<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Industry Press Conference Sets the Record Straight</title>
	<atom:link href="http://notjustaprettyface.org/blog/industry-press-conference-sets-the-record-straight/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://notjustaprettyface.org/blog/industry-press-conference-sets-the-record-straight</link>
	<description>The Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 21:50:28 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Noelle</title>
		<link>http://notjustaprettyface.org/blog/industry-press-conference-sets-the-record-straight/comment-page-1#comment-30546</link>
		<dc:creator>Noelle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Nov 2010 21:23:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://notjustaprettyface.org/?p=2400#comment-30546</guid>
		<description>What I would like to see is less personal opinion on this topic and more documented evidence. I&#039;m trying to do a speech on this this for class and I&#039;m going crazy because people are so caught up with arguing against the other side that they circumvent the actual facts. Forget opinion--if you want to help, give us well-documented facts that WE can use to make our own opinions. What we need to know is: 1) exactly how the government does and doesn&#039;t regulate the cosmetics industry--on state and national levels 2) what chemicals are known to be hazardous, and at what levels 3) the levels at which these are commonly found in beauty products 4) The pro AND con arguments as to the safety of using multiple products with these ingredients, fairly represented, and 5) the honest truth about what opinions simply don&#039;t have much evidence either way. Statements of fact or research need to be properly footnoted or linked to reputable sources, such as the FDA or independent scholarly research organizations. Otherwise it can only be passed off as a personal impression, which tells us nothing.

 After the appropriate evidence is presented, by all means make your case. But don&#039;t leave us entirely at the mercy of your personal opinion on the matter. If your purpose is to inform, you should be able to do just what I&#039;ve asked without hurting your cause. The truth stands up to scrutiny. If someone could do that, I would be very impressed and very thankful--I sure haven&#039;t seen it yet.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What I would like to see is less personal opinion on this topic and more documented evidence. I&#8217;m trying to do a speech on this this for class and I&#8217;m going crazy because people are so caught up with arguing against the other side that they circumvent the actual facts. Forget opinion&#8211;if you want to help, give us well-documented facts that WE can use to make our own opinions. What we need to know is: 1) exactly how the government does and doesn&#8217;t regulate the cosmetics industry&#8211;on state and national levels 2) what chemicals are known to be hazardous, and at what levels 3) the levels at which these are commonly found in beauty products 4) The pro AND con arguments as to the safety of using multiple products with these ingredients, fairly represented, and 5) the honest truth about what opinions simply don&#8217;t have much evidence either way. Statements of fact or research need to be properly footnoted or linked to reputable sources, such as the FDA or independent scholarly research organizations. Otherwise it can only be passed off as a personal impression, which tells us nothing.</p>
<p> After the appropriate evidence is presented, by all means make your case. But don&#8217;t leave us entirely at the mercy of your personal opinion on the matter. If your purpose is to inform, you should be able to do just what I&#8217;ve asked without hurting your cause. The truth stands up to scrutiny. If someone could do that, I would be very impressed and very thankful&#8211;I sure haven&#8217;t seen it yet.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bigboy</title>
		<link>http://notjustaprettyface.org/blog/industry-press-conference-sets-the-record-straight/comment-page-1#comment-30409</link>
		<dc:creator>Bigboy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Nov 2010 07:21:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://notjustaprettyface.org/?p=2400#comment-30409</guid>
		<description>know i’m a little off topic, but i just wanted to say i love the layout of your blog. i’m new to the blogegine platform, so any suggestions on getting my blog looking nice would be appreciated.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>know i’m a little off topic, but i just wanted to say i love the layout of your blog. i’m new to the blogegine platform, so any suggestions on getting my blog looking nice would be appreciated.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stacy Malkan</title>
		<link>http://notjustaprettyface.org/blog/industry-press-conference-sets-the-record-straight/comment-page-1#comment-28067</link>
		<dc:creator>Stacy Malkan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Aug 2010 23:11:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://notjustaprettyface.org/?p=2400#comment-28067</guid>
		<description>Hi Ann,
It&#039;s true that FDA is so understaffed at the moment that we are in a dangerous situation. A good article on that topic from the former head of FDA is here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/07/AR2006050700907.html (He claims that the budget for the agency in charge of the safety of the nation&#039;s entire supply of food/drugs/medical devices/cosmetics is the same as the budget for the school district of Fairfax County Virginia! I&#039;m not sure if those numbers hold, but anyway, the point is taken.)  

FDA used to be the gold standard consumer protection agency in the world, but no longer. I believe it can be revived and that it has to be, and that it&#039;s important to build up the scientific infrastructure of our public agencies like EPA and FDA. The Safe Cosmetics Act would put more funding to FDA but not through raising taxes. It would require fees from the big companies. I think this is fair.  The current safety system, the Cosmetics Ingredients Review, is paid for by industry already and the proposed system would eliminate the industry panel and bring the science under the independent review of FDA.

Thanks,
Stacy</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Ann,<br />
It&#8217;s true that FDA is so understaffed at the moment that we are in a dangerous situation. A good article on that topic from the former head of FDA is here: <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/07/AR2006050700907.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/07/AR2006050700907.html</a> (He claims that the budget for the agency in charge of the safety of the nation&#8217;s entire supply of food/drugs/medical devices/cosmetics is the same as the budget for the school district of Fairfax County Virginia! I&#8217;m not sure if those numbers hold, but anyway, the point is taken.)  </p>
<p>FDA used to be the gold standard consumer protection agency in the world, but no longer. I believe it can be revived and that it has to be, and that it&#8217;s important to build up the scientific infrastructure of our public agencies like EPA and FDA. The Safe Cosmetics Act would put more funding to FDA but not through raising taxes. It would require fees from the big companies. I think this is fair.  The current safety system, the Cosmetics Ingredients Review, is paid for by industry already and the proposed system would eliminate the industry panel and bring the science under the independent review of FDA.</p>
<p>Thanks,<br />
Stacy</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stacy Malkan</title>
		<link>http://notjustaprettyface.org/blog/industry-press-conference-sets-the-record-straight/comment-page-1#comment-27723</link>
		<dc:creator>Stacy Malkan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 23:58:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://notjustaprettyface.org/?p=2400#comment-27723</guid>
		<description>Marcia, I will be posting my response online yes.
Stacy</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Marcia, I will be posting my response online yes.<br />
Stacy</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stacy Malkan</title>
		<link>http://notjustaprettyface.org/blog/industry-press-conference-sets-the-record-straight/comment-page-1#comment-27710</link>
		<dc:creator>Stacy Malkan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 21:27:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://notjustaprettyface.org/?p=2400#comment-27710</guid>
		<description>Dene, that&#039;s good to hear. Perhaps you can supply me with studies showing whether workers are exposed or environmental contamination occurs from the use of ethylene oxide (a known breast carcinogen) during the ethoxylation process of cosmetic chemicals. I&#039;d like to see if the industry has any data about how much phthalates are absorbed into the body from fragrance -- or if it is only Harvard University that has done such studies (and found that a single application of cologne dramatically increases the body burden of phthalates). Come to think of it, when the Cosmetics Ingredients Review Panel reviewed diethyl phthalate, they were calculating the exposure numbers on the back of a napkin. Not a risk assessment that inspires much confidence! 

I wonder if L&#039;Oreal has consumer reports about allergic reactions and deaths from PPD exposure, and whether they are conducting long-term health studies of workers who are exposed to hair dye chemicals every day. I heard about the PPD problem not from L&#039;Oreal or the FDA but from people who have been severely affected by exposure, including a reporter whose doctor advised her never to use PPD hair dyes under any circumstances. This reporter was quite pissed off, by the way, to go to the Personal Care Products website and see PPD is described as safe with no problems. 

Ok, it&#039;s all safe, we trust you.  

To your point about suppliers, many small business owners have told me they have a hard time obtaining information from suppliers such as a full list of fragrance chemicals, and that their own product testing contradicts what suppliers have promised them about contamination issues. Perhaps your company avoids these problems, and if so that&#039;s great, but the problem is that companies are making very different safety decisions in an environment with no safety standards. 

Yes I agree, regulations are a good idea, and we will get there one way or another. 

Stacy</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dene, that&#8217;s good to hear. Perhaps you can supply me with studies showing whether workers are exposed or environmental contamination occurs from the use of ethylene oxide (a known breast carcinogen) during the ethoxylation process of cosmetic chemicals. I&#8217;d like to see if the industry has any data about how much phthalates are absorbed into the body from fragrance &#8212; or if it is only Harvard University that has done such studies (and found that a single application of cologne dramatically increases the body burden of phthalates). Come to think of it, when the Cosmetics Ingredients Review Panel reviewed diethyl phthalate, they were calculating the exposure numbers on the back of a napkin. Not a risk assessment that inspires much confidence! </p>
<p>I wonder if L&#8217;Oreal has consumer reports about allergic reactions and deaths from PPD exposure, and whether they are conducting long-term health studies of workers who are exposed to hair dye chemicals every day. I heard about the PPD problem not from L&#8217;Oreal or the FDA but from people who have been severely affected by exposure, including a reporter whose doctor advised her never to use PPD hair dyes under any circumstances. This reporter was quite pissed off, by the way, to go to the Personal Care Products website and see PPD is described as safe with no problems. </p>
<p>Ok, it&#8217;s all safe, we trust you.  </p>
<p>To your point about suppliers, many small business owners have told me they have a hard time obtaining information from suppliers such as a full list of fragrance chemicals, and that their own product testing contradicts what suppliers have promised them about contamination issues. Perhaps your company avoids these problems, and if so that&#8217;s great, but the problem is that companies are making very different safety decisions in an environment with no safety standards. </p>
<p>Yes I agree, regulations are a good idea, and we will get there one way or another. </p>
<p>Stacy</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marcia Elston</title>
		<link>http://notjustaprettyface.org/blog/industry-press-conference-sets-the-record-straight/comment-page-1#comment-27709</link>
		<dc:creator>Marcia Elston</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 21:08:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://notjustaprettyface.org/?p=2400#comment-27709</guid>
		<description>Hi Stacy,
With regard to Dene&#039;s comments above, would you please read http://bit.ly/9SxrBN and respond, either here or there?  I hope that you will see that you are causing the very small companies you claim to advocate for burdensome requirements that will truly put many of us out of business. Surely you are aware of the unintended consequences of the CPSIA legislation, that put thousands of ethical toy manufacturers and retailers out of business.  I look forward to your response, and I mean that sincerely.    
Thanks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Stacy,<br />
With regard to Dene&#8217;s comments above, would you please read <a href="http://bit.ly/9SxrBN" rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/9SxrBN</a> and respond, either here or there?  I hope that you will see that you are causing the very small companies you claim to advocate for burdensome requirements that will truly put many of us out of business. Surely you are aware of the unintended consequences of the CPSIA legislation, that put thousands of ethical toy manufacturers and retailers out of business.  I look forward to your response, and I mean that sincerely.<br />
Thanks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dene</title>
		<link>http://notjustaprettyface.org/blog/industry-press-conference-sets-the-record-straight/comment-page-1#comment-27702</link>
		<dc:creator>Dene</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 19:45:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://notjustaprettyface.org/?p=2400#comment-27702</guid>
		<description>The company I work for represents many of the major (and quite a few minor) suppliers of ingredients for cosmetics. If ANY customer requests toxicity data for one of the suppliers ingredients, it is supplied, if it exists. The data is NOT secret, so this bill will make absolutely no difference to that situation. I fail to understand why you would think that any supplier would spend money on safety testing and then not share the information with customers. Why would they spend the money in the first place if they are going to lock up this information in a secret vault?

I think you will find that very little data exists exclusively in the domain of the big companies. The only likely advantage for gaining new data is if the FDA requests specific studies in order to make a better assessment of the safety of specific ingredients.

I believe that some form of bill to regulate cosmetics is a good idea, but not this one - it is unworkable in its present form, for many reasons that you will discover once the lobbying process begins (I don&#039;t want to spoil your fun just yet!)

Talking of the CFSC, I wonder how many participants you will get involved in your teleconference. Not many, I suspect, because I am picking up information that suggests that many of the signatory companies listed are no longer even in business, and of those that still trade there are several (at least) who are trying to get their names removed - and with some difficulty, I might add. I know of one specific company that has made FIVE separate requests to have the company name removed from the Compact Signers list. Apparently, the fifth request also included a legal document threatening action if the request continued to be ignored. This request actually generated a response! Sounds to me like the CFSC isn&#039;t so popular as some may think. Continuing to list defunct signatories, and making it extremely difficult to disassociate disaffected signatories sounds to me as though there is some desperation to make the list look longer than it really is! I wonder why . . .</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The company I work for represents many of the major (and quite a few minor) suppliers of ingredients for cosmetics. If ANY customer requests toxicity data for one of the suppliers ingredients, it is supplied, if it exists. The data is NOT secret, so this bill will make absolutely no difference to that situation. I fail to understand why you would think that any supplier would spend money on safety testing and then not share the information with customers. Why would they spend the money in the first place if they are going to lock up this information in a secret vault?</p>
<p>I think you will find that very little data exists exclusively in the domain of the big companies. The only likely advantage for gaining new data is if the FDA requests specific studies in order to make a better assessment of the safety of specific ingredients.</p>
<p>I believe that some form of bill to regulate cosmetics is a good idea, but not this one &#8211; it is unworkable in its present form, for many reasons that you will discover once the lobbying process begins (I don&#8217;t want to spoil your fun just yet!)</p>
<p>Talking of the CFSC, I wonder how many participants you will get involved in your teleconference. Not many, I suspect, because I am picking up information that suggests that many of the signatory companies listed are no longer even in business, and of those that still trade there are several (at least) who are trying to get their names removed &#8211; and with some difficulty, I might add. I know of one specific company that has made FIVE separate requests to have the company name removed from the Compact Signers list. Apparently, the fifth request also included a legal document threatening action if the request continued to be ignored. This request actually generated a response! Sounds to me like the CFSC isn&#8217;t so popular as some may think. Continuing to list defunct signatories, and making it extremely difficult to disassociate disaffected signatories sounds to me as though there is some desperation to make the list look longer than it really is! I wonder why . . .</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stacy Malkan</title>
		<link>http://notjustaprettyface.org/blog/industry-press-conference-sets-the-record-straight/comment-page-1#comment-27689</link>
		<dc:creator>Stacy Malkan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 15:34:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://notjustaprettyface.org/?p=2400#comment-27689</guid>
		<description>Hi Teri, 
The data transparency and data sharing parts of the bill are important for the reasons you bring up -- yes small companies would be able to get a lot more information than is currently available to them about toxicology and safety data, from suppliers and also from having access to the studies that have been conducted by other companies that are currently kept secret. There would be a lot more information available from which to make decisions. There may be cases where no information is available and safety data would need to be provided but this doesn&#039;t mean every company will need to conduct assessments on their own (the bill specifies that duplicative testing needs to be avoided), and a data sharing system could be put in place (with a central agency conducting assessments, for example).  

It&#039;s true that some of the language is vague and needs to be worked out by FDA and also through the public process -- that will definitely happen.  When&#039;s the last time we saw a bill sail from introduction to law with no debate? It&#039;s why I&#039;m perplexed by the hysteria that is being perpetuated out there. This bill is a solid framework that will absolutely enhance the safety of cosmetics by setting some standards in the industry, while also providing many benefits to small companies -- with some important details to be worked out. The best way to approach that is to work together through the process to ensure the final bill achieves the goals of safety without hurting small businesses. I&#039;m glad to hear you are a Compact signer - the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics will be inviting Compact Signers to a teleconference very soon to discuss these details and make a plan. I hope you can make it! 

Thanks,
Stacy</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Teri,<br />
The data transparency and data sharing parts of the bill are important for the reasons you bring up &#8212; yes small companies would be able to get a lot more information than is currently available to them about toxicology and safety data, from suppliers and also from having access to the studies that have been conducted by other companies that are currently kept secret. There would be a lot more information available from which to make decisions. There may be cases where no information is available and safety data would need to be provided but this doesn&#8217;t mean every company will need to conduct assessments on their own (the bill specifies that duplicative testing needs to be avoided), and a data sharing system could be put in place (with a central agency conducting assessments, for example).  </p>
<p>It&#8217;s true that some of the language is vague and needs to be worked out by FDA and also through the public process &#8212; that will definitely happen.  When&#8217;s the last time we saw a bill sail from introduction to law with no debate? It&#8217;s why I&#8217;m perplexed by the hysteria that is being perpetuated out there. This bill is a solid framework that will absolutely enhance the safety of cosmetics by setting some standards in the industry, while also providing many benefits to small companies &#8212; with some important details to be worked out. The best way to approach that is to work together through the process to ensure the final bill achieves the goals of safety without hurting small businesses. I&#8217;m glad to hear you are a Compact signer &#8211; the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics will be inviting Compact Signers to a teleconference very soon to discuss these details and make a plan. I hope you can make it! </p>
<p>Thanks,<br />
Stacy</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Petro Essences, Pinkwashing, and the Cult of Body</title>
		<link>http://notjustaprettyface.org/blog/industry-press-conference-sets-the-record-straight/comment-page-1#comment-27648</link>
		<dc:creator>Petro Essences, Pinkwashing, and the Cult of Body</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 22:45:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://notjustaprettyface.org/?p=2400#comment-27648</guid>
		<description>[...] course, the $50 billion cosmetics industry doesn’t want to change, as that’ll cost money, which is exactly why this video is great—hopefully it’ll serve to [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] course, the $50 billion cosmetics industry doesn’t want to change, as that’ll cost money, which is exactly why this video is great—hopefully it’ll serve to [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stacy Malkan</title>
		<link>http://notjustaprettyface.org/blog/industry-press-conference-sets-the-record-straight/comment-page-1#comment-27647</link>
		<dc:creator>Stacy Malkan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 21:14:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://notjustaprettyface.org/?p=2400#comment-27647</guid>
		<description>Dene, 
The thing is, I don&#039;t have time to sit around all day engaging in debate with you. I will respond to some of those new critiques at a later time. Thank you,
Stacy</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dene,<br />
The thing is, I don&#8217;t have time to sit around all day engaging in debate with you. I will respond to some of those new critiques at a later time. Thank you,<br />
Stacy</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

