H.B. 442 Feminine Hygiene Products Amendments: transcript

Thank you. First of all, there are reports that the online is muted. They can't hear online. Okay, thanks. Okay. I'm not as quick as norm, but I'll try to go quick. HB 4 42 requires manufacturers to clearly label the ingredients and certain chemicals in menstrual products sold in Utah, so women and families can make informed decisions. The bill is about transparency. Women and girls use menstrual products month after month, year after year. They should be able to easily see what is in the products they're purchasing and using, since some toxins, even in small amounts, build up over time. HB 4 42 requires manufacturers a menstrual product sold in Utah to list intentionally added ingredients and certain specified chemicals directly on the package. Those chemicals include dioxin, lead, cadmium, arsenic, and PFAS. The ingredients must be listed in clear, a clear, legible, and conspicuous place on the outside of the packaging. They must be listed in order of predominance by weight. If a substance makes up less than 1% of the product, it can be listed after the higher percentage ingredients. The bill allows manufacturers to use technology such as a website link to provide additional information about intentionally adding ingredients that are not classified as chemicals. Under this bill. This measure does not ban products. It does not restrict access. It does not impose new manufacturing standards. It does not create a new, new product mandates. It simply requires disclosure on a disclosure as is already required. In some other states, enforcement falls to the division of consumer protection within the Department of Commerce. The division may make rules regarding the labeling standards and may impose administrative fines of up to $2,500 per violation, and courts may also enforce the requirements as necessary. That is my presentation.

Um, how, what, what kind of burden is on the manufacturers to, to prove what, what they label on the package?

So, as far as testing to find out how much is in it. So as far as we can see for, for other states, they're required to at least test one time. There are a whole variety of different tests that can be done, um, to determine the levels that are in the product. But I don't think that there's anything required beyond that in other states. That is something that we could ask the division to create rules for if we wanted to do that.

Okay. Um, and then I, I don't, I don't see anything that speaks to the variance. Uh, maybe it, uh, on, on what they're, on, how specific they need to report. Um, is that, that's, I don't, I guess that's not in there either, right?

It is not. Um, it is, it's something we could address in a sub if we wanted to ask the division to make some rules about that, or if we just, I don't know. I I, if we wanna put that in, we can. Yeah.

I, I, I'm just, I, I have concerns with them stating something, maybe testing one time. Right. And then, but Right. Obviously I understand that each Batch will be different, uh, and, and the variances will be there. Uh, and so I, I, I'm, I'm worried about, uh, the, our manufacturers having the, the liability of saying one thing, but it, it's not very prescriptive on, on what they need to do. Uh, if do they need to use a, a certified lab to do it,

is something they can do in house. Uh, A lot of the testing is actually done by third parties that are interested in seeing how much of this is in the different products. And some of the manufacturers actually, um, contract with third party testing companies so that they can know what's in their products. Right. So I think it's okay to allow businesses some leeway.

Got it. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Uh, chairman, I think, uh, point of clarification if I'm not, uh, uh, speaking outta turn here, is the bill talks about intentionally added ingredients.

Mm-hmm. Right? Yes. So they would know what they're adding into it. They would know. So intentionally added ingredients would be things that they put in intentionally that are part of the product that help the product to work. Um, there are a lot of these chemicals, we don't know how they get into the, the products. And so it's more just giving people information informed consent so that they know this is how much we found in this particular product. But they're not, they're not required. Just the chemicals we've listed are the ones that they're required to say how much is in it, and it's by weight. So other than that, they can just list their, they're intentionally added ingredients, but these are not considered intentional, I guess, is what I'm trying to say.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair, uh, on line 1 41. I'm, I'm a little curious about the wording. It says, covered substance means a chemical or an intentionally added ingredient. So intentionally doesn't seem to modify chemical. It only modifies intentionally added ingredient. So covered the substances that are covered under the statute are both the intentionally added and the chemicals listed in the, in the bill. So all of those substances are covered under the bill. That's what the meaning is of covered substances. I'm, I'm just looking at the way that's worded though. If, if we were gonna cover chemical and added ingredient, it, it, it would say a covered substance means an intentionally added chemical or ingredient. I'm not, why do we not They could, they can unintentionally add a chemical, but it's only if they intentionally add an ingredient. I'm, I'm, I'm not following the distinction the way this is written.

I'm sorry. I'm not following your question.

Well, on line, on line 41 41, it says, covered substance means, and then it has two things. Right? And I, I'm familiar with it. And one is a chemical uhhuh, and the other one is an intentionally added ingredient. So intentional doesn't modify chemical, it only modifies Added ingredients. No, they're two separate things, intentionally added ingredients. And the chemicals listed in the bill are two separate categories, both covered under the bill. I don't know. In my brain it makes sense. I'm not sure. I'm not understanding where the disconnect is. Okay. Well, le legally, the way that is written chemical does not have an intentional requirement to it. The way this is written, only added ingredient has intentional because it's,

That is correct.

So, so The chemicals are not intentionally added. Okay. That's what I, That's my question. We hope they're not, that's, that's, That's what I'm trying to, to, to get to. Yeah. So I understood you speaking to the chair that Okay. That it was only if it was intentional. But the way this is written, chemicals don't have to be intentional.

You are understanding correctly. Chemicals are not intentional. I'm sorry.

Whatever I said to the chair didn't make sense to you. O okay. Well then, all right. So then if someone unintentionally has a chemical in one of these products, where does the amount, how, how did you come up with the amount of $5,000 for, uh, a violation? It's 2,500, correct?

Well, on line 2 0 7, it's 5,000 civil Penalty. Okay. The, we talked to the consumer protection people, and they, those are their standard fines. That's what they asked us to put in there as the fines.

Okay. Alright.

Yeah. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Just for administrative purposes, I'm, I'm asking this question, Mr. Chair. Are, are we talking about second substitute Yes. Of this bill? Yes. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so I, I, I have some questions that might actually help answer other questions, if that might be. All right. So from, from the way I understand the bill, if the sponsor will answer, um, for chemicals, we know that the chemicals, they're not necessarily intentionally added. They're just added kind of as a, as a byproduct of the manufacturing process. They're just kind of naturally absorbed or whatever into the process. Mm-hmm. And from my, my understanding, and maybe correct me if I'm wrong, for intentionally added ingredients would be something like a scent, a fresh powder scent, or whatever that they have. Um, if that is helpful to members of this committee that maybe don't use any of these products, I might need a little bit of, uh, clarification that that is somebody that does use these products.

That would be an intentionally added chemical.

Got It. Is that, Yes. Okay. Thank you. Another way to look at it is like the ingredients on a can of soup. You have all the ingredients, and some of those great ingredients might have other chemicals that are part of that ingredient. Right. Or there might be byproducts of chemicals. And I know you're not, You, when you manufacture rayon, which is a, is frequently used in feminine hygiene products. There dioxin is a byproduct of that. And some of it remains in the rayon. And the concern is that these chemicals are exposed to, or we are exposed to these chemicals repeatedly over a period of years. And that, that there might be a buildup of those chemicals, intentional or not.

There is a buildup of the chemicals over time.

Um, thank you so much, committee, um, as none of most of you are too young to remember. And fortunately for me, I am old enough to remember when we went through something called Toxic Shock from Feminine Products, and it works killing women. And so I really like this bill because I think it is really important for women to be informed. I like the transparency aspect of it. When you have to put it out there, it helps people be more accountable. And so I think having more information is, is just essential or super important. And I don't think that it is a burden because, um, companies know what they put in their products. They should. And I think that's just natural. Like we label food that we put into our bodies. So I support this bill. I hope you vote for it. Thanks so much. I'm not sure you introduced yourself. I think we all know, but I didn't. I'm so sorry. Delaine England.

Yes. Thank you so much. Chair Malloy, members of the committee for the opportunity to provide testimony today. My name's Edwin Boone. I'm here on behalf of the Center for Baby and Adult Hygiene Products, BAHP for short, with an opposing less amended position on House Bill 4 42. BAHP represents manufacturers of absorbent hygiene products such as menstrual products, diapers and incontinence, garments and pads, and companies that supply materials for those products. Representing about 85% of the market, uh, for absorbent personal hygiene products in North America. While we do appreciate the inclusion of a definition for confidential business information, as we discussed with Representative Shelley, BAHP does remain opposed unless amendment additional amendments are adopted. To clarify what was just brought up that the labeling requirements in this bill apply to chemicals that are intentionally added. Um, also align enforcement provisions with other state regulations on menstrual product ingredient disclosure laws, and include an ongoing 18 month period to implement future labeling changes due to, in, um, ingredient updates, um, we do wanna be clear that BHP members take the safety of consumers as our utmost priority. They are not adding chemicals of concern to menstrual products. And that commitment go of safety goes down all the way to the level of chemicals that are present in our products. However, as drafted, um, it does remain unclear whether the defined chemicals would be subject to the intentionally added ingredient standard. And without clarity, that would require manufacturers to label the presence of unavoidable environmental trace contaminants that are not intended to be present in the product and are not intentionally added by the manufacturer. These trace elements can be ubiquitous in the environment from wooded materials to water. Um, BHP is also concerned with enforcement provisions in the bill that are not in line with other state regulations, including the authority granted to the division to impose additional requirements for the label, which we find overly broad and undefined. And last, um, we do appreciate the updated timeline for implementation, which we also discussed with the sponsor, but we are still requesting the inclusion of an ongoing 18 year period. Alright, thank,

Look, I'm currently in Sacramento, Sacramento, California. Thank

I'm Lindsay Lake. I am a Utah resident, currently in Lehi. Um, I'll just keep this kind of quick. Menstrual products are used internally and in very close contact with some of the most insensitive tissue in the body. Vaginal tissue is different from other areas. It is more permeable and more absorbent. Women use menstrual products for nearly 40 years of our lives, which adds up to thousands of hours of exposure in a highly absorbent area. In many other areas of consumer safety, we've taken thoughtful steps to reduce exposure to substances like PFAS in clothing and lead and painted walls. It seems reasonable that women should also have the opportunity to know whether similar substances are present in products that go in or extremely near our reproductive organs. As a mom, a new mom in a couple months, I care very much about this. When we are talking about substances like lead or arsenic, even low level repeated exposure over decades deserves transparency. This bill is not about creating fear or banning products. It's about information. I think we all deserve to have this information. We require ingredient labels on foods. We require disclosure on cosmetics. We demand transparency for products that never come close to this level of absorption. Women deserve that same standard here. When something is used this intimately, and this consistency should not be controversial, it should be common sense. I respectfully urge you to support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, make a motion that we adopt the second substitute HB 4 42.

Thank you. I just wanted to point out, we did extend the implementation date to December of 2027 at the request of the individual who spoke here. And that is in the second sub. And also other states have whole departments that are dedicated to this, this kind of thing. We don't, and so we're implementing it in the way that we can in Utah without creating a new department. So, uh, is this my sum? It is. Okay.

I make a motion that we pass all favorably, second substitute HB 4 42.

Yes. I think, um, this is something that if we're helping to make, uh, helping consumers to make informed decisions, I think especially like all the comments that were made previously, these are very intimate products and these are very deadly chemicals that can build up over time. I think, um, there are six other states that have implemented these types of programs because at a federal level, they, they aren't doing their job. And so I appreciate that that Utah's, uh, taken the step to, uh, to, to protect women.

You. So I wanna follow up on Representative Ivory's concern. My question, I guess for the sponsor is, so let's say you have cotton I in the natural organic way, it's growing, it absorbs some lead into it. It seems like this reads if there's lead in that they're supposed to disclose it. But how, if they're not intentionally adding it, how would, how will they, are they expected to know if it's got lead in it? There's testing that can be done to determine whether it's in there. That's how we know it's there. So it's your intent that they're gonna test for lead, the arsenic, cadium Academy, and these other things. Mm-hmm.

The, these are all of the, the, the chemicals that are most frequently found in feminine hygiene products, they've already been found there. So there's already been testing done that indicates that they're there. So what we're trying to determine is what is the concentration in the different products so that people can make an informed choice.

So that means the manufacturer would test on a regular basis for these things.

Currently, it does not prescribe how often they have to test, just that they have to have tested and it has to be labeled Well, it does require that they indicate by weight, you know, the mm-hmm. In order of which has the greatest weight for the product.

So I'm just wondering how often they have to do that. I don't think that the way they make these products varies a lot over time. Like, maybe, maybe they change the style every once in a while. But, um, after years of using the products, I would say they're roughly the same as they were when I was a teenager. So I don't think, other than if the soil is changing that the things are growing in, or if there's something that's changing in the air, then yeah, maybe there's going to be some fluctuation. But I, I don't think it's something that needs to be tested like on a monthly basis or a batch basis or anything like that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, I completely support the intent and the purpose of the legislation. I'm just concerned as written, this is gonna set up a lot of, uh, litigation potentially. Uh, we have a And your concern is that one line, If I'm in Mr. Chair, if I could, Yeah. Uh, it's Representative Iris's chair. Okay. I just need to know what the concern is. I'll just, Just let him, you, you'll, you'll be able to sum. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, I'm concerned that any chemical, and there's no weight, there's no limit. The 1% is only to listing. But if even a trace of the chemicals unintentionally are in a product, then there are fines and penalties. And so I think the intention is very good. I support the intention wholeheartedly, but as written, I, I can't support the bill because it's written that unintentionally, even the smallest amount of a chemical, uh, opens up the fines and the penalties. And I don't think that's the sponsor's intention, but the way it's written, that's, that's the way I see this, uh, playing out.

I, I, um, I know I, I'm a chemical, I have a degree in chemical engineering. I come from a manufacturing background. I've worked in environmental things. Uh, I have, I also have some similar, um, worries about the bill. I, I, I do support the bill. I think it's, it's a good it, but I, I, I feel like it's a little vague in, in some areas. So yeah, I'm not sure I can support it, the, the current bill, but I think we could probably get there. I, I don't know. There's not a lot of time left in the session, but, um, yeah, I, I'd like to see some of, some of these things worked out.

Okay. The bill is about basic respect and informed consent for women. And I think it ensures that we have a clear picture of what it is we are using. And I think it's long overdue. And I would encourage you to vote for it. I would be happy to work out issues with you after, if there are things that you think need to be clarified. Thank you.

Uh, No, I, I mean, because these are classified as, as medical medical instruments, the FDA does not require the disclosure of any of these items. And so I hope that we, if we can't, uh, figure it out today. I, I, there's plenty of bills on the board. I think serendipitously we have a chemical engineer and I'm, I can guarantee that you could, uh, make some suggestions that could get this bill to a place where the committee be comfortable voting for it on the floor.

Okay. Thank you very much. Chair and committee. As you've probably guessed by the number of subs, I've been working hard with stakeholders both in the industry and the Division. Division of Consumer Protection. HB 4 42 requires manufacturers to clearly label intentionally added ingredients. This is sub seven, um, including certain chemicals in menstrual products sold in Utah, noting that these, and in some more stringent, that these, and in some states more stringent requirements are already in place. The chemicals required to be labeled are dioxin, lead Arsenic Academy. And in PFAS, one example of the problems lead can be absorbed through the skin. And even short contact can lead to skin, uh, penetration. And the lead accumulates in the body over time and can cause permanent damage to multiple body systems. The requirement to label can be done in the form of a QR code on the package, which, which can be easily changed online on a website. And we're allowing a six month turnaround for that. We've also allowed an 18 month turnaround if you're doing the label on the package. Currently labeling f feminine hygiene products is not required because they're categorized as medical devices rather than cosmetics or drugs. This measure does not ban products. It does not restrict access. It does not impose new manufacturing standards. It does not create new product mandates. It simply requires disclosure. What is absorbed through intimate tissues that we're talking about goes straight into the bloodstream. It's not filtered by the liver. So anything that you're absorbing there is going straight into your bloodstream. I do understand that some people don't like labeling requirements on principle, and I'm sorry about that. But I do think that women deserve to know what is in the products that we are using on such a regular basis. So transparency leads to informed consent. Informed consent leads to competition, and I think that women should be respected enough to have the information and use the information to their own advantage. And that is the bill. Thank you. Um, I assume that concludes your presentation? Yes. Alright.

Senator Musselman? I can. Uh, so moved all we have motion to delete House Bill 4 42 sub five and Title and Body and replace it with seventh Substitute House Bill 4 42.

Yes. Good afternoon, chair members of the committee. My name's Edwin Boone. I'm here on behalf of the Center for Baby and Adult Hygiene Products known as BAHP with a neutral position with some concerns on House Bill 4 4 2. Um, as proposed under substitute seven BHP represents manufacturers of absorbent hygiene products and companies that supply materials for those products. Some of our members even have invested in facilities in Utah that manufacture and package these products for the entire country. Um, we do appreciate the sponsor's commitment to adopt the changes outlined in Substitute seven, which would address most of BHPs concerns. We do continue to have significant reservations with the injunctive relief language under the enforcement provisions that do not align with other states regulations on menstrual product ingredient disclosure laws. However, BHP does recognize the sponsor's willingness to meet us halfway to address our main concerns with the bill is currently drafted under substitute five. Um, so while we do remain concerned with the enforcement provisions in this legislation, BHP um, would appreciate the committee's adoption of Substitute seven. And again, we do appreciate, um, the sponsor's willingness to work with us. And with that commitment, BHP will take a neutral position on House Bill 4, 4 2. Thank you so much

Yeah, so other states that have, uh, menstrual product degree dis uh, disclosure laws impose administrative penalties. And so, um, the injunctive relief language that's in this bill, um, does not align with other state laws. However, um, with, with the recent changes in Substitute seven, um, we can clearly comply with this, with this, um, legislation as proposed. And so, um, although we do remain concerned that it's still misaligned with other states, which may set a precedent moving forward, um, we are now neutral, just kind of based on the other changes. Thank You, Mr. Chair.

Hi, I'm Debbie Braley and I reside in Lehi, Utah. I'm a constituent of, uh, Mike Kennedy and Senator Curtis. I strongly support House Bill 4 42 Women, frankly, women and especially girls, deserve the basic right to know exactly what ingredients and chemicals are being put on in their bodies, um, on a menstrual cycle that we are using every single month for decades of our lives. Um, it's not different than requiring products like food and cosmetics and other personal care products like shampoo and toothpaste. And this isn't about regulations, about transparency so that we as consumers can make the right choices. And honestly, I find it a little frustrating that we even have to have a conversation about this when I hear other bills that are up today. And it feels like those are so much more important. This should be something that should just be, um, expected in products that we use. So we as consumers can make, um, strong choices about what we want in our bodies. Um, and these, these chemicals are known to cause infertility, hormone disruption, kidney damage, nervous system problems, um, autoimmune diseases and certain cancers. It's like, why would we want those things in our body? Um, and as, uh, Senator Chavez mentioned, you know, the vaginal tissue is highly absorbent. So we are sending these chemicals directly into our system. I'm a daughter. I, I have two daughters who are battling currently painful menstrual, um, cycles that are frustrating and we are trying to make good consumer choices. Um, and we're expecting that our, you know, government is going to protect us from these chemicals that would gain our environment. Um, this shouldn't be our reality, that we even have to have this conversation. And, you know, I really think that, um, you know, it's important that we have as consumers the right to this. So I strongly urge you to pass Bill 4 42 Right. So that we can make informed decisions. Thank you.

and the organization you represent and where you live. Yes. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Willis Reed with the Consumer Healthcare Products Association and I'm based in Washington dc I am the Senior manager of State and local Government Affairs for the Consumer Healthcare Products Association, which is the National Trade Association, representing manufacturers of over-the-counter medicines, dietary supplements, and over-the-counter medical devices. And we thank you for the opportunity to speak on the seven substitute of House Bill 4 42. We just want to acknowledge our appreciation for Representative Shear's willingness to engage and meet with stakeholders and revise this bill in meaningful ways. We believe that her openness to working with manufacturers has significantly strengthened the bills since it was first introduced, and we appreciate the opportunity to collaborate. We are now neutral on the bill. As a result, we do have one outstanding concern regarding the injunctive clause currently in the bill. This enforcement language is not currently aligned with other states that have enacted similar laws of their own concern, the labeling of these products. But again, we are neutral and would welcome the opportunity to work with this committee and addressing this moving forward. Thank you very much. Thank

Mr. Chair members of the committee. I'm Aaron Radden with the Consumer Brands Association and I reside in Phoenix, Arizona. Um, thank you. I'm just wanting to echo quickly the comments that just came before with a neutral position on sub seven, but very appreciative of sub seven. And the sponsor's work to, um, come together with industry and figure out a path forward. We share her goals of transparency for, um, these products and really appreciate her willingness to work towards something that can be implemented, echoing, of course, the concerns still with the, uh, liability provisions, but overall really productive conversation and just wanted to thank her for all of her hard work and dedication on this important topic.

Thank you. I recommend that we pass with a favorable recommendation, house Bill 4 42 7 substitute to the full body of the Senate.

Please. I would like to comment on the, the language in the, um, in the enforcement clause that is standard language from our division of consumer protection and it's standard across the board for all products. Um, and then just to say that I really have nothing to gain here except for transparency, and I'm here advocating for your wives and your daughters and your mothers of your grandchildren. So I hope you'll vote yes on the bill. Thank you.

Yeah, I just wanted to commend the sponsor for her, her persistent, uh, and long suffering in, in dealing with, um, the opposition and commend you on your work on this bill. Thank

Second Substitute House Bill 4 42. Feminine Hygiene Products, amendments by Representative Shelley. This bill was served in business and Labor with a vote of 11 2 3.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Motion to circle

Yes. We're in the middle of negotiations.

Do you represent? Thank you Mr. Speaker. I am speaking to the fifth substitute, which is online and should be in the circle.

Um, we just made one change. We, we added back in some of the authority of the Division of Consumer Protection

Thank you. We have worked with manufacturers, the Division of Consumer Protection and colleagues on this to get to the point where, where we are. And I would encourage each of my male colleagues while I'm talking to text one of your female family members and ask them if they have any, any concerns about heavy metals and other toxins in feminine hygiene products. HB 4 42 requires manufacturers to clearly label the ingredients of certain chemicals in menstrual products sold in Utah so that women can make informed decisions. The labels can have a QR code linking to a website or they can be on the package. Manufacturers are to keep records of their testing for three years. Enforcement is by the division of Consumer protection in the form of fines and injunctions. And this bill is about transparency for women and girls who use these products month after month, year after year. They should be able to easily see what is in the products they're using even in small amounts because these, these chemicals build up over time. And that is the bill.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. This, um, this measure does not ban products. It does not restrict access. It does not impose any new manufacturing standards. It does not create new product mandates. It just requires disclosure. And at its core, it treats consumers with respect. And I would appreciate your support. Thank you.

Do you represent? Thank you Mr. Speaker. I am speaking to the fifth substitute, which is online and should be in the circle. You is making a motion to adopt fifth substitute? Yes. Okay. Would you like to speak to that motion? Um, we just made one change. We, we added back in some of the authority of the Division of Consumer Protection

Thank you. We have worked with manufacturers, the Division of Consumer Protection and colleagues on this to get to the point where, where we are. And I would encourage each of my male colleagues while I'm talking to text one of your female family members and ask them if they have any, any concerns about heavy metals and other toxins in feminine hygiene products. HB 4 42 requires manufacturers to clearly label the ingredients of certain chemicals in menstrual products sold in Utah so that women can make informed decisions. The labels can have a QR code linking to a website or they can be on the package. Manufacturers are to keep records of their testing for three years. Enforcement is by the division of Consumer protection in the form of fines and injunctions. And this bill is about transparency for women and girls who use these products month after month, year after year. They should be able to easily see what is in the products they're using even in small amounts because these, these chemicals build up over time. And that is the bill.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. This, um, this measure does not ban products. It does not restrict access. It does not impose any new manufacturing standards. It does not create new product mandates. It just requires disclosure. And at its core, it treats consumers with respect. And I would appreciate your support. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Speaker Motion. UNC circle HB four 50.