FDA individual product 

batches including ingredient suppliers used in that batch. Under 

the considered provision, it presumes truckload purchases of ingredients. That is not the case with our small businesses. We frequently buy small quantities of ingredients several times a week. 

Requiring us to report to the FDA each time we change supplies 

only serves to give large corporations a greater market advantage 

over small businesses. Quite simply, for every report a large corporation files, a handmade producer may need to file up to 5,000 

reports a month. Small businesses cannot afford to manage such a 

mandate, and frankly, it does nothing to improve the safety of cosmetics. 

I am not here seeking exemptions for Wholesale Supplies Plus. 

I am here so that the 200,000 small businesses making handcrafted 

cosmetics have the same opportunity to grow and become the next 

success story like Burt Bee’s, like Mary Kay Cosmetics and even 

James Gamble of Proctor and Gamble, all of whom started as 

handcrafted microbusinesses. As Ronald Reagan said during his 

first inaugural address, ‘‘Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it.’’ 

On behalf of the handcrafted soap and cosmetic industry, I hope 

for the opportunity to work with this subcommittee on legislation 

as it moves forward. Testifying today has been my honor and privilege. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. May follows:] 

137 


78079.106
138 


78079.107
139 


78079.108
140 


78079.109
141 


78079.110
142 


78079.111
143 


78079.112
144 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thanks the gentlelady and now recognizes 

Dr. DiBartolomeis for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. DIBARTOLOMEIS 

Mr. DIBARTOLOMEIS. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee. 

My name is Dr. Michael DiBartolomeis and I am a toxicologist 

and Chief of the Safe Cosmetics Program, which was established 

in the California Department of Public Health in 2006. In this role, 

I have heard concerns from many consumers and professionals in 

the personal care industry about cosmetic products and the negative health effects they may have on susceptible persons for lack 

of information available on their ingredients, the number of chemicals and formulations in them that have not undergone toxicity 

testing, the unknown health impacts for long-term low-does exposure to individual chemicals or chemical mixtures, and insufficient 

consumer and workplace safety standards and enforcement. 

We use cosmetics from infancy through our senior years on a 

daily basis. Women use an average of 15 cosmetic products per day, 

and daily usage may be as high as 50 products. Exposure to chemicals in cosmetics can occur from breathing vapors or particles, inadvertent swallowing and by application to the skin and eyes. 

The cosmetics provision within the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act was written over 70 years ago. Since that time, the cosmetics industry has grown to be a multibillion-dollar industry with 

products being marketed worldwide and sold not only in retail 

stores but by individuals working out of their homes and over the 

Internet. 

While the industry has changed, the provisions of Federal law for 

regulating cosmetics have not. As a result, the burden falls on government to show harm before a cosmetic can be removed from the 

market. No premarket safety testing is required. Manufacturers 

have almost no incentive to test products for their potential to 

cause serious latent harm such as cancer. Cosmetic labels are not 

required to disclose some ingredients, and there are no requirements to disclose them to the Federal Government. And chemicals 

that can cause cancer, reproductive and/or developmental harm are 

consistently ending up in cosmetic products. 

The California Safe Cosmetics Act of 2005 requires manufacturers to disclose to the State all intentionally added chemical ingredients in their products that cause these adverse effects regardless 

of concentration. The Act also requires manufacturers to submit 

any additional information on their products as deemed necessary 

by he program to conduct its investigations. The FDA does not 

have comparable authority. 

Although the Act does not set safety standards or product bans, 

it responds to public concerns by empowering consumers to avoid 

the most toxic chemicals, thereby promoting product reformulation. 

By the end of last year, over 17,000 cosmetic products were reported to the program by 700 unique companies as containing one 

or more reportable chemical ingredients. In total, 24,664 hazardous 

ingredients were reported in these products represented by 96 different chemicals. 

145 

The data collected by the Safe Cosmetics Program are used to 

target health investigations, laboratory analyses and issue health 

advisories. For example, in March 2010, the program started receiving phone calls from hairstylists and clients complaining about 

the health effects of using a hair-straightening product called Brazilian Blowout. Complaints included burning eyes, nose, throat and 

scalp, hair loss, asthma episodes, skin blisters and other effects 

consistent with formaldehyde, a known human carcinogen. However, this product was advertised as formaldehyde-free. What happened over the next 22 months is too long of a story for me to tell 

here. However, the end result is informative. On January 30, 2012, 

California announced a settlement with the makers of Brazilian 

Blowout requiring that they warn consumers about the dangers of 

using their product and stop marketing their product as formaldehyde-free. It was the first government enforceable action in the 

United States to address the exposure to formaldehyde associated 

with these products. Although the sale of this product in California 

violated five separate State laws and resulted in numerous acute 

injuries, these products are still being used in salons across the 

United States. In contrast, six countries have recalled the use of 

formaldehyde-based straighteners. 

On March 6, 2012, the New York Times reported that the mak- ers of Brazilian Blowout agreed to settle a class-action suit for $4.5 

million. The CEO said the settlement will be paid by its insurance 

company, and was quoted as saying ‘‘We get to sell our product forever without reformulation. That is the acquittal we have been 

waiting for.’’ 

Over the past 6 years, I have contemplated the challenges related to evaluating cosmetic product safety, and I have arrived at 

five elements which I believe would help in protecting public 

health. Number one, remove the burden to prove from government 

having to demonstrate harm by instead requiring manufacturers to 

document product safety through premarket testing of new cosmetics using a tiered battery of toxicity tests. Two, ensure that toxicity testing and safety data and other key information are available to government agencies and consumers. Number three, improve cosmetic labeling so that all chemical ingredients including 

fragrances, colors and flavors and those in professional-grade products are disclosed to consumers. Number four, establish safety 

standards for cosmetics and issue prompt mandatory recalls when 

they are found to be unsafe, adulterated or misbranded. And five, 

if a standing science advisory committee for cosmetic safety is 

thought to be valuable, require that it be wholly independent rather than industry sponsored and that its members have no conflicts 

of interest. 

I don’t know how many cases like Brazilian Blowout exist. However, the fact is, cosmetics that contain known human carcinogens 

or chemicals that impair human reproduction or development or 

are toxic to the endocrine system are marketed and sold without 

adequate safety testing because the existing law allows it. This is 

a very serious public health problem which we could prevent because there are some very workable solutions to consider. 

I want to thank the committee for inviting me, and I would be 

happy to answer your questions. 

146 

[The prepared statement of Mr. DiBartolomeis follows:] 

147 


78079.113
148 


78079.114
149 


78079.115
150 


78079.116
151 


78079.117
152 


78079.118
153 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thanks the gentleman, and I will now begin 

questioning and recognize myself for 5 minutes for that purpose. 

Dr. Breslawec, Ms. Schakowsky indicated that the Cosmetic Ingredient Review panel has reviewed over 1,000 ingredients. Dr. 

Landa, on the last panel, stated that he was not aware of a single 

instance where the FDA has disagreed with a CIR recommendation. Are you aware of an instance where the FDA has disagreed 

with a CIR recommendation? 

Ms. BRESLAWEC. No, I am not. 

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Hutt, in your long experience, are you aware of 

any? The same question. 

Mr. HUTT. As you know and as Mr. Landa mentioned, FDA participates in every single deliberation of the Cosmetic Ingredient Review expert panel. We are unaware of any instance where the 

panel did not listen closely to FDA or where FDA disagreed with 

the panel recommendation. 

Mr. PITTS. Let me continue with you, Mr. Hutt. Have States 

tried to ban cosmetics and their ingredients? And speak as to why 

a national uniformity of cosmetic regulation is important. 

Mr. HUTT. I am not aware that States have taken action against 

cosmetic ingredients to ban them. I have just listened to the testimony from Dr. DiBartolomeis—I hope I get that right—that the 

State there was unable to come up with sufficient evidence to ban 

the Brazilian Blowout product. In contrast, when the Cosmetic Ingredient Review took a look at the request of FDA of the safety of 

that product, and I would like to turn to Dr. Breslawec to discuss 

this in greater detail, but what happened was, the Cosmetic Ingredient Review panel recommended a ban of the product for use in 

hair straightening. So here is a good example where the voluntary 

self-regulation is much more stringent, certainly than the State of 

California and perhaps even then the Food and Drug Administration. 

Mr. PITTS. Dr. Breslawec, would you care to comment? 

Ms. BRESLAWEC. Yes, I would love to elaborate on that. The Food 

and Drug Administration approached the Cosmetic Ingredient Review having heard of adverse effects resulting from hair straighteners that claimed not to contain formaldehyde. The Cosmetic Ingredient Review panel accepted the request for review, and completed a review within a year, which is very, very short period of 

time. There was a very robust discussion about the safety of hair 

straighteners, whether formaldehyde was actually in the straighteners because a lot of them were labeled as formaldehyde-free 

when in fact they contained methylene glycol, which essentially is 

formaldehyde in liquid form. Following a very robust discussion, 

the CIR panel of experts determined that formaldehyde and methylene glycol in hair straighteners was not safe, and as a result of 

that—and The Personal Care Products Council agreed with their 

determination and supported their determination. 

Mr. PITTS. Ms. Dandurand, Ms. May, your stories were inspiring 

and compelling. I would like to ask both of you, should the cosmetics regulations be updated, in your opinion? 

Ms. DANDURAND. Well, as I said in my opening remarks, I think 

we need a national standard, and I think I am in favor of registraVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:23 Jun 21, 2013 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00159 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-13~2\112-13~1 WAYNE
154 

tion of the facilities and providing the FDA with our ingredients so 

they do have a database. I would be supportive of both of those. 

Mr. PITTS. Ms. May? 

Ms. MAY. I think as witness testimony today, cosmetics are safe 

in the United States, are the safest products that the FDA regulates. My fear is that as legislation moves forward, there will be 

unintended consequences to small businesses and an economic impact. 

Mr. PITTS. And we don’t have long, but Dr. DiBartolomeis, do you 

want to add to that your opinion on regulation being updated? 

Mr. DIBARTOLOMEIS. Actually, what I would like to do is just 

clarify something. I did not testify that the California Department 

of Public Health didn’t have evidence to show that Brazilian Blowout wasn’t harmful and shouldn’t be removed from the market. We 

just lacked the authority to actually recall a product and remove 

it from the market. 

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Hutt, was the product seized? What was the follow-up? 

Mr. HUTT. The product was not seized. The resolution in California was simply to put information on the label and in the beauty 

salons. The State of California does have what is called a baby food 

and drug law statute. It is called the Sherman Act in California. 

It does permit for taking cosmetic products that are adulterated off 

the market, but California did not choose to use that authority. 

They do have the authority. 

Mr. PITTS. Thank you. My time is up. 

The Chair recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, 

Mr. Waxman, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, 

Mr. Pallone, for allowing me to go before you in asking questions. 

Dr. DiBartolomeis, thank you very much for being here today. It 

should go without saying that the fact you are here demonstrates 

just how important it is to California that its law be preserved. As 

I understand it, the California Safe Cosmetics Act of 2005 contains 

a number of provisions that would seem to be essential to any system designed to ensure the safety of cosmetics in our country. First 

and foremost, the California law requires companies to disclose to 

the State if the ingredients in their products could cause cancer, reproductive harm or birth defects, and the law at the same time still 

protects trade secret information, so this is a very reasonable approach. The Sherman law in California is a law that I voted for 

when I was in the State legislature, and it again showed that California was ahead of the rest of the country. But there are limits 

on what you can do, even in the California law, and you talked 

about that earlier. 

In your testimony, you mentioned 700 companies have complied 

with the reporting requirements in California. Do you have a sense 

of whether this system has been onerous for companies? Do you get 

information from both large and small companies? 

Mr. DIBARTOLOMEIS. We do. The actual limit is $1 million of aggregate sales—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. Is your microphone on? 

Mr. DIBARTOLOMEIS. Oh, I think it is now. Sorry. So the aggregate sales of $1 million is a cutoff, so any company smaller than 

155 

that would not have to report. We actually have help lines, we have 

an email that people can email us. In our reporting system, we 

have comments and an area where people can comment. We receive 

calls all the time. We work with manufacturers to report, and we 

have never received any comments that the reporting was too onerous for them to do. 

Mr. WAXMAN. You mentioned some staggering numbers in your 

testimony. Over 24,000 hazardous ingredients have been reported 

to the State. In one of the claims that we have repeatedly heard 

is that cosmetics do not present significant risk to consumers because they are not ingested. As a toxicologist in charge of the California cosmetics program, can you give us some sense for how 

much comfort we should take from the claims that the cosmetics 

are inherently safe because they are not ingested? It would be helpful if you could use examples of ingredients found in cosmetics to 

help us understand this issue better. 

Mr. DIBARTOLOMEIS. Well, the two that have been brought up 

here today, not just by me but others, Brazilian Blowout is something you breathe, so it is not something that—you are applying it 

but you are actually breathing formaldehyde that comes out from 

using this chemical and using this formulation. We have heard 

about mercury in face creams. That is something that you are rubbing on your skin. The mercury sinks in, and we actually have 

frank mercury toxicity in mothers and kids who have been exposed 

to these products. You could add nail polishes and nail polish removers to that. You are breathing in toluene vapors. You are getting exposed to phthalates and possibly even formaldehyde. So 

those are three examples right there that are not just from skin 

but other sources of exposure. 

Mr. WAXMAN. The industry legislation proposal would require national uniformity in cosmetics oversight, and of course, national 

uniformity is a nice way of saying that Congress will override and 

preempt State laws. As a general matter, I think preemption is a 

bad idea. However, there are instances in which preemption can 

make sense, particularly when the Federal law is strong and there 

are multiple State laws with different requirements. Your testimony describes five elements that would in your view be important 

to have in a strong cosmetics regulatory program, and my understanding is that none of these elements is reflected in the industry 

proposal 

If a Federal system were to be put in place that does not contain 

these elements, would you be concerned about that system preempting a law like California’s? Do States need to preserve their 

ability to apply more stringent standards regarding information 

disclosure and safety determination of cosmetics and ingredients? 

Mr. DIBARTOLOMEIS. Well, the short answer is yes, I would be 

concerned. You know, disclosure and being able to—authorizing the 

State to get more information from cosmetic manufacturers and 

then conducting health investigations are pretty strong requirements and mandates, but actually, I don’t even think those go far 

enough, to be honest with you. So I would be concerned if the Federal law were actually less stringent. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you. 

156 

Ms. May, I want to thank you for coming to speak to us today. 

Your story is certainly very touching and inspiring. You mentioned 

in your testimony that you support banning unsafe ingredients, 

giving FDA recall authority and requiring reporting of adverse 

events and serious reactions in connection with cosmetic products. 

I know that I share the belief with many of my colleagues that 

these are important powers for the FDA to have. Can you elaborate 

on why it is important that the FDA have these powers? 

Ms. MAY. We feel that the FDA should have the authorities to 

substantiate all cosmetic ingredient safety studies, that they are 

the impartial entity to evaluate any studies that are brought that 

are of concern. We support only safe ingredients in cosmetics, and 

we feel an impartial group of people through the FDA only to substantiate that is the best system. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now recognizes 

Dr. Gingrey for 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I apologize to the 

panelists for walking in late, but we had a concurrent subcommittee hearing downstairs, and it is impossible to be in two 

places at one time. 

Let me start off by just asking a very straightforward, simple, 

softball question to each one of you, and I will start—and how do 

you pronounce your name, Doctor? 

Ms. BRESLAWEC. Breslawec. 

Mr. GINGREY. Thank you. We will start with you and then go 

down the panel. Do you believe that decisions on the safety of cosmetic products should be based off of science or politics? 

Ms. BRESLAWEC. Science. 

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Hutt, you are up. 

Mr. HUTT. You are asking me the science? 

Mr. GINGREY. Absolutely. 

Mr. HUTT. I believe very strongly that it should be based on 

science. In my 4 years as Chief Counsel of FDA, we always based 

our decisions on the best science that was available. 

Ms. DANDURAND. Science. 

Ms. MAY. Science. 

Mr. DIBARTOLOMEIS. When adequate studies are available and 

have been done and disclosed and the information is—the scientific 

information is done according to standards, I would have to say the 

science is the most important decision-making factor, but there are 

times when you actually don’t have that information and pretty 

much for almost all cosmetic products for long-term effects, that is 

the situation. 

Mr. GINGREY. Are you suggesting then that politics plays a role? 

Mr. DIBARTOLOMEIS. No, but there have to be—something else 

enters into the decision-making process. It can’t be just the science 

because you don’t have the science. 

Mr. GINGREY. Well, I thank all of you for your forthrightness in 

responding to that question. 

Let me turn to Mr. Hutt in regard to these series of questions. 

Have States tried to ban cosmetics and their ingredients? 

157 

Mr. HUTT. States have in a few instances set standards for particular ingredients, for example, mercury, that sometimes appears 

in cosmetics. I am unaware of any specific cosmetics other than the 

Brazilian Blowout that we have discussed previously where a cosmetic has been attempted to be banned, but as we heard just a few 

moments ago, the State did not even ask for a ban, even though 

they could have under their law. 

Mr. GINGREY. Let me ask you this, if you think is true. Why is 

national uniformity of cosmetic regulation important? Do you think 

that it is important, and why? 

Mr. HUTT. It is extremely important. The cosmetic industry in 

the United States is a national industry. It is not a local industry. 

Even the smallest of cosmetic companies does not limit their product to one State. They are shipped all over the country, indeed, all 

over the world. And if we have different requirements in different 

States, we are going to have just massive confusion in our country. 

It would be like in the automobile industry, suppose we didn’t have 

a national standard for automobile safety; you would have to stop 

at every border and get approval to go into the next State. The 

same is true for cosmetics. 

Mr. GINGREY. Let me address this question—and I thank you, 

Mr. Hutt—to Ms. Dandurand. I saw that the President’s budget requested $19 billion in cosmetic user fees. Do you think the FDA 

needs these user fees? I was under the impression that in the last 

several years the FDA budget in regard to cosmetic oversight has 

increased substantially. So an additional $19 billion in cosmetic 

user fees, your thoughts on that? And any other members of the 

panel might want to comment as well. 

Ms. DANDURAND. Well, I am not in favor of user fees. I really 

don’t want to absorb any additional costs to my small business at 

this time, and I am not clear on what the benefit to my business 

would be for that user fee. 

Mr. GINGREY. You are clear what the—— 

Ms. DANDURAND. I am not clear. 

Mr. GINGREY [continuing]. Lack of benefits might be in regard to 

your bottom line? 

Ms. DANDURAND. Correct. 

Mr. GINGREY. Anyone else? Ms. May, please. 

Ms. MAY. I am not sure with the volumes of paperwork and the 

number of employees that the FDA is going to need to hire to handle the provisions of the bill, that $19 million is even going to be 

enough. They are talking about registering every product, every 

bottle of lotion. 

Mr. GINGREY. And by the way, thank you for correcting me. 

Ms. MAY. Did I correct you? 

Mr. GINGREY. That was a million versus a billion. There is a difference there, even in Congress. 

Ms. MAY. Even—if a company has to register every single bottle 

of lotion, every formula, our industry in the handcrafted soap and 

cosmetic industry, we may have a customer that comes to us and 

a child has a nut allergy and they ask us to change out the oil in 

a lotion so that their child doesn’t have an allergic reaction, we 

would need to pause, stop, notify the FDA of a change. If we 

change a fragrance oil, we change any additive, we would need to 

158 

re-register that product every time with the FDA. That is up to 

1,000 at minimum, 5,000 reports a month one small business will 

need to file. I don’t know how the FDA is going to manage all of 

that paperwork and oversee that. 

Mr. GINGREY. Well, I am going to have to stop right there because I am already a minute over the time, but thank you, Mr. 

Chairman, for your indulgence, and thank you, panelists. 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes the 

ranking member, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I wanted to start with Ms. May, and thank you for speaking to 

us today, and your story was certainly very touching and inspiring. 

I note that in your current business, you are a supplier to small 

cosmetic manufacturers, and some of the proposals we have seen 

include provisions that require manufacturers to keep or provide 

information to substantiate the safety of their ingredients and 

products. Could you just tell us whether you think this would be 

an important requirement to have in a new law? 

Ms. MAY. I believe the FDA should substantiate the safety of all 

cosmetic ingredients. 

Mr. PALLONE. OK, but what I am asking is whether they would 

require manufacturers to keep or provide information to substantiate the safety. 

Ms. MAY. Under the current FDA provisions, an ingredient is actually called a cosmetic. So I think it is important to recognize the 

difference between an ingredient manufacture and somebody blending ingredients together at an approved level. I feel all ingredient 

manufacturers if they are marketing to the cosmetic industry and 

telling us that something should be used at a certain percent, at 

a certain temperature, at a certain pH, they should substantiate 

that claim. That is how our industry is using those ingredients. 

Mr. PALLONE. OK. Thanks. 

Let me go to Dr. DiBartolomeis. You mentioned in your testimony the importance of mandatory recall authority to remove cosmetics that have been found to be unsafe, adulterated or misbranded, and I couldn’t agree with you more, and I have a proposal 

that would give the FDA this authority to issue mandatory recalls. 

It seems to me that the Brazilian Blowout case, which has been 

mentioned by many people including Ms. Schakowsky, would be a 

good candidate for the use of this mandatory recall authority, and 

you mention in your testimony there have been efforts to call attention to the dangers of these kinds of products but they are still 

being used throughout the United States, and yet six countries 

have recalled products like that. So can you describe in more detail 

the types of dangers California saw associated with these products 

and whether you think recall authority would have been helpful to 

California in its efforts? 

Mr. DIBARTOLOMEIS. Right. Well, first of all, the cosmetics program is not regulatory so we ourselves don’t have the authority to 

remove a product from the market. It would have to be our parallel 

food and drug branch, you know, FDA equivalent. As far as I know, 

they were in the process of moving down that road but they for 

whatever reason have not completed that step. So if there was a 

mandatory recall authority, whether it is at the Federal or at the 

159 

State level, this product would have been removed before it even 

had to go to court, and it was ridiculous that we had to spend almost 2 years going to court, and all we got was a warning label 

and a slap on the wrist and then a manufacturer saying great, we 

just got relieved of any responsibility. 

Mr. PALLONE. So obviously you would like to see the FDA have 

that as well as—— 

Mr. DIBARTOLOMEIS. Well, I think that that is an important feature of any legislation. 

Mr. PALLONE. Now, I know that—I just want to ask you about 

these other things that I have talked about in my legislation, but 

they are not on your list, I guess, of the five basic elements for a 

cosmetic regulatory program that you outlined, and I want you to 

just go through them and tell me whether you agree that it would 

be important to have them. So do you think it would be important 

to have mandatory registration, first of all? 

Mr. DIBARTOLOMEIS. I am actually not even clear exactly what 

that would be. I haven’t read any of the Federal legislation so I 

would need a little more information. But, you know, we have mandatory reporting, and if that is the equivalent, then I think that is 

part of the disclosure aspect and I think that that is very important. 

Mr. PALLONE. What about the adverse-event reporting? 

Mr. DIBARTOLOMEIS. You know, that an interesting—— 

Mr. PALLONE. It sounds like you have adverse-event reporting 

but not mandatory registration. Is that accurate, or not? 

Mr. DIBARTOLOMEIS. For which? I am sorry. 

Mr. PALLONE. In other words, I am getting the impression that 

you have in California what I call adverse-event reporting but not 

mandatory registration. 

Mr. DIBARTOLOMEIS. The cosmetics program doesn’t have either 

of those two things. 

Mr. PALLONE. Oh, you don’t? 

Mr. DIBARTOLOMEIS. But it may be actually in parallel to—if the 

Food and Drug Administration has some kind of, you know, event 

reporting, it probably does exist in the Sherman law as well. I am 

just not that familiar. 

Mr. PALLONE. Well, let me just ask you, I mean, I am just trying 

to get a handle on the registration, the adverse-event reporting, 

Good Manufacturing Practices, if you want to just comment on 

those, because I know they weren’t listed in your five basic elements. 

Mr. DIBARTOLOMEIS. I was told to keep it to five. So, you know, 

Good Manufacturing Practices are comparable, I think, in a way to 

doing toxicity testing according to standards and so any time you 

have standards that are going to be met by all the manufacturers 

as well as by, you know, other entities that are going to be reviewing them, I think that is a good thing to do. If we had a mandatory 

event reporting, you know, an adverse-event reporting system in 

place for Brazilian Blowout, for example, it would not have had to 

come to our program first. I mean, there would have been some 

system in place. I have two staff and a budget of $280,000 to run 

this program, so $19 million sounds really good to me, and, you 

know, to actually have us responding to phone calls and then callVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:23 Jun 21, 2013 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00165 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-13~2\112-13~1 WAYNE
160 

ing the Department of Justice and starting this process just seems 

pretty inefficient. There should be a better way and there should 

be a much more succinct and really quick way to do this process. 

Mr. PALLONE. OK. Thanks a lot. 

Mr. DIBARTOLOMEIS. Sure. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now recognizes 

the gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Schakowsky, for 5 minutes for 

questions. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. 

Mr. Hutt, the European Union has banned or restricted the use 

of over 1,200 chemicals linked to cancer, reproductive and developmental harm from cosmetics. So just yes or no, does The Personal 

Care Products Council support a similar ban or restriction here in 

the United States on carcinogens, mutagens and reproductive toxins? 

Mr. HUTT. No, because those aren’t used in the United States. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Well, Dr. DiBartolomeis, would that be the result of your reports, 24,000, almost 25,000 hazardous ingredients? 

Were any of those carcinogens, mutagens and reproductive toxins 

that were reported to you? 

Mr. DIBARTOLOMEIS. The law requires chemicals that are known 

or suspected to cause cancer, reproductive harm or birth defects to 

be reported to us, so those 24,664 ingredients would all be one of 

those, one or more of those hazardous effects. 

Mr. BUTT. And more than half of those were titanium dioxide reports. Titanium dioxide is approved by FDA both as a color additive and as an active ingredient in sunscreen products, and yet it 

had to be reported under the California law as a dangerous ingredient. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And what about the other half? 

Mr. HUTT. The other half were a wide variety of substances. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Let me get this clear. So you are saying that 

not one of the 24,664 hazardous ingredients was in fact a hazardous ingredient? 

Mr. HUTT. I am not aware that we use in the United States 

things that are absolutely banned in Europe. There may be—— 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And what about among the 10 chemicals that 

the FDA has actually said are hazardous would include in Brazilian Blowout? 

Mr. HUTT. Formaldehyde. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And is that OK? Should that be in a product? 

Mr. HUTT. Let me turn that over to Dr. Breslawec. 

Ms. BRESLAWEC. Formaldehyde can be used safely in cosmetics 

as a preservative at very low levels. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. OK. We have gone through the Brazilian 

Blowout situation, and if there is disagreement, and maybe you 

want to talk to that, Dr. D, because, you know, I have been very 

involved in that product as well and it seems indisputable to me 

that this is a hazardous product. 

But the question is whether or not there should be some authority to actually recall or ban before marketed products that are 

found, according to science, which everybody here agreed with, are 

dangerous to consumers. 

161 

Mr. DIBARTOLOMEIS. Well, I think you have made an important 

distinction because what we were dealing with with Brazilian 

Blowout was well after it had been used for years, you know, formaldehyde in these products. It should never have gone on the market in the first place having levels, whether you call it methylene 

glycol or formaldehyde, at those levels where workers daily are 

going to be exposed to a carcinogen, a known human carcinogen. 

So really, we are talking about how do you prevent that from happening in the first place. I don’t think it is an effective or efficient 

public health mechanism to deal with something that is after the 

effect and you are trying to clean up the mess. You really want to 

have it not go on the market in the first place. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. The cosmetic industry’s trade association argues that dose makes the poison and just a little bit of a known 

carcinogen or reproductive toxin in a cosmetic product won’t hurt 

anyone if the product is ‘‘used as directed.’’ So again, Dr. D, if you 

could tell us whether you agree with that assessment. 

Mr. DIBARTOLOMEIS. There is a lot of science tied up in all that, 

but I guess the short answer is, for most products that contain 

chemical carcinogens, the dose and risk are very much a difficult 

thing to analyze, and what is acceptable risk to you might be not 

acceptable to me. So it is a really difficult situation, so I would 

have to say carcinogens should really not be in these products at 

all, especially when they are being used from infancy throughout 

the course of somebody’s lifespan. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And just personally, I know that it is taking 

me longer and longer to use all the products that I now find as I 

age, and so I am concerned about the cumulative effect of the many 

products that I schlep around in my purse and in my cabinets. So 

I think that we need obviously, I think, to do more science and I 

think we need to get more legislation, and I appreciate your efforts 

in California. Thank you. 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thanks the gentlelady. 

That concludes the questioning of our panel. At this time I would 

like to request unanimous consent that statements from Personal 

Care Truth and Indie Beauty Network and Handcrafted Soap Makers Guild, Inc., be submitted to the record. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information follows:] 

162 


78079.119
163 


78079.120
164 


78079.121
165 


78079.122
166 


78079.123
167 


78079.124
168 

Mr. PITTS. I want to remind members that they have 10 business 

days to submit questions for the record, and I ask the witnesses to 

respond to the questions promptly. 

Thank you very much for your testimony, for answering all of our 

questions, a very informative panel. Members should submit their 

questions by the close of business on Monday, April 9th. 

Without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:29 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

169 


78079.125
170 


78079.126
171 


78079.127
172 


78079.128
173 


78079.129
174 


78079.130
175 


78079.131
176 


78079.132
177 


78079.133
178 


78079.134
179 


78079.135
180 


78079.136
181 


78079.137
182 


78079.138
183 


78079.139
184 


78079.140
185 


78079.141
186 


78079.142
187 


78079.143
188 


78079.144
189 


78079.145
190 


78079.146
191 


78079.147
192 


78079.148
193 


78079.149
194 


78079.150
195 


78079.151
196 


78079.152
197 


78079.153
198 


78079.154
199 


78079.155
200 


78079.156
201 


78079.157
202 


78079.158
203 


78079.159
204 


78079.160
205 


78079.161
206 


78079.162
207 


78079.163
208 


78079.164
209 


78079.165
210 


78079.166
211 


78079.167
212 


78079.168
213 


78079.169
214 


78079.170
215 


78079.171
216 


78079.172
217 


78079.173
218 


78079.174
219 


78079.175
220 


78079.176
221 


78079.177
222 


78079.178
223 


78079.179
224 


78079.180
225 


78079.181
226 


78079.182
227 


78079.183
228 


78079.184
229 


78079.185
230 


78079.186
231 


78079.187
232 


78079.188
233 


78079.189
234 


78079.190
235 


78079.191
236 


78079.192
237 


78079.193
238 


78079.194
239 


78079.195
240 


78079.196
241 


78079.197
242 


78079.198
243 


78079.199
244 


78079.200
245 


78079.201
246 


78079.202
247 


78079.203
248 


78079.204
249 


78079.205
250 


78079.206
251 


78079.207
252 


78079.208
253 


78079.209
254 


78079.210
255 


78079.211
256 


78079.212
257 


78079.213
258 


78079.214
259 


78079.215
260 


78079.216
261 


78079.217
262 


78079.218
263 


78079.219
264 


78079.220
265 


78079.221
266 


78079.222
267 


78079.223
268 


78079.224
269 


78079.225
270 


78079.226
271 


78079.227
272 


78079.228
273 


78079.229
274 


78079.230
275 


78079.231
276 


78079.232
277 


78079.233
278 


78079.234
279 


78079.235
280 


78079.236
281 


78079.237
282 


78079.238
283 


78079.239
284 


78079.240
285 


78079.241
286 


78079.242
287 


78079.243
288 


78079.244
289 


78079.245
290 


78079.246
291 


78079.247
292 


78079.248
293 


78079.249
294 


78079.250
295 


78079.251
296 


78079.252
297 


78079.253
298 


78079.254
299 


78079.255
300 


78079.256
301 


78079.257
302 


78079.258
303 


78079.259
304 


78079.260
305 


78079.261
306 


78079.262
307 


78079.263
308 


78079.264
309 


78079.265
310 


78079.266
311 


78079.267
312 


78079.268
313 


78079.269
314 


78079.270
315 


78079.271
316 


78079.272
317 


78079.273
318 


78079.274
319 


78079.275
320 


78079.276
321 


78079.277
322 


78079.278
323 


78079.279
324 


78079.280
325 


78079.281
326 


78079.282
327 


78079.283
328 


78079.284
329 


78079.285
330 


78079.286
331 


78079.287
332 


78079.288
333 


78079.289
334 


78079.290
335 


78079.291
336 


78079.292
337 


78079.293
338 


78079.294
339 


78079.295
340 


78079.296
341 


78079.297
342 


78079.298
343 


78079.299
344 


78079.300
345 


78079.301
346 


78079.302
347 


78079.303
348 


78079.304
349 


78079.305
350 


78079.306
351 


78079.307
352 


78079.308
353 


78079.309
354 


78079.310
355 


78079.311
356 


78079.312
357 


78079.313
358 


78079.314
359 


78079.315
360 


78079.316
361 


78079.317
362 


78079.318
363 


78079.319
364 


78079.320
365 


78079.321
366 


78079.483
367 


78079.323
368 


78079.324
369 


78079.325
370 


78079.326
371 


78079.327
372 


78079.328
373 


78079.329
374 


78079.330
375 


78079.331
376 


78079.332
377 


78079.333
378 


78079.334
379 


78079.335
380 


78079.336
381 


78079.337
382 


78079.338
383 


78079.339
384 


78079.340
385 


78079.341
386 


78079.342
387 


78079.343
388 


78079.344
389 


78079.345
390 


78079.346
391 


78079.347
392 


78079.348
393 


78079.349
394 


78079.350
395 


78079.351
396 


78079.352
397 


78079.353
398 


78079.354
399 


78079.355
400 


78079.356
401 


78079.357
402 


78079.358
403 


78079.359
404 


78079.360
405 


78079.361
406 


78079.362
407 


78079.363
408 


78079.364
409 


78079.365
410 


78079.366
411 


78079.367
412 


78079.368
413 


78079.369
414 


78079.370
415 


78079.371
416 


78079.372
417 


78079.373
418 


78079.374
419 


78079.375
420 


78079.376
421 


78079.377
422 


78079.378
423 


78079.379
424 


78079.380
425 


78079.381
426 


78079.382
427 


78079.383
428 


78079.384
429 


78079.385
430 


78079.386
431 


78079.387
432 


78079.388
433 


78079.389
434 


78079.390
435 


78079.391
436 


78079.392
437 


78079.393
438 


78079.394
439 


78079.395
440 


78079.396
441 


78079.397
442 


78079.398
443 


78079.399
444 


78079.400
445 


78079.401
446 


78079.402
447 


78079.403
448 


78079.404
449 


78079.405
450 


78079.406
451 


78079.407
452 


78079.408
453 


78079.409
454 


78079.410
455 


78079.411
456 


78079.412
457 


78079.413
458 


78079.414
459 


78079.415
460 


78079.416
461 


78079.417
462 


78079.418
463 


78079.419
464 


78079.420
465 


78079.421
466 


78079.422
467 


78079.423
468 


78079.424
469 


78079.425
470 


78079.426
471 


78079.427
472 


78079.428
473 


78079.429
474 


78079.430
475 


78079.431
476 


78079.432
477 


78079.433
478 


78079.434
479 


78079.435
480 


78079.436
481 


78079.437
482 


78079.438
483 


78079.439
484 


78079.440
485 


78079.441
486 


78079.442
487 


78079.443
488 


78079.444
489 


78079.445
490 


78079.446
491 


78079.447
492 


78079.448
493 


78079.449
494 


78079.450
495 


78079.451
496 


78079.452
497 


78079.453
498 


78079.454
499 


78079.455
500 


78079.456
501 


78079.457
502 


78079.458
503 


78079.459
504 


78079.460
505 


78079.461
506 


78079.462
507 


78079.463
508 


78079.464
509 


78079.465
510 


78079.466
511 


78079.467
512 


78079.468
513 


78079.469
514 


78079.470
515 


78079.471
516 


78079.472
517 


78079.473
518 


78079.474
519 


78079.475
520 


78079.476
521 


78079.477
522 


78079.478
523 


78079.479
524 


78079.480
525 


78079.481
526 

Æ 


78079.482