California legislators are considering legislation that would require labeling by CPGs.
Senate Bill 258, authored by Senator Lara would require cleaning products carry labels listing all ingredients, along with a pictogram illustrating potential health effects. This bill has passed the Senate, and is awaiting further consideration in its Assembly committee assignment.
Assembly Bill 1575, introduced by Assemblyman Kalra, would require beauty salons to label cosmetics used on customers in-store. A similar requirement is already in place for those sold at grocery and other retail outlets. This bill has passed through the Assembly, and is awaiting further action in the Senate. The California legislature adjourns for their summer recess on July 21st.
California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) recently posted a question and answer document regarding warning requirements that will apply to businesses beginning August 30, 2018.
OEHHA’s new regulations place primary responsibility for providing warnings on product manufacturers, producers, packagers, importers, suppliers or distributors.
Specifically, suppliers of ingredients that contain a listed PROP 65 chemical would only have responsibility for a consumer warning if it has knowledge that the end use of the component part or ingredient will expose a consumer to the listed chemical at a level that requires a warning.
Consumer products manufactured prior to August 30, 2018, and labeled with a warning that is compliant with the September 2008 version of the regulations will be considered in compliance with the 2018 regulations. Additional PROP 65 guidance information will be provided by OEHHA prior to the 2018 compliance deadline.
Two weeks ago, the USDA provided a list of 30 questions for stakeholder input, as they begin to craft the language and parameters for GMO labeling, as required by Congress. The USDA is seeking guidance on symbols, how multi-ingredient food products would be treated, and viability of “digital/electronic disclosure” on food packages.
The agency intends to issue a proposed draft rule later this fall, which would outline GMO label wording and package placement, among other elements. They have not yet delayed the July 2018 GMO labeling requirement for manufacturers.
Late last month, the FDA indefinitely delayed forthcoming nutrition labeling requirements for individual food and beverage packaging. As previously reported, companies with sales of over $10 million annually would have been required to comply with the new regulations in August of 2018. The FDA stated that additional time is needed for industry to develop and procure printing associated with the new labels. Several large consumer product goods (CPGs) companies had also requested additional time to comply.
It’s anticipated that a new timeline and compliance schedule will be printed in the Federal Register later this year. The updated nutrition panel was the most significant food and beverage labeling requirement to come out of the FDA during the Obama Administration.