Consumer law. Golden State Rules

• Author: Stephanie Zimmermann
• Pages: 16-17

CONSUMER LAW

Golden

State

Rules

California often leads the way

in passing environmental

and consumer protection laws

BY STEPHANIE ZIMMERMANN

Consumer activists have been

trying for years to get po-

tentially harmful chemicals

out of personal care prod-

ucts—such as shampoo and deodor-

ant—or at least get manufacturers to

disclose all their ingredients.

They’ll get part of their wish in

2022, when the new Cosmetic Fra-

grance and Flavor Ingredient Right to

Know Act takes effect in California.

Companies that under the California

Safe Cosmetics Act of 2005 already

must disclose to the state chemicals

implicated as potential carcinogens or

reproductive hazards will now have to

reveal an expanded list of chemicals in

a public database run by the California

Department of Public Health. Consum-

ers will be told exactly what’s in vague

“fragrance” or “avor” ingredients

listed on product labels.

And in 2025, the new Toxic-Free

Cosmetics Act will take effect in Cali-

fornia, making it illegal to sell cosmetics

containing 24 chemicals already banned

in the European Union, including form-

aldehyde, polyuoroalkyl substances,

and certain parabens and phthalates.

The legislation had the backing of

the Personal Care Products Council, the

leading U.S. trade association for such

companies.

“It was a large-scale effort,” says

Susan Little, senior advocate for Cali-

fornia government affairs for the non-

prot Environmental Working Group.

Both new laws will not only affect

residents of the Golden State. Con-

sumers from coast to coast are able to

access the database.

And once the chemicals ban takes

effect, it’s expected that most manu-

facturers will remove them nationwide

rather than create California-only

formulations.

The laws are among a slew of

measures passed in California in recent

years in hopes of expanding consumer

or environmental protections fur-

ther aeld.

Whether it’s product ingredients or

data privacy or pollution prevention,

California is frequently where such laws

start. That’s partly due to the state’s

size, with a population of almost 40

million and a gross domestic product of

about $3.2 trillion—an economy that

would rival those of many countries.

It’s also one of only 10 states with

a full-time legislature, giving its sizable

legislative staffs time to dig into issues.

The coming change in cosmetics laws

there represents a major change from

the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic

Act of 1938.

Over the past 83 years, the Food and

Drug Administration has prohibited or

restricted only 11 cosmetic ingredients

for safety reasons.

“It’s just a huge area of consumer

law and consumer protection policy

that is just very underregulated,” Little

says. “We’ll have to wait and see how it

all pans out and whether products with

[for example] formaldehyde will be sold

in Maine. But we’re anticipating the

industry will conform to the California

standard.”

After California’s 2005 law was

passed, the state of Washington in 2008

required manufacturers to disclose

“chemicals of high concern” in chil-

dren’s products, and Minnesota banned

formaldehyde from similar children’s

items in 2013.

Claudia Deeg, a public health asso-

ciate at the California Public Interest

Research Group, says she hopes the

latest California cosmetics laws will

have an even wider impact. “Our hope

National Pulse edited by

BLAIR CHAVIS

blair.chavis@americanbar.org

Photo illustration by Sara Wadford/ABA Journal

ABA JOURNAL | JUNE–JULY 2021

16

P- s S ry AM