Beautiful Thinking.
During the BeautyMatter FUTURE50 summit, it was fascinating to learn more about how independent beauty brands can navigate the complexities of this arena, through the support of organisations such as the Independent Beauty Association (IBA).
Meredith Petillo, Vice President of Technical and Regulatory Affairs at the IBA sat down with Kelly Kovack, co-founder of BeautyMatter, to break down the roadmap whereby brands can navigate this complex space.
The IBA has been present during some of the most impactful formulations of rules and regulations which affect the businesses that it supports, including the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022.
This represented the most important development in the authority of the FDA in their regulation of cosmetics since the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act of 1938. After being signed by President Biden in December 2022, the beginning of this month saw major changes come into effect. This included the enforcement of product labelling submissions to the MoCRA portal, as well as facility registrations.
After significant controversies surrounding Johnson & Johnson’s talc-based baby powder – found to be contaminated by asbestos and linked to ovarian cancer in their customers – test methods for asbestos have also been added.
The IBA also expects an imminent proposal regarding regulations on fragrance allergens in cosmetics. This extension speaks to one of the key goals of the FDA’s work in bringing in these new standards – a clear, structured set of regulations which ensure products across the US and EU are aligned in the standards they adhere to.
The rules surrounding fragrance allergens are set to be influenced by the European Union’s now extended allergen list, which is currently being implemented across the continent. It is reported that the state of California and their Department of Health is already extending their own list to match the EU’s expanded list. Indeed, the Golden State has indicated that their timeline for reporting allergens will match the EU’s, of 2026 or 2028.
BeautyMatter shared that this had initially been a timeline of six months, prompting backlash from fragrance producers. Here the IBA was able to work “alongside fragrance creators and PCPC [The Personal Care Products Council] to help get that timing changed by the California Department of Health. That was a great win for the industry. A big thanks to fragrance creators who led that effort.”
What is evident is the complexity and challenging roadmap laid before beauty brands, from a global to US state level. For the biggest retailers whose ranks will include seasoned lawyers and regulators to guide them through the process, they’re likely to have this well in hand. For smaller, independent businesses seeking to expand on a global level, the cost and complexity of this process can stymie this development.
But it is here that organisations such as the IBA – who have represented brands and businesses of the independent beauty sector for half a century – come into play. Through regular meetings with leaders from within the FDA, they are able to not only provide the brands they support with clear insights, they can also communicate to FDA representatives the realities, needs and demands of those they speak on behalf of.
Having played a role as part of a coalition of Trade Associations, non-government organisations and other stakeholders, they helped to advise the Senate HELP Committee and the House Energy and Commerce Committee during the drafting of the new legislation for cosmetic reform.
Their work with official government bodies have helped to limit the imposition of user fees on the beauty sector, something which they flagged as posing significant risk to an ability to innovate and create.
The beginning of July also marked the beginning of a new law, which – as Kelly Kovack flagged during BeautyMatter’s FUTURE50 event – many are unaware of. The extended producer responsibility packaging laws (EPR) put the onus of packaging disposal back on those who produce packaging, rather than the local governments or the suppliers who buy this packaging.
As a law which operates at a state level, this again shines a light on how this can have a negative ripple effect for small businesses who do not have the same level of resource as the big players, and struggle to juggle the differences in law from state to state.
Currently enacted in four states – California, Colorado, Oregon and Maine – with an anticipated eight to ten states soon to follow, the nuances at a state level will necessitate that producers (often the brands themselves) carefully acquaint themselves with how producer responsibility organisations (PROs) are coming into play, registering with these organisations to get to grips with how their brand might be affected. In two of the four states, the PRO has been established as the Circular Action Alliance.
What the IBA also stresses is the importance of the work that government organisations like the FDA are undertaking – the right of consumers to feel safe and secure in the knowledge that they are buying products which will not prove harmful to their health