U.S. government has little authority to stop unsafe cosmetics over the estimated $30 billion cosmetics industry

U.S. government has little authority to stop unsafe cosmetics The popular Brazilian Blowout is a dramatic example of how little authority federal and state governments have over the estimated $30 billion cosmetics industry — even with compelling evidence that the ingredients are dangerous. MNN… Brazilian Blowout is a dramatic example of how little authority federal and state governments have over the estimated $30-billion annual cosmetics industry – even when there is compelling evidence that ingredients are dangerous.

 
Under federal law, cosmetics companies don't have to disclose chemicals or gain approval for the 2,000 products that go on the market every year. And removing a cosmetic from sale takes a battle in federal court.
 
“I thought this wouldn't be on the market if it was dangerous. I really didn't understand there was no protection,” said Josimov, who is among thousands of stylists who are pleading with government regulators to take Brazilian Blowout and similar products out of their salons and off the market.
 
Brazilian Blowout's Acai and Original hair-smoothing products (at right) contain high concentrations of methylene glycol, the liquid form of formaldehyde, according to government testing. The chemical helps alter the protein structure of hair strands so that they remain smooth and straight for months.
 
Despite a series of federal and state efforts in recent months to get rid of the product, it remains in salons across the country. The Food and Drug Administration has not prohibited it, and, without the federal government's lead, no state can easily get it off the market.

…Another federal agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, issued a health alert about formaldehyde in hair straighteners, and fined some salons where the air violated workplace safety limits. Several states, including California and New York, also have issued health alerts to stylists.

 
In January, the California Attorney General won a settlement against GIB for deceptive advertising and failure to disclose a known cancer-causing ingredient. And a review panel of health experts, established by the cosmetics industry, called the hair-smoothing products "unsafe."
 
Representatives of GIB LLC did not grant interviews for this story despite repeated attempts to contact them. In court documents, the company called California's enforcement action “baseless litigation” that has not proven irreparable harm to stylists.
 
The Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, enacted in 1938, doesn't require FDA approval before a beauty product is sold to the public or give the agency authority to recall a harmful product, according to Michael Landa, director of the FDA's Food Safety and Applied Nutrition branch, who testified at a congressional subcommittee earlier this year.     
 
Michael DiBartolomeis, chief of the safe cosmetics program at the California Department of Public Health, said Brazilian Blowout is an example of a product that never should have gone on the market.
 
“Cosmetic products that contain known human carcinogens or chemicals that impair human reproduction or development are marketed and sold without adequate safety tests because the existing law allows it,” he said.

Please read and follow:
http://www.mnn.com/lifestyle/natural-beauty-fashion/stories/us-government-has-little-authority-to-stop-unsafe-cosmetics

DISCLAIMER: Environmental, Health and Safety News is not affiliated with or maintained by ANY for profit or non-profit entity. It is a 100% volunteer effort free from advertising or sponsorship of any kind. This site is intended to be an educational and not-for-profit website providing useful information for security, environmental, health, sciences, transportation, and public safety professionals and the general public. It is not “for the purpose of trade, to induce the sale of any goods or services.”
In the Webmaster’s opinion, any incidental use of any pictures and graphics, or quoted words on this site is not a violation of any trademark for the any reasons stated above. The webmaster will fully cooperate with any and everyone that believes any section of the site are in violation of fair use.

The use of any and all copyrighted works in the creation of this site is, in the Webmaster’s opinion, protected by 17 USC 107 (see Creative Commons License below). If the owner of a copyrighted work used in the creation of this site believes that 17 USC 107 does not apply to the use of their work, the site’s creator will cooperate to the fullest extent possible.

FAIR USE NOTE: The site provides information of a general & public nature regarding national or other developments. None of the information contained herein is intended as legal advice or opinions relative to specific matters, facts, situations or issues. Additional facts, information or future developments may affect the subjects addressed in this site. You should consult with an expert about your particular circumstances before acting on any of this information because it may not be applicable to your situation. This site contains information and links to sites which are not owned or maintained by this site. This site is not responsible for the content, linked sites, and the views expressed on linked sites do not necessarily reflect our views or opinions. The information contained herein is provided for personal, non-commercial, educational, entertainment and informational purposes only and does not constitute a guarantee of information or facts. This site makes no claims, expressed, implied, or statutory regarding the accuracy, timeliness, completeness, or correctness of any material contained herein. Since the conditions of use are outside my control, the individual visitor is entirely responsible for determining the appropriateness and applicability of all information contained herein.

This website is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Back to Top