Latest action: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Referred to one or more standing committees for review, hearings, and possible markup.
Specific committees not parsed from action data.
The committee may hold hearings, amend the bill, or let it die without action.
Next: Reported
Full chamber floor — Speaker / Majority Leader controls scheduling
Requires cosmetic companies to disclose hazardous ingredients to consumers.
The problem
Consumers may not know what harmful chemicals are in cosmetics they use daily. Current labeling rules don't require full disclosure of all ingredients.
The proposal
The bill would require cosmetic manufacturers to clearly list hazardous ingredients on product labels and provide safety information to buyers.
The impact
Cosmetic companies must change labels and provide more information. Consumers get clearer product safety data. Regulators gain better hazard tracking abilities.
People can make informed choices about products touching their skin and hair. Knowing ingredient risks helps prevent allergic reactions and health problems. Transparency supports personal health decisions.
Clear hazard labeling helps identify dangerous chemicals used across many products. Health agencies can better track and respond to cosmetic-related health issues. Vulnerable groups like pregnant women gain protection.
Companies using safer ingredients can highlight that advantage. Transparency helps honest companies compete fairly. Consumer demand for safe products can drive industry improvements.
Clear labeling standards create consistent rules across the industry. Regulators can enforce requirements more easily. Businesses know exactly what is required.
Companies must redesign labels, reformulate products, and update systems. Smaller cosmetic businesses face higher per-unit costs than large competitors. Initial compliance expenses may be significant.
Too much information on labels may confuse rather than help consumers. Long hazard lists could make labels cluttered and hard to read. People might ignore complex warnings.
U.S. cosmetic companies face different rules than international competitors. This could disadvantage domestic manufacturers in global markets. Imports might have fewer restrictions.
Determining which ingredients count as hazardous requires clear science-based standards. Disagreement over thresholds and classifications could create legal challenges. Standards may change as research evolves.
Generated by AI from the bill text. Not a prediction and not legal or policy advice. The percentage is the model's own rating of each item — self-reported, and not a measure of how accurate it is.
Loading map…
Loading...
0 citizens have already voted
Free · No spam · See how your representatives voted
Be the first to weigh in
Your vote starts the conversation
How citizen engagement works
Citizens vote & comment
Public opinion data is aggregated and updated in real time.
Patterns become visible
Representatives can see constituent sentiment broken down by district.
Your voice on the record
Contact your rep directly — one constituent call can shift a staffer's priority list.
Research shows that constituent contacts — especially calls — are among the most effective ways to influence a legislator's position on active bills.
Individual contributions, grouped by employer · FEC
Where their individual donors work · 2026 cycle
Money from people who work there, not from the company. Not tied to this bill.
Itemized individual contributions via FEC, grouped by the employer each contributor self-reported. Companies and unions cannot contribute to federal candidates from their treasuries, so these totals are money from people who work at an employer — never from the organization itself. They are campaign contributions covering a full election cycle and are not connected to this bill.
Senate LDA lobbying disclosures
Couldn't load lobbying disclosures right now.