HR-4434-119
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Sponsored by Janice Schakowsky (D-IL)
What it does
This bill would require the FDA to maintain a public list of harmful chemicals that are incidentally present in cosmetics (called "nonfunctional constituents") — meaning chemicals not intentionally added but that may appear as byproducts or contaminants. Within one year of a chemical being added to the list, cosmetic ingredient and product suppliers would be required to test for that chemical and share results with brand owners before any sale. Brand owners and others in the supply chain would be required to keep records of their ingredient and raw material suppliers and provide that information to the FDA upon request. The FDA would also accept public petitions to add substances to the list, issue industry testing guidance, and establish an advisory committee. Civil penalties would apply to entities that violate the bill's requirements.
Who benefits
Consumers who use cosmetics — particularly frequent users such as women, children, and people with occupational exposure — who would gain greater assurance that products have been tested for harmful incidental chemicals. Environmental advocates and communities near cosmetic manufacturing facilities that may benefit from reduced chemical pollution. Cosmetic brand owners who source ingredients in good faith and would gain documented supplier accountability. Researchers and public health agencies that would gain access to better supply chain and testing data. Smaller brands that already conduct rigorous testing and could gain a competitive advantage over less scrupulous competitors.
Who is hurt
Cosmetic ingredient suppliers and manufacturers who would bear the direct costs of testing, recordkeeping, and compliance within the one-year window. Small and mid-sized suppliers with limited laboratory infrastructure may face disproportionate compliance burdens. Brand owners who rely on complex, multi-tier global supply chains may face significant administrative costs tracking ingredient sourcing. Consumers could see modest price increases if compliance costs are passed through. Foreign suppliers selling into the U.S. market would face new regulatory requirements, potentially reducing competition and product variety.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that cosmetics are applied directly to skin and are absorbed by the body, yet federal law has historically required little transparency about incidental chemical contaminants — a gap that independent laboratory testing has repeatedly exposed, including findings of PFAS, formaldehyde, and heavy metals in widely sold products. They contend that the bill fills a concrete regulatory blind spot left by the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022, which addressed intentional ingredients but not byproducts, and that mandatory testing with civil penalties creates enforceable accountability rather than relying on voluntary industry action.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill delegates broad list-making authority to the FDA without clear statutory criteria for what makes a constituent "harmful," creating regulatory uncertainty that could expose suppliers to liability based on shifting agency determinations. They contend that the one-year compliance window for testing may be unworkable for suppliers with complex global ingredient chains, and that the costs of mandatory testing and recordkeeping — particularly for small businesses — could consolidate the market among large players, reducing competition and raising consumer prices without proportionate public health benefit.
Constitutional context
Congress has broad authority to regulate cosmetics sold in interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3), and the FDA's existing authority over cosmetics under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act rests on this foundation. Post-Loper Bright (2024), courts will independently review whether the FDA's specific determinations about which chemicals are "harmful" fall within the authority this bill grants, rather than deferring to the agency's interpretation — meaning the breadth of the FDA's list-making discretion could face heightened judicial scrutiny.
Checks and balances
The FDA (executive branch) gains new rulemaking, list-making, and enforcement authority; checks include the petition process open to any party, the statutory advisory committee requirement, congressional oversight, civil penalty challenges in federal court, and post-Loper Bright independent judicial review of agency determinations.
Historical precedent
The Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA) significantly expanded FDA authority over cosmetic safety, facility registration, and adverse event reporting — the most substantial update to federal cosmetics law since 1938 — but did not address nonfunctional constituents or supply chain testing mandates.