Build a solid foundation in science, formulation and product development—find out more!
Most Popular in:
By: David C. Steinberg, Steinberg & Associates
Posted: September 30, 2005, from the October 2005 issue of Cosmetics & Toiletries.
Purchase This Article
- From Cosmetics & Toiletries
- October 2005 issue, pg 52
- 6 pages
- Adobe PDF for download
- Printed copies mailed to you
From $9 an article
The November 2004 Regulatory Review column discussed how a disastrous piece of legislation in California was defeated by only 1 vote, and it forecast that this idea would be revisited. With the 2005 session of California’s Senate and House, 2 new bills were introduced that could restrict and regulate cosmetics uniquely to California. These bills are Assembly Bill 908 and Senate Bill 484.
Examining the Claims in Assembly Bill 908 Assemblywoman Judy Chu, DMonteray Park, who raised issues with the proposed Assembly Bill 2025, “Cosmetics: Prohibited Substances,” in 2004, introduced AB 908 into the State Assembly in February and withdrew it on May 3. AB 908 is an act to amend Section 100333 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to public health. This bill had 2 parts. The fi rst would require all cosmetics sold on the Internet to list the ingredients on the Web site prior to purchase. The second part would ban the sale, distribution, or manufacture of any cosmetic that contains dibutyl phthalate (DBP) or diethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP) after January 1, 2007. Violation of either part of the bill would be a crime.
This is only an excerpt of the full article that appeared in Cosmetics & Toiletries, but you can purchase the full-text version.