Pending legislation in California

There is pending legislation in California that will significantly impact the fragrance and cosmetics industry. Several firms based in California manufature ingredients used by perfume makers all over.

To view the proposed law and to track its progress through the California State Senate, use this link:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/po...ll_number=sb_4

There is a sample letter you can use if you wish to oppose this legisaltion (or modify if you wish to support it) here: http://www.kintera.org/c.deIJLOOsGnF...acy/index.aspx

This is a letter sent in opposition to the bill from FEMA and FMA:

June 2005

FEMA and FMA Oppose SB 484

The Flavor & Extract Manufacturers Association (FEMA) and the Fragrance Materials Association (FMA) oppose California Senate Bill 484 and similar proposals that would unnecessarily restrict the flavors and fragrances used in cosmetic and personal care products, without providing any additional public health protections.

Flavors and fragrances are safe. Existing regulations and practices ensure that the flavor and fragrance ingredients used in cosmetics and personal care products are safe.

Requiring cosmetic ingredient disclosure to the California Department of Health Services (DHS) would provide no additional protection to the consumer, is not practical, and would jeopardize the confidentiality of highly proprietary and very valuable flavor and fragrance formulas protected by intellectual property laws worldwide.

FEMA and FMA oppose SB 484 because:

The Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic (FD&C) Act prohibits the distribution of cosmetics which are adulterated or misbranded. A cosmetic is considered adulterated if it contains a substance which may make the product harmful to consumers.

By law, cosmetic product manufacturers have to substantiate the safety of their products. If the safety of a cosmetic is not adequately substantiated, FDA has the authority to take enforcement steps ranging from mandating a product recall, requiring warning labels, to putting the manufacturer in jail.

The Research Institute for Fragrance Materials (RIFM), an independent, non-profit scientific organization - evaluates the safety of fragrance ingredients and sets safety standards for fragrance material use.

Any flavors used in cosmetic products must be recognized as safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The manufacturers of flavors and fragrances, FEMA, FMA, and RIFM continuously evaluate flavor and fragrance materials based on the most current scientific data available.

As a result of RIFM Expert Panel safety evaluations, the use of certain fragrance ingredients has been restricted or banned in the International Fragrance Association (IFRA) Standards.

The data from an FDA reporting program that was in operation for about five years show that complaints about fragrance ingredients ran at less than one in a million, considerably lower than many other FDA regulated ingredients.

For more information contact John Cox at 202-293-5800.

The California Assembly Health Committee approved SB 484 6/28. Vote was eight to five, eight votes was needed to clear the Committee. SB 484 now moves to the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

As of right now, Assembly Appropriations Committee will have until August 26 to decide whether to send SB 484 on to the Assembly floor.

Here is an article that discusses one of the ingredients targeted by the bill: http://tinyurl.com/d8878

Here is an article about the outcry from the cosmetics industry in regards to this bill: http://tinyurl.com/e379b

A friend sent this article from the Sacremento Bee to me:
'Ghost vote' spooks the Assembly
Senator pushes button of absent GOP member, provoking outrage.
By Jim Sanders -- Bee Capitol Bureau
Published 2:15 am PDT Friday, September 2, 2005
Nobody was surprised that state Sen. Carole Migden voted in favor of her own cosmetics bill. The problem was that she did it in the wrong legislative house.

Toward the end of Wednesday's floor session, Migden, a San Francisco Democrat, pushed the voting button of a GOP assemblyman who was temporarily away from his desk.

Her action violated Assembly rules and drew an angry response from Republicans.

"That behavior cannot be tolerated," said Assembly Republican leader Kevin McCarthy of Bakersfield. "It's unheard of on this floor, it's against the rules, and it cannot be tolerated."

Migden, chairwoman of the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee, declined to comment Thursday about her actions on the Assembly floor the previous day.

"There's no story there," she said.

Controversy erupted while Migden was lobbying for her Senate Bill 484, which would require manufacturers to inform the state about cancer-causing chemicals in cosmetics.

Assembly Democratic and Republican leaders agree on the following chain of events: Migden was visiting the Assembly, seeking support for her bill, and she inappropriately pushed the electronic button of GOP Assemblyman Guy Houston.

She later apologized for her actions, leaders of both parties said.

Assemblyman Bob Huff, a Diamond Bar Republican who sits beside Houston, R-Livermore, said the incident occurred while votes were cast on SB 484 and the bill appeared to be one shy of passage.

As the tally neared a close, threatening to kill her bill, Migden suddenly stepped up to Houston's vacant desk and voted yes, Huff said.

Migden mentioned the name of Hector de la Torre, D-South Gate, and she apparently assumed the seat belonged to him, Huff said.

After pushing Houston's button, which would have been the 41st vote needed for passage of SB 484, Migden called for the tally to end, saying, "Set the roll," Huff said.

"I was shocked," Huff said. "I said, 'Wait you can't do that - that's Guy Houston's seat.' "

Huff quickly erased Migden's vote before it became official.

SB 484 thus failed on the first Assembly vote, but it passed by a bare-minimum 41 votes a short time later despite heavy opposition from Republicans.

The bill now returns to the Senate for concurrence in amendments.

Assembly Rule 104 prohibits any legislator from voting for any other Assembly member.

The rule often is bent by colleagues of the same party who are desk mates and give each other permission to "ghost vote" on a particular bill if one or the other is indisposed.

Migden's action was different: She came into a house where she does not serve and pushed the button of a legislator from an opposing party - to benefit her own bill.

Huff said Migden carries a lot of weight in the Legislature because her committee can sidetrack major bills.

"People give a lot of deference to Carole because she chairs a very powerful committee," he said. "Bills die in her committee, so the implied threat is, if you don't get along with her, then you're going to get bills tanked."

Upon learning of Migden's rules violation, McCarthy said he complained to Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, who quickly approached Migden, who then apologized to Houston.

Assembly Majority Leader Dario Frommer, D-Los Angeles, characterized Migden's aborted vote as inappropriate but added, "I believe it was a mistake and hopefully it will not be repeated again."

McCarthy said he plans to speak again with Núñez about the possibility of additional actions to ensure enforcement of Assembly rules.

"You've got to talk about whether the senator can be allowed on the floor again," he said. "You cannot have this type of activity going on."

I have written to my state representatives regarding this bill and also about my opinion about Sen Miglin's behaviour. I'd love to hear some positive, constructive comments about other methods to help improve the situation. There are so many smart people on this board. Does anyone have a creative idea?

You can read the bill in its entirety here:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/s...ended_asm.html