Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Health Care Bill Fails in a Senate Vote Shocker

Late last night, the Senate failed to pass a “skinny repeal” of Obamacare. Three Republican senators defected. Two of the votes, Senator Susan Collins of Maine and Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, were known “no’s” and had held strong through multiple repeal attempts. But the third, Senator John McCain, was a surprise. His vote was enough to kill the latest attempt in a seven-year crusade to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Scenes from the Senate floor last night were described as “tense,” as McCain indicated to his colleagues he was about to jump ship, and other members of Republican leadership tried to talk him out of it.

Late last night, the Senate failed to pass a “skinny repeal” of Obamacare. Three Republican senators defected. Two of the votes, Senator Susan Collins of Maine and Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, were known “no’s” and had held strong through multiple repeal attempts. But the third, Senator John McCain, was a surprise. His vote was enough to kill the latest attempt in a seven-year crusade to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Scenes from the Senate floor last night were described as “tense,” as McCain indicated to his colleagues he was about to jump ship, and other members of Republican leadership tried to talk him out of it.

While McCain is getting much of the credit for being the third “no” vote, many are also calling for more recognition for Collins and Murkowski. After all, had McCain not come back to vote in favor of discussing the bill in the first place, he wouldn’t have needed to dramatically vote against it.

Tomorrow the headlines will focus on McCain, but let’s not forget it was Susan Collins and Senator Murkowski who held the line all the way. https://t.co/J2TWixYHC9

— Joy Reid (@JoyAnnReid) July 28, 2017

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: July 28, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Trump Announces Ban on Trans People Serving in the Military

In a surprise series of tweets this morning, President Donald Trump announced a new military policy. Per Trump’s tweets, he plans on banning trans people from any and all military service.

After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow……

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017

….Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming…..

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017

….victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017

It’s unclear which “generals and military experts” he consulted with, but this announcement marks a major departure from current military policy. Last year, it was announced that trans individuals would be able to serve openly in the military. It’s also unclear what will happen to trans people already serving. Exact numbers are, understandably, hard to quantify, but it’s believed that approximately 1,320-6,630 trans Americans currently serve. But their medical care, which Trump cites as the reasoning for precluding them from service, contributes to a miniscule percentage of Department of Defense health care expenditures. Estimates put caring for trans people in the military anywhere from $2-8 million. For context, the DoD’s total yearly health care spending is to the tune of $50 billion.

There are a lot of details still to come, but right now, it seems clear that this move was at least partly political:

Just spoke to a Trump administration official about the transgender military decision. Here’s what they said… pic.twitter.com/eOWdvlxTfd

— Jonathan Swan (@jonathanvswan) July 26, 2017

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: July 26, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Brzezinski and Scarborough Speak Out About Trump Feud

President Donald Trump faced bipartisan criticism after launching a Twitter attack yesterday on the hosts of “Morning Joe,” Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski. Many Republicans have expressed disappointment and embarrassment that the president would use such derogatory language. “I see it as embarrassing to our country,” said Maine Senator Susan Collins. It points to the problematic view he has of women, according to Republican pollster Christine Matthews, who spoke to the New York Times. But Sarah Huckabee Sanders defended the president’s words as “fighting fire with fire” and said they were appropriate.

Please just stop. This isn’t normal and it’s beneath the dignity of your office.

— Ben Sasse (@BenSasse) June 29, 2017

This morning, Scarborough and Brzezinski said that officials from the White House called them and said that the National Enquirer, whose owner is a friend of Trump, would run a hit piece on them. According to Scarborough and Brzezinski, Trump would shut down the story if he apologized to them. The couple also said reporters from the Enquirer have been calling Brzezinski’s children and friends.

Here’s the clip:

This is a chilling story. https://t.co/HYJgBnajOy via @Morning_Joe https://t.co/6UCEHzfOET

— Bradd Jaffy (@BraddJaffy) June 30, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 30, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

A few minutes past 9 a.m. on Wednesday, President Donald Trump sent out a tweet that had much of the world on the edge of its seat:

I will be announcing my decision on the Paris Accord over the next few days. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 31, 2017

Soon after Trump posted that tweet, the New York Times reported that he is expected to pull out of the 195-nation climate pact, according to three U.S. officials. One senior official told the Times that the decision was not final, and that specifics had yet to be hammered out.

But still, if the president makes good on one of his signature campaign pledges–he said he would “cancel” the agreement–the government’s commitment to combating climate change would essentially vanish–a symbolic blow that could lead other countries to withdraw.

The climate accord–an effort spearheaded by President Barack Obama and signed in Paris in December 2015–has split many of the key actors in Trump’s orbit; Congress has also taken opposing sides on the matter largely, but not exclusively, among party lines.

Leading the charge to abort the accord is Steve Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist. Bannon, a highly influential force in Trump’s ascendance to the White House, sees it as making good on a central campaign promise. Despite reports that Bannon was losing sway with the president in recent weeks, his “don’t forget who got you here” line seems to resonate with Trump.

Scott Pruitt, the EPA director, has also lobbied Trump to withdraw from the pact. In an interview on “Fox & Friends” in April, Pruitt said: “It’s a bad deal for America. It was an America second, third, or fourth kind of approach.”

But there are competing voices as well, with some of Trump’s aides arguing to remain in the agreement or to work on re-tooling it. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Ivanka Trump have argued that leaving the climate deal could jeopardize relationships with allies–like Europe–and leave the U.S. in a less powerful position in setting the rules for the global climate change discussion in the future.

Tillerson is expected to meet privately with Trump on Wednesday afternoon–perhaps to deliver a final plea to remain in the pact.

Several major corporations–including oil and natural gas giants like ExxonMobil–support remaining in the agreement. Darren Woods, Exxon’s CEO, recently wrote a letter to Trump, saying that the U.S., by being part of the accord, “will maintain a seat at the negotiating table to ensure a level playing field so that all energy sources and technologies are treated equitably in an open, transparent and competitive global market so as to achieve economic growth and poverty reduction at the lowest cost to society.”

Congress, like the White House, is breaking along a few different fault lines–some GOP representatives and senators have urged Trump to remain in the agreement, while dozens of others have implored him to withdraw. Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) is one of the more vocal Republican voices supporting the pact. In a letter to Trump earlier this month, co-signed by Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD), she wrote:

Climate change is a significant environmental challenge that requires global solutions to reduce greenhouse gas pollution and to address the effects already being seen worldwide. For international climate efforts to advance, is is essential that the United States keep a seat at the table.

Lindsey Graham and Bob Corker, GOP Senators from South Carolina and Tennessee, respectively, have also argued that staying in the accord would benefit the United States. Graham recently said leaving it “would be bad for the party, bad for the country.”

Other Republican senators have either remained mum on the subject, or have lobbied Trump to exit the deal. A letter sent last week to Trump, signed by 22 GOP members of the Senate, argued that remaining in the agreement “would subject the United States to significant litigation risk that could upend your Administration’s ability to fulfill its goal of rescinding the Clean Power Plan,” an Obama-era initiative that has yet to go into effect.

“Accordingly,” the senators wrote, ” we strongly encourage you to make a clean break from the Paris Agreement.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Where Do the Trump Team and Congress Stand on the Paris Climate Accord? appeared first on Law Street.

Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) has crossed party lines before, and she says she will do it again–the politician announced that she would not support President Donald Trump’s pick to head the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt.

Collins will not vote for Pruitt, the current Oklahoma Attorney General, at his confirmation hearing because of concerns over his numerous lawsuits against the EPA and potential impact on clean air in Maine. She is the only Republican to voice her opposition to Pruitt so far. 

In a statement, Collins said that she supports EPA regulation of fossil fuel-powered plants to reduce air pollution:

The state of Maine, located at the end of our nation’s ‘air pollution tailpipe,’ is on the receiving end of pollution generated by coal-fired power plants in other states. Reducing harmful air pollutants is critical for public health, particularly for Maine which has among the highest rates of asthma in the country. Controls for mercury, one of the most persistent and dangerous pollutants, are especially important for children and pregnant women. Moreover, there is no doubt that the greenhouse gas emissions driving climate change pose a significant threat to our state’s economy and our natural resources, from our working forests, fishing, and agricultural industries, to tourism and recreation.

Pruitt, meanwhile has questioned the extent to which human activity has affected climate change. During his statewide campaigns, he also received money from donors with strong ties to fossil fuel industries.

This isn’t the first time Collins has opposed one of Trump’s cabinet picks before. Earlier this month, she and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) were the only two Republican senators to vote against Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos.

Collins has a history of taking a more centrist approach to politics, particularly when it comes to social issues–her voting record has shown that she is mostly pro-choice and supports same-sex marriage.

During the election, she wrote in a Washington Post op-ed that she would not vote for Trump, and condemned his attacks on a disabled reporter, Mexican-American judge, and the parents of a soldier killed in Iraq.

When Trump announced an executive order at the end of January that would restrict immigration to the United States from seven Muslim-majority countries, Collins was one of a handful of Republican lawmakers to speak out against the ban.

She told the Maine Sun Journal at the time that the ban could hurt Iraqi citizens working with the U.S. military and that “religious tests serve no useful purpose in the immigration process.”

Because there is a 52-48 Republican majority in the Senate, more Republicans would need to cross the aisle to join Collins (assuming that the Democrats vote unanimously against Pruitt, which may not happen) and defeat his nomination. The Betsy DeVos vote last week came down to a 50-50 tie, with Vice President Mike Pence casting the final vote in her favor.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Senator Susan Collins Says She’ll Oppose Trump’s EPA Pick appeared first on Law Street.

In their final stand against Betsy DeVos, Democrats spent Monday night on the Senate floor, bracing for the controversial cabinet nominee’s confirmation vote. The overnight protest was to no avail, however, as DeVos, President Donald Trump’s education secretary nominee, was confirmed. The vote was split 50-50 until Vice President Mike Pence broke the tie with a deciding vote. But DeVos will begin her post with intense opposition which, Democrats hope, will lead her to shift some of her more radical views to the mainstream. 

Critics of DeVos, a longtime Republican donor, say she will fail to be an advocate for public schools, and might even radically change the country’s education system to be more choice-based. DeVos has decades of experience in private education, and is a fervent supporter of charter schools and religious schools, but lacks experience, personally and professionally, in public education.

In a hearing a few weeks ago, DeVos displayed a basic misunderstanding of the federal law regarding public schools. Responding to a question about the federal law that requires public schools to provide equal opportunities to students with disabilities, DeVos said, “I think that is a matter that’s best left to the states.” Evidently, DeVos did not realize the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is federal law, and is inherently not a state-level issue.

“Cabinet secretaries can’t be expected to know everything. But this is different,” Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said on the Senate floor on Monday. “The nominee for secretary of education doesn’t know some of the most basic facts about education policy.”

Senate Dems protest to keep the failed status quo. Betsy DeVos is a reformer, and she is going to be a great Education Sec. for our kids!

— President Trump (@POTUS) February 7, 2017

Monday’s overnight protest is the latest salvo in a weeks-long flurry of friction from Democrats, lawmakers and constituents, against Trump’s cabinet nominees, most pointedly focused on DeVos. Senators’ phones have been ringing seemingly nonstop, with concerned constituents pushing their representatives to oppose DeVos, and to do more to sway Republicans to their corner.

Two Republicans, Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) did just that last week, when they said they would not support DeVos; one more Republican needed to join them in order to block the billionaire. But Collins and Murkowski represent states with vast rural communities, where parents rely on public schools to educate their children. School choice, for many parents in those states, is not an option.

“One thing is very clear: if she is confirmed, she would enter the job as the most controversial and embattled secretary in the history of this department,” said Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) on the Senate floor on Monday. Murray is the top Democrat on the Senate committee that questioned DeVos in her confirmation hearing and, with voting along party lines, propelled her to a full Senate vote. “She would start her job with no credibility inside the agency she is supposed to lead,” Murray added.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Democrats Stage Final, Futile Stand Against Betsy DeVos appeared first on Law Street.

Yesterday, President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court to fill the vacancy left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Since Scalia’s death, Senate Republicans have been vowing that they will not hold hearings on whoever Obama nominates, because he’s in the last year of his office. But with Garland as his choice, Obama is essentially calling their bluff–Garland is by most accounts a moderate, and has received Republican support in the past. So, will the Senate Republicans continue to block Garland? Or will they “do their job?”

The news that Obama had chosen Garland as his nominee led to predictably mixed reactions around Washington. As expected, Republican leaders, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senator Chuck Grassley, who chairs the Senate judiciary committee, both stuck to their lines that a new justice shouldn’t be chosen until the next President is in office.

A few Senate Republicans did acknowledge that the Senators should at least meet with Garland and vet him–Senator Susan Collins of Maine said:

I believe that we should follow the regular order in considering this nominee. The Constitution’s very clear that the president has every right to make this nomination, and then the Senate can either consent or withhold its consent.

A few other Republicans, including Senator Jeff Flake, admitted that they would consider nominating Garland in a lame duck session if Hillary Clinton (or another Democrat) is elected in November.

As expected, most Democrats responded to the Republican blockade with frustration. The senior-most Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Patrick Leahy stated:

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Americans Tell the Senate: #DoYourJob appeared first on Law Street.

Sponsored Content

Everyone uses cosmetics, lotions, soaps, and other personal care items as a part of daily life, and we trust that those products are safe. But who actually determines whether or not a personal care product is safe? The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has jurisdiction over the regulation of personal care products, however, the Agency continues to follow outdated guidelines that don’t reflect recent scientific breakthroughs. In an attempt to change this outdated system, Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-California) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) introduced the Personal Care Products Safety Act (S. 1014) to the Senate in April. The proposed bill is a bipartisan initiative and has the backing of many cosmetic and personal care product companies and the support of advocacy groups such as the Society for Women’s Health Research (SWHR ®). Read on to learn about current personal care products regulation, attempts for reform, and the status of the Personal Care Products Safety Act.

Personal Care Products Regulation in the U.S.

Personal care products were first brought under the umbrella of the FDA with the passage of the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which provided for federal authority over such products. However, which products are defined as personal care products and which are defined as drugs is a nuanced question. According to the FDA, there’s no clear distinction under the law, but there are generalities that the agency uses to designate the category various products fall into. According to the FDA:

Under the law, some of the products commonly referred to as “personal care products” are cosmetics. These include, for example, skin moisturizers, perfumes, lipsticks, fingernail polishes, eye and facial makeup preparations, shampoos, permanent waves, hair colors, toothpastes, and deodorants. Some, however, are regulated as drugs. Among these are skin protectants (such as lip balms and diaper ointments), mouthwashes marketed with therapeutic claims, antiperspirants, and treatments for dandruff or acne.

Some personal care products can meet the definitions of both cosmetics and drugs when that product has two intended uses. For example, a shampoo is a cosmetic because its intended use is to cleanse the hair. An antidandruff treatment is a drug because its intended use is to treat dandruff. Consequently, an antidandruff shampoo is both a cosmetic and a drug, as it is intended to cleanse the hair and treat dandruff.

Regulations on drugs are obviously stricter than those on personal care products–understandably so– but there are some concerns over the ways that those personal care products are regulated.

What’s lacking from the FDA regulation of personal care products?

Guidelines that govern the FDA’s policies on personal care products haven’t been updated since the 1938 law that gave the Agency the authority to regulate these products. Yet, the science behind these products has evolved rapidly over the same time period. We now know more information about chemicals that could potentially be harmful. Additionally, many products contain new man-made chemicals, and the Agency should have policies in place that reflect the current state of the science governing these products.

Currently, the FDA cannot issue recalls of personal care products that it deems to be harmful. It can only recommend voluntary recalls, which critics are concerned aren’t strong enough to adequately remove dangerous products off the shelves in a timely fashion.

The lack of testing guidelines for personal care products are another area of concern for health advocates. Currently, the FDA doesn’t have the authority to mandate testing of ingredients before they go on the market, with one exception: color additives and no health studies or pre-market testing are required. Instead, the cosmetic industry is largely self-regulated through an organization known as the Cosmetics Ingredient Review (CIR). However, many advocacy organizations also question the efficacy of that group, particularly when it comes to CIR’s banning of substances. In the 36 years since its inception, the regulatory group has only 11 chemicals for use in personal care products, a stark contrast to the hundreds banned by European Union regulators.

Advocacy groups are also concerned over the labeling laws currently in place for personal care products. Currently, full ingredient disclosure isn’t required, which many criticize as a major loophole with regards to transparency and patient safety. There’s also no requirement for contact information, so people who may suffer from adverse reactions to products can’t always figure out how to get in touch with the manufacturer to report the problem.

Overall, the process for FDA approval of personal care products is significantly less strict than the process the Agency uses to approve drugs and medications.

What is the Personal Care Products Safety Act?

The Personal Care Products Safety Act would help remedy many of the regulatory loopholes cited above. and would give the FDA the regulatory authority it needs to issue recalls, improve testing guidelines, and require more stringent labeling.

Further, this legislation would mandate that the FDA take a proactive approach to ensuring that chemicals used in personal care products are safe by requiring that the FDA test and review at least five chemicals each year. The bill also lays out the first group of chemicals that would be reviewed, all of which have been subject to recent controversy. According to Senator Feinstein’s release on the act, that first group consists of:

Diazolidinyl urea, which is used as a preservative in a wide range of products including deodorant, shampoo, conditioner, bubble bath and lotions;

Lead acetate, which is used as a color additive in hair dyes;

Methylene glycol/formaldehyde, which is used in hair treatments;

Propyl paraben, which is used as a preservative in a wide range of products including shampoo, conditioner and lotion; and

Quaternium-15, which is used as a preservative in a wide range of products including shampoo, shaving cream, skin creams and cleansers

Additionally, the Personal Care Products Safety Act would require manufacturers of personal care products to register with the FDA. It would remove the protected status of “coal tar,” a carcinogen found in some hair dyes that currently is permitted as long as there are proper warning labels. It would also direct the FDA to come up with a list of “Good Manufacturing Practices” to guide producers.

The new programs and regulations instated by the bill would be funded by collecting user fees from personal care product manufacturers–this is a similar process FDA uses for the review and approval of prescription drugs.

Why is the Personal Care Products Safety Act particularly important for women?

While Americans use an average of roughly 10 personal care products each day, that number isn’t split up by sex. Women in particular use an average of 12 products, exposing themselves to 168 unique chemical ingredients each day. This puts women at a higher risk when it comes to being harmed by untested or unsafe chemicals. SWHR recognizes the impact that the Personal Care Product Safety Act, if it passes, will have on women’s lives and health. SWHR stated in support:

Women use these products daily, and safer, better-regulated personal care items means healthier women and families. SWHR commends this step towards advancing women’s health and the health of all Americans who use these products.

Where is the Personal Care Products Safety Act in the Legislative Process?

As of right now, the legislation has only been introduced into the Senate–it has a long way to go before it becomes a law. But there is some good news: the bill has bipartisan support, which in today’s political climate is certainly rare. Senators Feinstein and Collins are the original sponsors, but they’ve since been joined by four additional co-sponsors: Senator Barbara Boxer (D-California), Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota), Senator Mark Kirk (R-Illinois), and Senator Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii).

In addition to the SWHR, many other advocacy groups support the Personal Care Products Safety Act, including the Endocrine Society, the Environmental Working Group, and HealthyWomen.

Who Doesn’t Support the Personal Care Products Safety Act?

There are some who don’t agree with the tenants laid out in the Personal Care Products Safety Act. For example, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has brought forth concerns that a greater concentration on testing means that there will be more testing on animals.

Others that disagree with the push for new regulations include members of the personal care products industry, including the Independent Cosmetic Manufacturers and Distributors (ICMAD) which says that it “places too large a burden on small business, stifles innovation in the cosmetics and personal care industry, and does not provide appropriate and significant national uniformity.”

Conclusion

The Personal Care Products Safety Act has a very long way to go before it could be enacted. But it reflects common sense approaches to regulating the personal care industry that haven’t been updated in almost 75 years. In order to ensure the health of all, particularly those who use these products on a regular basis, we need to make sure that there’s accountability and transparency in what goes into our personal care products.

If you would like to support the legislation, click below.

Resources

Primary

Society for Women’s Health Research: SWHR Proudly Supports Personal Care Products Safety Act

U.S. Senate: Personal Care Products Safety Act

GovTrack: S. 1014: Personal Care Products Safety Act

FDA: The 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

FDA: Are All “Personal Care Products” Regulated as Cosmetics?

Dianne Feinstein: Senators Introduce Bill to Strengthen Personal Care Product Oversight

Additional 

Harvard School of Public Health: Harmful, Untested Chemicals Rife in Personal Care Products

Environmental Working Group: Why This Matters–Cosmetics and Your Health

FDA Law Blog: Proposed Personal Care Products Safety Act Would Significantly Expand FDA Authority over Cosmetics

Washington Monthly: Beauty Tips for the FDA 

Women’s Voices for the Earth: Will the New Personal Care Products Safety Act Make Cosmetic Ingredients Safe?

The Huffington Post: New Bill Would Require FDA To Regulate Ingredients In Cosmetics & Personal-Care Products

PETA: Proposed Law Likely to Mean Tests on Animals for Cosmetics Ingredients in U.S.!

Society for Women’s Health Research

The Society for Women’s Health Research (SWHR®), is a national non-profit based in Washington D.C. that is widely recognized as the thought-leader in promoting research on biological differences in disease. SWHR is dedicated to transforming women’s health through science, advocacy, and education. Founded in 1990 by a group of physicians, medical researchers and health advocates, SWHR aims to bring attention to the variety of diseases and conditions that disproportionately or predominately affect women. For more information, please visit www.swhr.org. Follow us on Twitter at @SWHR. SWHR is a partner of Law Street Creative. The opinions expressed in this author’s articles do not necessarily reflect the views of Law Street.

The post The Personal Care Products Safety Act: Modernizing Outdated Regulations appeared first on Law Street.