BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �



                                                                  SB 977
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:  August 30, 2012

                            ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HEALTH
                                 Richard Pan, Chair
                     SB 977 (Yee) - As Amended:  August 29, 2012

           SENATE VOTE  :  36-0
           
          SUBJECT  :  Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law: nail polish.

           SUMMARY  :  Subjects a manufacturer of nail polish that violates 
          provisions of existing law governing misbranded cosmetics, if 
          convicted, to a maximum fine of $2,000 and/or imprisonment for 
          one year in the county jail.  

           EXISTING LAW  :  

          1)Establishes the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law (Sherman 
            Law), administered by the Department of Public Health (DPH), 
            to regulate the packaging, labeling, and advertising of food, 
            drugs, devices, and cosmetics in conformity with the federal 
            Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.  

          2)Prohibits a person from manufacturing, selling, delivering, 
            holding, offering for sale, or receiving in commerce, any 
            cosmetic that is adulterated, and prohibits a person from 
            manufacturing or selling any cosmetic that is misbranded, as 
            prescribed. 

          3)Makes any person who violates any provision of the Sherman 
            Law, or any regulation adopted pursuant to it, if convicted, 
            subject to imprisonment for up to one year in the county jail 
            or a maximum fine of $1,000, or both.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :  None

           COMMENTS  :

           1)PURPOSE OF THIS BILL  .  The author points to a recent report by 
            the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) that found 
            that ingredients listed on the labels of some nail polishes 
            did not accurately reflect the products' chemical composition 
            as evidence of the need for this bill.  The author states that 
            this bill is intended to influence the bad behavior of some 
            nail polish manufacturers by imposing a greater monetary 








                                                                  SB 977
                                                                  Page  2

            disincentive against mislabeling or misrepresenting their 
            ingredients.  According to the author, this bill attempts to 
            address a health and public safety risk to consumers and to 
            nail salon workers, in particular, who are exposed to the 
            chemicals in nail polish on a daily basis and deserve to be 
            informed of what is in the products they use.  

           2)TOXIC-TRIO CHEMICALS  .  According to the DTSC, nail products 
            containing the "toxic-trio" of the chemicals called dibutyl 
            phthalate (DBP), toluene, and formaldehyde pose health and 
            safety risks to roughly 121,000 nail salon technicians in more 
            than 48,000 salons throughout California.  These chemicals 
            have been the subject of ongoing public scrutiny from 
            non-government organizations, environmental and worker rights 
            groups, and various regulatory agencies over concerns about 
            nail product safety.  Exposure to toxic-trio chemicals is 
            associated with cancer, birth defects, asthma, and other 
            chronic health conditions.

           3)DTSC REPORT  .  In May 2011, DTSC conducted a limited-scale 
            sampling of nail products offered for sale in the San 
            Francisco Bay Area in an effort to further support a local 
            ordinance establishing a voluntary recognition program for 
            nail salons that choose safer nail products.  DTSC's objective 
            in sampling the products was to investigate the accuracy of 
            claims made by a small number of nail product manufacturers 
            that their goods were free of some or all toxic-trio 
            chemicals; provide information on hazardous chemicals used in 
            these products; and, examine trends of possible ingredient 
            substitutions.  Twenty-five nail product samples, which 
            included both products with toxic-trio related claims and 
            those with no claims about chemical content, were randomly 
            collected from six distributors and tested.  Manufacturers of 
            12 of the 25 products claimed that they were free of at least 
            one toxic-trio chemical and that seven claimed to contain none 
            of the toxic-trio chemicals. 

            Toluene was detected more frequently and at higher 
            concentrations in products that claimed to be free of one or 
            more of the toxic-trio chemicals than in products that made no 
            claim at all.  Ten of the 12 products with "toluene-free" 
            claims actually contained toluene.  In five of the seven 
            products that claimed to be free of all of the toxic-trio 
            chemicals, the products contained high levels of DBP, toluene, 
            or a combination of both.  DTSC also found chemicals in the 








                                                                  SB 977
                                                                  Page  3

            nail products whose functionality, toxicities, environmental 
            behavior, and exposure risks remain unknown and stated that 
            these unknown chemicals may be alternatives to the toxic-trio. 
             Based on the findings of its study, DTSC recommended that 
            manufacturers disclose nail product formulations and provide 
            information demonstrating that substitutions are safer to 
            public health and the environment.  DTSC also urged more 
            collaboration and coordination among interested stakeholders, 
            in addition to expanded outreach, education, and training of 
            nail salon owners and workers.

           4)PRIOR LEGISLATION  .  

             a)   AB 237 (Galgiani) of 2011 and AB 595 (Dymally) of 2007 
               would have required cosmetic product manufacturers that do 
               not comply with the federal Food and Drug Administration 
               (FDA) Voluntary Cosmetic Reporting Program (VCRP) to 
               provide to DPH the same kind of information disclosed 
               through the VCRP.  AB 237 was held on the Assembly 
               Appropriations Committee Suspense File, and AB 595 was held 
               on the Senate Appropriations Committee Suspense File.

             b)   SB 1712 (Migden) of 2008 would have required a 
               manufacturer of lipstick sold in this state to provide 
               evidence to DPH that the lipstick contains no more than an 
               unavoidable trace of lead.  SB 1712 failed passage in the 
               Assembly Health Committee.

             c)   SB 484 (Migden), Chapter 729, Statutes of 2005, 
               establishes the California Safe Cosmetics Act of 2005, 
               which requires cosmetic manufacturers to disclose to DPH a 
               list of their products' chemical ingredients that cause 
               cancer or reproductive harm.

             d)   AB 908 (Chu) of 2005 would have prohibited a person or 
               entity from manufacturing, selling, or distributing in 
               commerce any cosmetic that contains any of two specified 
               chemicals, and would have defined a cosmetic as misbranded 
               if sold by an Internet Website where the list of 
               ingredients in the cosmetic is not easily viewable before 
               the purchase.  AB 908 failed passage in the Assembly Health 
               Committee.

             e)   AB 2025 (Chu) of 2004 would have required the 
               manufacturer of any cosmetic or personal care product sold 








                                                                  SB 977
                                                                  Page  4

               in California to submit to the California Office of 
               Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) a list of 
               ingredients contained in the product, including the name of 
               each ingredient for purposes of fragrance or flavoring and 
               the name of each ingredient identified by the phrase "and 
               other ingredients."  AB 2025 would have banned a cosmetic 
               or personal care product that contains a chemical known to 
               cause cancer or reproductive toxicity unless OEHHA issued a 
               safe use determination on that product.  AB 2025 was not 
               heard in the Assembly Health Committee at the request of 
               the author.

             f)   AB 2012 (Chu) of 2004 would have required, by January 1, 
               2006, the manufacturer of any cosmetic or personal care 
               product subject to regulation by the FDA and manufactured, 
               processed, or distributed in commerce in the state to 
               notify OEHHA of any ingredient in its product that is a 
               chemical identified as causing cancer or reproductive 
               toxicity, as specified.  AB 2012 failed passage in the 
               Assembly Health Committee.  
              
           5)SUPPORT  .  The Personal Care Products Council states in support 
            of a prior version of this bill, which contained a $15,000 
            fine, that this bill will protect consumers from misleading 
            claims and advertisements concerning nail polish.

           6)POLICY COMMENT  .  This bill would double the fine for nail 
            polish manufacturers from $1,000 to $2,000 for any Sherman Law 
            violations.  Is it appropriate, from a policy perspective, to 
            single out the manufacturers of nail polish for a higher fine? 
             The author may wish to identify what differentiates these 
            manufacturers from those of other food, drugs, devices, or 
            cosmetics who violate the Sherman Law.

           7)AUTHOR'S AMENDMENTS  .  The author will offer amendments in 
            committee to clarify that the provisions of this bill shall 
            not apply to a nail salon or to a distributor, retailer, or 
            wholesaler of nail polish.

           REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION  :

           Support 
           
          Personal Care Products Council (prior version)
           








                                                                 SB 977
                                                                  Page  5

            Opposition 
           
          None on file.

           Analysis Prepared by  :    Cassie Royce / HEALTH / (916) 319-2097