Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the No PFAS in Cosmetics Act. I am pleased to be partnering with Senator Blumenthal on this important legislation. Our bipartisan bill seeks to ban the inclusion of Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in cosmetics products, such as make-up, moisturizer, and perfume.

PFAS are a class of man-made chemicals, which includes PFOA, PFOS, and GenX. These chemicals can bioaccumulate in our bodies over time and have been linked to cancer, thyroid disease, liver damage, decreased fertility, and hormone disruption. First developed in the 1940s, PFAS are traditionally found in food packaging, nonstick pans, clothing, furniture, and firefighting foam.

Unfortunately, Maine has experienced considerable PFAS contamination, which has not only threatened our water supply, but adversely affected the livelihoods of farmers. Several dairy farms in Maine recently discovered serious levels of PFAS in their operations, with milk containing as high as 1,420 parts per trillion. This is more than twenty times EPA's established health advisory level for drinking water.

In addition to these agricultural and water supply contaminations, we now also know that PFAS appear in products across the spectrum-- including cosmetics. A new peer-reviewed study led by the University of Notre Dame published in Environmental Science and Technology Letters found high fluorine levels--indicating the probable presence of PFAS-- in just over half of 231 makeup products tested, including waterproof mascara, liquid lipsticks, and foundations.

A subset of 29 samples was studied further to identify specific PFAS chemicals. Between four and 13 specific PFAS were identified in each of the 29 samples, some at high concentrations. Remarkably, only one of these 29 products listed any fluorochemical ingredients on the product's label. While some of these PFAS may be present in trace quantities as impurities in the manufacturing process, those found at high concentrations are likely being used intentionally to impart performance characteristics to the product. Since fluorinated chemicals are not disclosed on the labels, this study suggests that consumers unknowingly are being exposed to PFAS in their cosmetics.

The findings of this study are particularly alarming, as many of these products are subject to direct human exposure. For example, lipstick is often inadvertently ingested, and mascara is sometimes absorbed through tear ducts. In addition, during the cosmetic product manufacturing process, workers are exposed to the chemicals that are used, and discarded products with PFAS can cause the potential for additional human exposure if drinking water sources are contaminated.

PFAS pose an unnecessary and avoidable risk to human health and do not belong in our cosmetic products. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act defines cosmetics as ``articles intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or sprayed on, introduced into, or otherwise applied to the human body . . . for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance.'' This definition includes skin moisturizers, perfumes, lipsticks, fingernail polishes, eye and facial makeup preparations, cleansing shampoos, permanent waves, hair colors, and deodorant, as well as other similar products. Our legislation would direct the FDA to issue a proposed rule banning the intentional addition of PFAS in cosmetics, as defined by the FDA, within 270 days of enactment, and require a final rule to be issued 90 days thereafter.

The FDA should act now to ban the addition of PFAS to cosmetics products to help protect people from further contamination. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting the No PFAS in Cosmetics Act.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source