WASHINGTON : Should Personal-Care Products Come Under FDA Scrutiny? : Cosmetics: Proposed legislation would require firms to file test results.

Bubble bath, perfume and mouthwash. You might think that the government reviews products such as these, tests the chemicals in them for safety and keeps scrupulous records of any injuries. Not so.

“It’s incredible that the $18-billion cosmetics industry can urge millions of Americans to apply chemicals to their bodies daily and not be held accountable,” said Rep. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), chairman of the Small Business subcommittee on regulation.

The Food and Drug Administration has no authority to require testing of personal-care products. Manufacturers can volunteer to register themselves and their products, but few do.

A recent report by the General Accounting Office has come up with some interesting observations about the industry:

* The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health found that 884 of the chemicals available for use in cosmetics “have been reported to the government as toxic substances.”

* FDA officials have found that many cosmetics manufacturers lack adequate data to determine the reliability of their own safety tests. Manufacturers generally have refused to disclose the results of such tests to the FDA.

* The FDA estimates that only 3% of the 4,000 to 5,000 distributors of personal-care products have filed reports of customers’ injuries to the government.

* Participation in a voluntary industry-run program to register manufacturers and their products has actually fallen in the last decade. Less than 40% of the 2,000 to 2,500 manufacturers of personal-care products have registered. Registration is helpful to the FDA if customer complaints prompt it to launch an inspection.

Wyden will introduce legislation in the next few months to require cosmetics manufacturers to register with the FDA and provide the agency with injury reports and the results of safety tests.

The proposals are opposed by the Cosmetics, Toiletry and Fragrance Assn. The group argues that new regulations are unnecessary, considering that more than 60% of the personal-care products on the market are manufactured by companies that participate in the industry’s own registration program.

What’s more, says association spokeswoman Elaine Kite, “the FDA has limited resources. It doesn’t make sense to use those scarce resources and further regulate an industry that already has demonstrated a safety record and is cooperating voluntarily.”

Stiffer Rules Proposed for Foreign Agents

When Toshiba Corp. was targeted for sanctions by Congress in 1988, the lobbying efforts on the Japanese company’s behalf were immense--and effective. Despite outrage over a Toshiba subsidiary’s early 1980s sale of sensitive submarine propeller milling equipment and computer software to the Soviets, the sanctions fell short of the harsh penalties first proposed.

But the lobbying effort’s success was inspiration for a congressional initiative of its own. Sen. John Heinz (R-Pa.) is taking aim at what he believes are loopholes in the law that governs public disclosure for lobbyists on behalf of foreign companies and governments, the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

The Heinz bill (S. 176) would make four major changes in existing law:

* It would force companies that are more than 50% foreign owned to register with the Justice Department when they hire lobbyists.

* It would repeal an exemption from registration now granted to lawyers who represent foreign interests in administrative or judicial proceedings.

* It would require all agents to file their registration forms on Jan. 30 and June 30, instead of every six months from the day they registered. The old method, Heinz argues, has created “confusion” and made it impossible for the Justice Department “to effectively monitor incoming reports.”

* Because existing criminal penalties for violations of the law are seldom imposed, a system of civil fines would be established to encourage compliance.

The foreign agents registration law was established to prevent foreigners from subverting U.S. policy and national security. The law was enacted in 1938 to counteract the efforts of Adolf Hitler’s propaganda machine by disclosing the names of those working for the Nazis and how much they were getting paid.

“Fifty years later, we live in a much different world,” Heinz said recently before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “Our main threats are economic rather than military, which has led to growing concern about the role foreign companies play in American political and economic life.”

Illegal Trafficking in Food Stamps Targeted

Food stamps are for buying food. But food stamps are being traded illegally for cash, drugs and guns.

Grocers have been at the center of this illegal activity. Soon, grocers caught trafficking in food stamps may be treated like money launderers.

A House Agriculture subcommittee has unanimously approved legislation targeting grocers who traffic in food stamps. Rep. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) introduced the bill (HR 4007) earlier this spring following revelations that large caches of food stamps were being found across the nation by police investigating drug offenses.

Up to 10% of the volume of food stamps used nationally are being cashed for things other than food--such as drugs and guns--according to Wyden.

Law enforcement officials believe that food stamps, which are almost untraceable, are now an integral part of the underground economy in the United States.

Wyden’s bill would threaten food stamp traffickers with the same penalties handed out to money launderers--a maximum $500,000 fine and 20-year prison sentence, compared to the current $10,000 fine and five-year prison sentence.

Those convicted of the offense would be prohibited from getting back into the grocery business, and their assets could be seized by the government.

The bill has the support of the U.S. Agriculture Department and its Inspector General. Sometime this month, it will be considered by the House Agriculture Committee.