Going forward, brands will need to provide proof of safety for their products and ingredients (as part of the registration process). But the FDA could—and should—go further on what they qualify as safe.
“This is such a huge step in the right direction that most of us are just immensely glad that something is changing. Can more be done? Absolutely! But this is a great start,” says Koestline. “In the future, it would be good to see maybe clearer testing requirements for each manufactured lot of cosmetics, raw materials as well as formula itself; better definitions of what an ‘infection’ means, clearer regulations on what can and cannot be said on the label in terms of claims.”
Davis also notes she’d like to see more clarity around how they define safety. “The act asks for ‘safety substantiation,’ but the definition of ‘safety’ is quite vague,” she says, adding, “I would love to see greater accountability in the supply chain; ingredient suppliers should show that they’ve evaluated a material, its hazard and risk before they sell it to beauty brands to use in products that we use daily over our lifetimes.
As most beauty folks know, the EU bans far more ingredients than the US. The EU follows the “precautionary principle” with ingredients, which means they more eagerly ban ingredients that could potentially be harmful to human or environmental health.
While no ingredient bans were made under MoCRA, they are taking steps to investigate some of the more questionable ones. For example, there is now stricter testing on talc (a great step!) and a directive for the FDA to investigate PFAS in cosmetic products and provide a report on their safety—but that won’t be coming for another three years.
In the meantime, you can continue to purchase from brands and retailers who align with your values: “MoCRA is a much-needed step in the right direction, but we still need to vote with our dollars to support brands that are pushing for more safety and sustainability data,” Davis says.
