Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to set standards for evaluating nonprescription sunscreen active ingredients. It directs FDA to allow real-world evidence, observational studies, and non-animal testing alternatives, issue guidance within 180 days, incorporate historical safe-use data into pending OTC orders, and provide annual public reports to Congress on implementation and progress.
Liberals emphasize safety and strong evidentiary standards.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused statutory amendment to the FD&C Act that clearly states the problem, identifies the responsible agency, and requires new standards and reporting.
Amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to set standards for evaluating nonprescription sunscreen active ingredients.
It directs FDA to allow real-world evidence, observational studies, and non-animal testing alternatives, issue guidance within 180 days, incorporate historical safe-use data into pending OTC orders, and provide annual public reports to Congress on implementation and progress.
Narrow, technocratic, low fiscal impact bill with clear deadlines and reporting; procedural priorities and unknown stakeholder opposition create uncertainty.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused statutory amendment to the FD&C Act that clearly states the problem, identifies the responsible agency, and requires new standards and reporting. It provides some concrete steps (including an explicit 180-day guidance deadline and specified report contents) and links to existing statutory frameworks.
Liberals emphasize safety and strong evidentiary standards.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals emphasize safety and strong evidentiary standards.
Generally favorable: advances public health and reduces animal testing while improving consumer access.
Concerned about any weakening of rigorous safety requirements if observational evidence substitutes for clinical trials.
Likely supportive if implemented with clear standards and resources.
Values streamlined, evidence-based FDA processes plus transparency, while wanting safeguards against lowered scientific rigor.
Mixed to somewhat supportive: views provisions as streamlining approvals and enabling market access, but wary of new federal mandates or prescriptive standards that expand bureaucracy.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow, technocratic, low fiscal impact bill with clear deadlines and reporting; procedural priorities and unknown stakeholder opposition create uncertainty.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals emphasize safety and strong evidentiary standards.
Narrow, technocratic, low fiscal impact bill with clear deadlines and reporting; procedural priorities and unknown stakeholder opposition c…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused statutory amendment to the FD&C Act that clearly states the problem, identifies the responsible agency, and requires new standards and reporting. It prov…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.