The Truth about the Colorado Safe Cosmetics Act
The sky is falling! Or so you’d think from the kerfuffle over a bill that would have banned cancer-causing chemicals from cosmetics in Colorado. In blogs and on twitter, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics was accused of everything from Evil Oz-ery to getting paid by FDA to circulate lies about toxins (my personal fave).
So, to set the record straight: The bill (which died yesterday in committee) was sponsored by the Colorado Women’s Lobby, not the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics,and was an attempt to protect consumers from being exposed to the worst chemicals used in cosmetics.
Contrary to some claims, the bill would not have banned olive oil or any other natural food-grade ingredients, but only chemicals that are already banned from cosmetics in the EU, and which also appear on other authoritative bodies’ lists of chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive harm (EPA, NTP, IARC and NOISH) – about 15 chemicals in all, most of which are not ever used by small companies.
We environmental health advocates are big fans of small, indie businesses, in case anyone was wondering. As San Francisco Magazine just pointed out, the activism of Campaign for Safe Cosmetics has been a major factor behind the growth of a vibrant, locally-based natural products industry in the Bay Area. For more about why policy action is also necessary, see this Denver Post op-ed by State Rep. Dianne Primavera.
PS: if anyone knows where I can apply for FDA funding to do the agency’s job for it, let me know!
Stacy Malkan, 3/9/10
March 3rd, 2010 at 6:35 pm
Oh, so sad that this bill died!
There was a similar debate last year when Congress was voting on the Consumer Products Safety Act — small businesses (crafters, Etsy.com folk, etc) were totally freaked out that meeting safety standards would put them out of business. I guess when the argument for making products safer is “otherwise pregnant women and babies could get sick,” the industry has to pull out the big (read: small, pathetic-seeming) guns with this “small businesses will suffer” line. How disappointing that Colorado bought it.
March 4th, 2010 at 9:16 am
Virginia:
I think it’s important to share an alternative point of view. Just so you know who I am to put my comments in context, I am the president of the Indie Beauty Network, a trade organization representing small cosmetics manufacturers. I am an attorney (not practicing right now). I am not a lobbyist. I am an advocate for small businesses, most particularly very small businesses that are bootstrapping some incredible companies in industries across the economic spectrum in this country. I follow business and economic issues closely, especially as they pertain to the tiniest ventures in cities and towns nationwide.
1. Small and independent business owners were not a part of the Congressional debate where CPSIA was concerned. They found out about it after it became law, and so all of the activity on their part took place after the fact, at the agency level. You describe CPSIA as imposing safety standards, and you are correct. However, it imposed one-size-fits-all safety standards that are not appropriate or desirable for an entire industry.
CPSIA was triggered in large part by the actions of multi-billion dollar companies importing toys manufactured in other countries with little to no meaningful lead-based standards. Small and independent companies were not causing the problem that CPSIA sought to alleviate, yet they were treated in the same way as the huge companies. The law may be the same, but the impact is not. CPSIA was not and is not carefully tailored to deal with the problem it is supposed to be dealing with. Is a broad brush that did lots of things, some of them good. But it is not without its flaws, and one of them is that tiny companies that were not contributing to the problem were pushed out of the entrepreneurial and small business landscape for no good reason.
2. The small and independent business owners I see every day are not “pathetic-seeming.” Instead, they are men and women, mothers and fathers and people just like the rest of us. They are seeking to responsibly provide for themselves and their families, as all of us must do, and they are doing their part to make the world and their communities better places by creating and making available for sale products that enhance millions of people’s live every day.
3. “‘Small businesses will suffer’” is not a line. It is the truth. That fact alone does not mean that new laws are unnecessary or that a new law should not go into effect simply because small businesses on the whole will be adversely impacted financially. That’s only part of the reality.
It is not unreasonable for the impact of a proposed law on all interested parties to be considered before that law goes into effect. No bill should become law behind a smokescreen. The process should be transparent, and it should give all parties, even the ones you and I disagree with, a chance to be heard. That is what a democracy is all about and those are the principles upon which this nation was founded.
Small and independent business owners want to produce the best possible products. That means, among other things, that they want to create products that are safe for their customers to use, reasonably priced, aesthetically pleasing and profitable. They want, and rightly so, to be able to do so on a level playing field where everyone has a chance to compete based on his or her own personal and product-based merit and resources.
Based on the voices that spoke on Monday, it is clear that Colorado made the right choice. Perhaps you come to a different assessment after listening to six hours of hearings, but that is my conclusion. I listened to the entire hearing from start to finish to make sure my comments were fully informed. I applaud the State of Colorado and any other legislature that makes accommodation for all sides of an issue to have a voice.
Stacy:
I’d like to quickly address the substance of your post as well. Thanks for the opportunity to do so.
You say “cancer causing” sort of like it is a suitable catch-all phrase for the efforts behind this bill. While the testimony was clear that some substances may cause harm somewhere and somehow, it was far from clear that the amounts used specifically in cosmetics used by humans rise to that level. Susan Roll of the Colorado Women’s Lobby said this:
“I wish I could say that there was an abundance of science linking this. … There is a little bit of science. We don’t have an abundance of science. I wish we had it.”
What that means is there are reasons to be concerned. What it doesn’t mean is that I should be able to pull a cosmetic off the shelf and without even buying it or opening the jar, have a cause of action against the company that made it. That’s one of the things the bill would have allowed me (if I lived in Colorado) to do.
Dr. Richard Adamson, one of the scientists who testified, said that that a woman would have to eat, “3 or 4 tubes of lipstick a day for 70 years before it could become potentially harmful.” Dr. Adamson also said of 1,4-dioxane (which can be used as a foaming agent in cosmetics), one of the substances that would have triggered the law, that a person would have to take 700 baths a day for 70 years in order for the substance to become potentially harmful. One obvious flaw in the science, he said, is that much of the science is based on tests conducted on animals — tests that expose the animals to large amounts of the substances and often through oral ingestion, which of course does not happen with cosmetics.
More testimony posited that many “natural” (which can also be defined in many ways as we all know) ingredients do in fact contain trace elements of some of the substances targeted by the bill. While a last minute amendment limited the bill to only a handful of substances, instead of a potentially unlimited number as the original bill did, the scientists who testified still said that the science is not there to say that all of them pose a particular hazard in a particular quantity, when used like cosmetics are used.
I am not a scientist so I will leave the details to the record of the proceedings, but it is very clear that the lawmakers were very uncomfortable with the notion that a person could sue a company and get thousands of dollars in damages based on science that was not there, and also without showing that they were injured by the product at issue.
These are a few examples of the facts that were brought forth during the over 6-hour hearing. A law must be based on something besides emotion, fear and panic. All of those things are fleeting — they pass from one day to the next. A law must instead be based on the best available facts everyone can collectively find at a given point in time. Those facts are what this entire process is seeking to uncover — so a law based on tangible facts can be passed, not a law based on broad brush strokes that sweep everything under the umbrella of “safe.”
During her testimony, Susan Roll, vice chair of the Women’s Lobby of Colorado, testified that she is a founding member of the Campaign For Safe Cosmetics. Her relationship was not further defined in her testimony and no one asked for clarification. However, the fact that she is a founding member of the Campaign does indicate the presence of a relationship and possibly a very close one. Professional relationships do not have to be defined by traditional pay checks or consulting fees in order for them to be relevant. I think it is disingenuous to say that it was the Colorado Women’s Lobby who sponsored the bill, and behave sort of like the Campaign is a disinterested party just standing by letting the chips fall where they may.
You and everyone else in the universe is correct that FDA is under-funded. They admit it and we know it. However, it is Congress that gives them the authority (or not) to do what they do, and it is Congress that appropriates funds so they can carry out their mission.
As you know, pending now in the House Energy & Commerce Committee is the FDA Globalization Act of 2009, which if passed, will change how cosmetics are regulated in this country. We all know that that bill is going to change dramatically in its next revision, and more revisions can be suggested going forward to cover issues not covered in that bill. It seems odd to me that the Colorado lawmakers didn’t seem to know that the federal bill exists. It also seems odd that any advocacy group would seek to change 50 separate state laws rather than change a federal one that would apply equally to all parties.
Cosmetics are sold all over this country. If I make lip balm in South Carolina, does it make sense that I should have to comply with 50 laws and a federal one too, in order to sell that product to customers nationwide? By that logic, I’d have to keep a changing list of substances for 50 states, probably change my labeling on each tube 50 times and maybe be subject to 50 different types of lawsuits by millions of people in all of the United States every time I sold a $6.00 one-quarter ounce tube of lip balm made with olive oil and beeswax.
No industry can operate in such a stifling environment, and consumers would not be able to buy the products they enjoy if that became the state of the law. I say all this to say, why not continue to work diligently and in a public way (as is being done with states) with Congress, and encourage states to work with Congress, to pass new laws that would apply nationwide?
In closing, I would like to say that I am encouraged to read your comments at a former Compact signer’s blog that you see some common ground for small companies and the Campaign to pursue. It is my hope that that common ground exists, and that we can uncover and capitalize on it for the benefit of consumers and cosmetics companies nationwide. I look forward to working with you to do that.
Donna Maria Coles Johnson
President
Indie Beauty Network
March 4th, 2010 at 11:21 am
[...] morning, I shared the following commentary at Stacy Malkan’s blog in response to her post about the defeat earlier this week of the Colorado Safe Personal Care [...]
March 4th, 2010 at 12:53 pm
It is unfortunate that the chemical industry and their trade associations are preying upon small business owners, mostly women, and exploiting them, manipulating them and deliberately disinforming the public through using lies and made up fears to do their dirty work of blocking protections from dangerous chemicals.
I want to know why small business owners aren’t mad at the chemical industry and their communications firms. Small business owners should be rightfully angry at the corporations who make the chemicals for not making safe chemicals that can be trusted to put in their products.
Ms. Johnson should not be mad at those in the environmental health movement who are actually advocating for the well-being of small businesses. Small business owners know that they are much more vulnerable to liability for harm done by dangerous chemicals in their products. When people sue for chemical exposure from products, it is the small businesses who will suffer the most, not the huge corporations trying to exploit them.
Rather than making this about business owners versus environmental health advocates, it’s time to sit down and have a real discussion about how small businesses can be supported to transition to doing business in a fashion where their customers are not put in danger from harmful toxic chemicals.
As Dr. Richard Liroff writes in his blog on GreenBiz, the businesses who do this first will be the most profitable. http://www.greenbiz.com/bio/richard-liroff. So please stop fear mongering, Ms. Johnson, and get busy helping your peers find a real solution to this problem – to achieve a standard of safe, non-toxic beauty products, so that these products are accessible to all consumers.
And for those who are disappointed that the industry was able to block this legislation, look at the campaign contributions to the legislators who blocked it: from the Personal Care Products Council (Procter & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson, others) , the American Chemistry Council (Exxon Mobile, Dow, Monsanto, etc.),and another lobbying group that gets a lot of money from those two groups and their members – the Republican Party. Then you’ll see why this legislation failed. These corporations and their trade groups “own” many state legislatures and Congress, which is why this industry has been under and unregulated for so many years. It is time to take our corporations out of our government, and this vote is a prime example of why!
By the way, Ms. Johnson tells us on her website that she joined the Personal Care Products Council – the main purpose of which is keep the cosmetics industry unregulated.
March 4th, 2010 at 1:48 pm
A major part of the problem many of us had with the law as proposed was the “open-endedness” of the list of “dangerous chemicals.” The law, as originally proposed, precluded ANY percentage at all of a long list of possibly (but not proven!) chemicals. For example, one of the trace phytochemicals, naturally found in true rose oil, is on the banned list. Which meant that any product containing true rose oil fell under the law. Many of the members of Ms. Coles-Johnson association do what we do because of our passion for natural, safe products. We create soaps, toiletries, cosmetics avoiding the known, dangerous ingredients that may be found in commercial products. And we are dedicated to safe and appropriate use of the ingredients we chose. The law, as written, would prevent the offering for sale of traditionally used all natural, pure and organic products. ANY item you name, used in excess, can be dangerous. But this was bad law, based on hysteria, not on fact. YES there are chemicals that have no place on our bodies… let’s start with lead and arsenic. But most city water systems deliver water with traces of lead..in parts per billion, but it’s still there. Does that mean we should stop bathing and showering?
There are several things to be considered here…and there is a “risk/benefit” analysis that has never been done. YES, in massive doses, methyleugenol may be carcinogenic. In some natural essential oils, because of the ‘bouquet” of natural phytochemicals they provide, it can also be anti-carcinogenic. But it was on the list of banned chemicals. So, its presence in ANY trace amount would leave the distributor open to a lawsuit from anyone in CO who felt like suing. No more rose oil, or holy basil oil, or citronella, or… need I go on?
Rather than the name calling and ‘guilt by association’ shown in the response above, perhaps it might be more effective to investigate ways to inform consumers about TRUE product safety.
March 4th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
You’ll have to excuse my ignorance. I’m apparently one of those poor, mindless, manipulated and exploited small business owners and female consumers who is so naive and incapable of making a choice about what’s good for me that I need an extremist and aggressive environmental health advocate like the CFSC to come to my state and try to pass legislation that will remove any responsibility on my part to think and make the right choice for me. Thank you so much! Since Ms. Hendricks seems incapable of understanding why, as small business owner and consumer, I might be more angry with the CFSC than the chemical industry, I’ll spell it out for her. It basically boils down to my freedom of choice, something I hold very near and dear. I bet you do, too. Yep, I value my freedom to choose, even those potentially bad things for me. Is it really so hard to imagine people fighting for this right? I think letting informed consumers make their own choices on which products they will spend their money on and ultimately support, makes more sense than using the legislative and legal systems to set up outright bans.
March 4th, 2010 at 2:26 pm
Donna,
Yes I agree there is common ground between small businesses and the environmental health movement. The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics works closely with many small business owners who are on the leading edge of innovation, creating the next generation of truly safe, wonderful, non-toxic products. These small companies are the vanguard of the new green economy that will continue to boom in the years ahead, and which is greatly aided by the work of environmental health advocates who work hard every day to educate the public about the dangers of toxic chemicals, and about the reality of what’s in conventional products that claim to be “pure” and “healthy.”
But it’s time to step away from the rhetoric. Regarding Dr. Adamson, he is paid by the trade association to repeat their talking points which is exactly what he did at the hearing. The comments were, frankly, laughable. A person would have to eat 3-4 tubes of lipstick a day for 70 years, or take 700 baths? There is no science to back this up. As you know, studies about the rate of absorption of cosmetic chemicals are not required of industry and not conducted by FDA. On the 1,4 dioxane example: the state of California lists the chemical as “known to cause cancer” and has taken action against several personal care products companies for hazardous levels of 1,4 dioxane (based on one bath, not 700).
As the endocrinologist David Norris testified at the hearing, the old adage of the “dose makes the poison” is no longer relevant. The timing of the dose is of critical importance, and even very tiny doses of endocrine disrupting chemicals can wreak havoc. Fish are changing genders in Colorado waterways due to exposure to hormones, including hormone-disrupting cosmetic chemicals. As he testified, the endocrine systems of fish, humans, rodents and other animals have similar mechanisms of action – so yes the animal studies are relevant for predicting human health effects. The same types of gender-bender health problems seen in fish and lab animals are also showing up in the human population.
For more on this topic, see these two recent pieces by Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times. http://nyti.ms/97XfeJ and http://nyti.ms/bg0ra5. “Concern about toxins in the environment used to be a fringe view. But alarm has moved into the medical mainstream. Toxicologists, endocrinologists and oncologists seem to be the most concerned,” Kristof writes.
So please, as we try to find common ground, let’s leave behind the trade association rhetoric. As Stephenie pointed out, the Personal Care Products Council is doing the small independent business community no favor by backing and encouraging its efforts to oppose legislation. I do agree with you that good policy should include concessions to help small businesses, and I also strongly believe that good policy will help small businesses. In a market where consumers are less confused and more informed about the toxic ingredients in cosmetics, the benefit will go to the companies who are doing the right thing and making the best products.
Stacy
March 4th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
Stephanie: I am not mad. I am committed, determined and purposeful.
I am not making this about business owners versus environmental health advocates. I am not making it anything. It is what it is. Our articulated goals are the same as everyone else’s stated goals: to create a landscape where consumers can purchase cosmetics they can rely on to enhance their lives without placing them in danger. How we get to that point is unfolding as we go.
Cosmetics are not unregulated, and the way they are regulated is being addressed, and will soon change, by Congress via the FDA Globalization Act of 2009. On behalf of my members, I have been a part of that process since the very beginning.
My blog does not say that I joined the Personal Care products Council. It says that I was once a member of the organization. That was in 1995 or 1996 when the organization was called the Cosmetics, Toiletries & Fragrances Association, and I owned a cosmetics company of my own. At that time, they had a small business committee. Right after I joined the association, they terminated the small business committee, just when I was ready to volunteer to serve on it. After some years, I did not renew my membership because their services were aimed more at companies that were a lot larger than mine.
I asked to meet with representatives of the Personal Care Products Council in December 2009, and they agreed to host me in their offices. Along with Leigh O’Donnell, president of the Handcrafted Soapmakers Guild and Lela Barker of Bella Lucce (from Columbia, South Carolina) (a member of Indie Beauty Network), I met with their representatives to discuss pending legislation. That does not mean I joined them. It means I need to know what they think in order to serve my members.
The Colorado legislation did not fail simply because the large companies you listed in your comment testified against it. It failed because credentialed scientists testified that the law was not based on reliable scientific data. And it failed because it would have allowed anyone in Colorado to sue a cosmetics company, large or small, and recover thousands of dollars in damages without showing injury or even possibility of injury — and they would not ever have had to show that they used the product, purchased the product or even saw it on a store shelf with their own eyes.
As a small business owner and advocate in this industry, I believe it is important to understand as fully as possible all sides of an issue. I make myself available to meet with anyone who will discuss their position, as I discuss my members’s positions, in an informal setting. Ms. Malkan has said there is common ground and I am looking forward to working with her and others in pursuit of it.
At all times, my goal is to put all of the issues in context so I can help my members serve their customers, which is their ultimate priority and responsibility.
March 4th, 2010 at 3:11 pm
D’Anna,
That sounds nice, but come on. Yes I believe in freedom to choose, and also that people need to have full access to information in order to have a free choice. Does a person who buys the top-selling baby shampoo have a right to know that this “pure” and “gentle” shampoo is contaminated with formaldehyde and 1,4 dioxane, two carcinogens that are not listed on the label? I believe they do. I also believe that the best natural products have already moved (or are quickly moving) away from using formaldehyde-releasing preservatives and the petrochemicals associated with 1,4 dioxane contamination.
Again, I’m going to go with the idea that there is more common ground than difference here. Transparency, full disclosure, phasing out the most hazardous chemicals — these are things that will benefit small businesses and give consumers the benefit of free and informed choices.
March 4th, 2010 at 4:52 pm
I am a hairstylist with over 30 years in the industry. Two years ago I developed an allergy to p-phenylenediamine, a petrochemical used to make hair dye permanent. My experience, according to occupational medicine toxicologist Dr. Robert Harrison who treated me, is a classic case of long-term, low-level exposure to a toxic chemical that has been alleged to be “safe” in small doses.
My view is that we need to alter our approach to these crucial public health issues and come into alignment with the EU’s approach. The EU uses the “precautionary principle,” an approach that addresses the slightest scientific evidence of possible harm. Why can’t we turn our ship of state in a new direction and ask that proper testing be done PRIOR to products containing chemicals being put on the open market? Why aren’t the experiences of beauty industry workers sought out to see how high the levels of bladder cancer, non-Hodgkins’ lymphoma and other cancers are in that population (my research of studies conducted mostly in Europe indicates they are significantly higher than average).
Tort law, the approach that seems to be favored in the U.S., is an insufficient tool for addressing these serious health concerns. Waiting until someone is sick, or worse — DEAD, before we engage the system is inhumane. A lawsuit settlement is little comfort in these situations.
March 4th, 2010 at 10:21 pm
Here is but a small slice of the larger pie that needs to be swallowed whole in order to come to a reasonable solution to proceed with cosmetic consumer safety. Stacy, you keep making references to “environmental” toxins, which encompass a plethora of concerns well beyond skincare products or cosmetics. A discussion here would be better served if we narrow the focus to just what the CO legislation was seeking to do and its specific target, skin care products and cosmetics. None of us would argue that there are environmental concerns, and even some concerns with cosmetic ingredients, however others here have certainly given you enough reasons to pause.
I am an importer of essential oils and other plant-based extracts. I manufacture skin care products, made primarily with natural ingredients and scented with aromatic plant extracts. We purposely avoid synthetic chemicals, including synthetic fragrance materials.
I am well aware of the legislative processes now undertaken in the EU that have led to the formation of REACH, IFRA and other bodies attempting to regulate and/or restrict chemical constituents in cosmetic products and perfumes. I am also well aware of the worldwide attempt to harmonize standards and regulations to accommodate a global marketplace. My good friend and colleague, Tony Burfield, who runs Cropwatch (www.cropwatch.org) is a fragrance chemist who interacts with many of the committees in the EU formed to undertake the work being done to establish this legislation. He has been bringing tempering arguments by reporting and consulting to these bodies to slow their process, because they are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. They are singling out chemical constituents, many of which do occur in the natural plant-derived ingredients. The same ingredients that most innovative, emerging small skin care businesses are using . . . mostly to avoid harsher synthetic chemicals. Most of the fragrance chemists involved do not know or understand the synergistic composition of essential oils and plant extracts. Marge explained a bit of this above. Tony’s good work has resulted in reconsideration, i.e., with regard to furocoumarins, initially to be banned from use. Here is the European Commission’s reply after advisory consultation with Tony.
http://www.cropwatch.org/09-05%20Letter%20to%20Cropwatch%20signed.pdf
You will see that the operative sentence here . . . “The furocoumarins should be banned in cosmetic products, except when they are present in natural essences.” They go on to establish limits for use. This is a victory for the natural products industry, hard fought. And, it is a victory for consumer safety when it comes to skincare and cosmetic products.
My concern with CFSC agenda (and don’t deny that you are campaigning in every state for serious restrictive regulations) is that you are not educating yourself about what is really happening in the natural products industry. You have more or less co-opted many small personal care products companies as signers without first investigating exactly what is going on in this smaller industry to avoid using dangerous ingredients.
We are aware of the EU directives, and we are aware that they are not to be taken without challenge if they are misguided or wrong. The bill introduced in CO was far worse than what we continue to see being worked out in the EU.
Dr. Norris was primarily versed in environmental toxins, not at all with cosmetics or skin care products themselves. Most of the chemical effluence he deals with in our waterways and comes from large chemical plants . . . of far greater concern at this juncture than skincare products.
I don’t see that you are taking much of what we say here to heart. You say people need to have “full access to information in order to make a choice.” Yet, it appears that you, yourself are not fully informed.
March 4th, 2010 at 11:04 pm
It’s true that I’m not fully informed about furocoumarins, and probably other formulation issues as well, since I’m not a product formulator. I still believe that such issues can be worked out in ways that don’t unduly burden small businesses, yet still raise the bar for the industry as a whole to move toward less toxic chemistry. Most of the research we have conducted is on the conventional products, and there are a lot of problems to be cleaned up there — not to mention plenty of misleading marketing to try to capture the green consumers. The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics has been consistent (and transparent) in saying that we believe it is necessary to update federal law to fix these problems.
March 5th, 2010 at 10:19 am
This is a huge and complex issue, I agree. I see our mega-corporate competitors’ attempts at “greenwashing”, and I cringe. They know the public wants natural; they get it and they want to keep their market share, mostly without changing their ingredients or environmental pollution caused from their chemical manufacturing. There are, however, several trade groups providing strength in numbers for small emerging companies, establishing recognized seals of approval to counter this pseudo-greening, and educating the public with regard to accuracy, especially when it comes to certified organic and fair trade. We are seeing a green revolution emerging, it’s just going to take time, as every major shift does.
Stacy, may I suggest that CFSC just take a little time to re-evaluate? It is my hope that CFSC will cease this state by state campaign with the recognition that individual state laws would be terribly disruptive and ineffective, and that working with Congress in its attempt to provide the FDA and relative sub-agencies sound directives for future legislation is a better way to proceed. We certainly do not want to take good energy away from our own businesses to have to fight with you to protect ourselves over and over in every state. Especially when we might agree with you with regard to verifiable dangerous toxic chemicals. Perhaps you might also create a mechanism that would more directly involve the compact signers, treating them as actual stakeholders, tapping into their expertise and gaining their confidence to insure that you are not endangering them as you build campaigns to carry out your mission. You can rest assured that you will be challenged if you continue to proceed as you are at present. To address the overall danger would be better served with everyone in agreement and no one gravely threatened as the CO legislation would have.
March 5th, 2010 at 11:36 am
I am just wondering if CFSC had read the list of ingredients they were proposing to ban and if they have any idea what a suspected carcinogen means. Have you ever enjoyed a cup of coffee? Coffee is on the list of suspected carcinogens because under certain doses and certain conditions coffee can cause cancer in rodents. I am willing most mornings to take that risk though and enjoy my cup.
Have you ever had a pickle with your sandwich? Because picked vegetables too are a suspected carcinogen. Yet millions of people are willing to take that risk and eat a pickle with lunch.
Did you know that shea butter is rich in non steroidal estrogens? Yes, non steroidal estrogens are also on the list of suspected carcinogens that you would like to see banned.
It makes me question your intelligence to actually propose that these things are harmful enough that we should pass laws to ban their use in cosmetics.
March 8th, 2010 at 2:38 pm
Cindy, see my original post. The bill did not include food-grade ingredients.
March 8th, 2010 at 5:45 pm
Thank you for your comments Marcia. We agree that working with Congress on a federal bill to give FDA adequate authority is the right approach. The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics is not pursuing any state level legislation at this time. We do have a stakeholder process with companies via our bi-annual Compact signer meetings at Expo and email communications, but we will be discussing how to improve that process in the very near term to address some of these concerns you are raising. I will be in touch with you soon with more details.
March 9th, 2010 at 6:34 am
Years ago I signed the Compact for Safe Cosmetics. It seemed natural since our company was dedicated to making natural products that were good for your skin. When adding my products to their list. I was surprised to see that Shea butter was listed as a questionable ingredient. After doing my own research I concluded CFSC was no longer were a credible resource for me and asked to be removed from the list.
March 9th, 2010 at 7:10 pm
Last week there was a pretty urgent situation which arose when Colorado tried to
pass a new law banning “cancer causing” ingredients in cosmetics.
There have been a lot of insults thrown back and forth since then.
Highlights:
“The bill creates the “Colorado Safe Personal Care Products Act”
which prohibits a manufacturer from knowingly selling, offering for
sale, or distributing for sale or use in Colorado on and after September 1,
2011, any personal care product that contains a chemical identified as causing
cancer or reproductive toxicity.”
One would think this is a positive! The problem is, the jury is still out on
what ingredients are actually a concern when it comes to cancer. Personally…I
rather see a ban on cigarettes then worrry about cosmetics…but that won’t
happen.
“The bill further establishes a process for identifying those
chemicals that cannot be contained in personal care products sold or
distributed in Colorado by recognizing existing lists of harmful chemicals
established by authoritative bodies such as the United States environmental
protection agency, the international agency for research on cancer, the national
toxicology program, and the national institute for occupational safety and
health.”
This is where I get confused. What I am reading from “leaders” in this industry
has turned into a vicious attack on the Campaign For Safe Cosmetics, the Skin
Deep database, and the Environmental Working Group (EWG). Why?
I read the bill and unless there is something I am completely missing…they
were NOT the organizations who introduced this bill.
The bill references the EU standards, which Robert Tisserand addressed
beautifully on his blog.
I looked all over the EWG website and I don’t see anything about them even
taking a stand on the Colorado Safe Personal Care Products Act.
Where is there any documentation that the EWG is involved in trying to promote
save cosmetics through the Colorado bill?
I posted on Donna Maria’s blog:
http://www.indiebusinessblog.com/2010/03/04/small-business-owners-embrace-your-l\
egislative-advocacy-power
dM, you know how much I respect you so I hope you take my critique as well
intentioned. In an earlier post on your blog you state “provisions should be
made to support businesses, particularly small businesses, in meeting federal
regulations for safer products.” And I agree.
The first step should be to educate and inform those small businesses of exactly
what those federal regulations actually are.You state that “I know that some
large manufacturers with billions of dollars in annual sales and millions of
customers worldwide are using questionable ingredients in their products. This
is a problem that the newly introduced FDA Globalization Act of 2009: HR-759
should address. However, and this is important, it is not the small, artisan,
Indie and handmade companies that are using these unsafe ingredients and
therefore, any new law must be carefully tailored to ensure that small companies
are not regulated in the same way that larger ones are.”
The reality is, your statement that the small, artisan, Indie and handmade
companies are not using these exact same ingredients is not accurate. Spend some
time on some of the social networkings sites where people are sharing advice and
recipes. The small, artisan formulators are buying and using the exact same
chemicals found in the products made by the large formulators. These ingredients
include the very synthetic preservatives many large corporations are actually
phasing out due to consumer concern.
What potentially makes the large manufacturers products potentially even safer
than the small manufacturers; testing! The FDA has requirements for microbial
pathogens, ask the average small crafter and I guarantee…too many have no idea
what those requirements are and they have no idea whether or not their products
fall within the safe levels. These tests are not prohibitively expensive and
there is no legitimate excuse for selling products that have never been tested
for pathogens. Being a formuator is a profession, and like most professions
there are costs for doing business. I feel like some of your comments are
empowering people to take shortcuts, and not spend money on the basic things
that should be part of even the smallest home formulator’s costs of doing
business.
If the safety of a product has not been established, the FDA requires a
statement of such on the label…the size of the manufacturers business does not
exempt the small manufacturer from at the very least, displaying this mandatory
statement on the label. But you can go to any farmers market, ETSY store or
online shop and purchase products manufacturered by small, artisan, Indie and
handmade companies that are untested, and missing this notice. And worst of
all…the manufacturer doesn’t even realize it is required.
Another thing the large manufacturers do is conduct a Minimum Inhibitory
Concentration Test (MIC Test). If you do not run a MIC test, then the
manufacturer is just guessing whether or not their preservative is working. Too
often, the small crafter asks advice of other small crafters in online social
networking sites, and then adds the maximum amount of synthetic preservative to
their product. This does not necessarily create a safely preserved product, but
it makes the crafter feel as if their product “must” be safe. In many cases,
this exposes their customers to many more potentially toxic ingredients than
necessary. Again, these tests are not prohibitively expensive. Wishful thinking
should have no part in manufacturing a product that customers are applying to
the largest organ of the body, the skin. In my opinion, if a small business
cannot afford to test their products in order to use the least amount of
preservative necessary, then they should consider another profession.
You have stated “But companies that are using safe ingredients should not be
required to test for ingredients that they know they are not using in the first
place.” I can only say that after reading posts from thousands of small,
artisan, Indie and handmade cosmetics makers…not only do many of them not know
what ingredients are in their products, they have no incentive to learn. People
find a soap recipe, buy the ingredients, and in two weeks are selling their
“eczema relief” soap, their “all-natural essential oil of strawberry scented”
lotion, etc. The battle…and it is a battle…for safer cosmetics should not
include a free pass for a company simply because of it’s size.
+++
Why…seriously, why should small businesses be given a free pass based on size?
March 9th, 2010 at 7:48 pm
Maryclaire…I just looked up Shea Butter on the Skin Deep database (which is a service of Environmental Working Group). Shea Butter had a score of zero to two on a scale of 0-10. But you referred to the Compact for Safe Cosmetics, not the Skin Deep database. Where did you find Shea Butter “listed as a questionable ingredient” if I may ask?
March 10th, 2010 at 10:24 pm
Hi Stacy – to address your initial comment, I wonder if you know anyone in Europe who makes natural/organic personal care products? If you do, you will know that there, the sky has indeed fallen, in the sense that recent/current legislation has created unreasonable restrictions on the use of essential oils – see http://tinyurl.com/ylpqb27. This, to the extent that some essential oil producers are being put out of business, and often not for any science-based reason.
Forgive me, but it is clear from your comments that you do not fully understand the Pandora’s box that you are eager to open. I echo Marcia’s sentiments – her voice is so very sane and sensible – and suggest that you take a breath and tread carefully. A constructive dialogue will very likely lead to a resolution of much of the apparent conflict being voiced here.
Marcia, Cindy and I are all very familiar with the problems of prohibiting a naturally-occurring chemical. (As Cindy points out, there are many, including acetaldehyde, a carcinogen found in virtually every fruit.) So are toxicologists, which is why, for example, methyleugenol is not prohibited in Europe, it is restricted. I try to educate people in regard to the dangers of essential oils – I have spent most of my life doing this. At the same time, I am concerned when I see unnecessary and unreasonable restrictions.
Robert
March 10th, 2010 at 10:30 pm
Perception that the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics was behind the Colorado bill first came from the Colorado Women’s Lobby website. In addition the entire testimony was wrapped up with this statement, “So on behalf of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and the Women’s Lobby and the 28 other organizations that support this bill I ask for your favorable vote. “ Representative Primavera to the Colorado House Judiciary Committee.
March 11th, 2010 at 11:27 am
Hi Robert,
I do understand that these issues are not simple, and there will be challenges in crafting legislation that addresses the worst toxicity problems in the beauty industry without burdening small businesses. I also believe these challenges can and must be overcome. Pandora’s Box is a very good term for what is occurring already. Companies have been allowed to put millions of tons of synthetic petrochemicals into our environment and into body-care products with no required safety testing and no accountability, even as evidence mounts that some of these chemicals are harming people and wildlife. Each of the big corporations makes the same argument: it’s “just a little bit” of any given toxin in their product, but it is adding up. As I wrote in my book, according to a 1997 study by the California Air Resources Board, more than 220 tons of personal care products were sold every single day in the state, enough to fill two tanker trucks per day with chemical compounds — and that’s just in one state, in one day, a decade ago. All of this eventually ends up in the environment in one way or another, and as we know from recent studies, every child on the planet is now born with toxic petrochemicals already in their bodies. So the challenge is, how to deal with this big-picture problem without hurting small businesses and while actually leveling the playing field for companies that are already making the safest products. The right policies could actually benefit small businesses. I plan to write another post about that topic soon. Thank you for the continued dialogue.
March 11th, 2010 at 1:29 pm
Thank you, Stacy, for listening to our concern; I am looking forward to your expanded thoughts in the near future that might move us to more common ground and working effectively together. As you might probably know, my company is one of those who removed our support and name from the Compact when we began to feel our voice was being left out of your process and you were directly acting against our interests. I look forward to being included in your conversation and renewing a dialog and process that might better serve us all. I can only speak for myself, but others here may also be willing to help find that common ground by providing resources you have overlooked or simply are not aware of. Robert is certainly an expert that we in the aromatherapy and essential oil community look to for factual and reasonable advice when it comes to essential oil safety. Cindy is also an extremely knowledgeable resource, as are others who have expressed their concern to you. Many of your campaign signers, though small, are quite well-versed in natural product safety. Many are just emerging and probably could use the advice of their more educated and experienced peers. CFSC could serve as a catalyst to insure that signers have a forum to interact with one another on issues of safety, as well as with you at the CFSC itself. This seems to me to be a good way to proceed into the future building a more cohesive effort that does not get fragmented with alarming differences such as we have seen in Colorado.
We are still in the thick of it, however, and CFSC advocacy efforts have spawned legislation similar to that in Colorado now being introduced in New York and Massachusetts, perhaps other states as well. I do not know how quickly you as a coalition can move to redirect your efforts away from what will only continue to be confrontational in these small legislative arenas. I hope I am not misinterpreting your comments here that I perceive as agreement that you might reform your agenda to better serve consumers as well as we small emerging companies who are building the safe future for the personal care industry. I very much look forward to clarity on this. And I look forward to working together for a common cause for safety in a more democratic, thoughtful manner.
March 11th, 2010 at 2:46 pm
Stacy, thank you for allowing this dialogue to continue!
There is one specific area of toxins in cosmetics that I feel very strongly is one that could be the area of focus for safer cosmetics…synthetic fragrance.
While I don’t imagine a campaign to eliminate synthetic fragrances completely would ever win over the billions of dollars invested in their existance, perhaps one area could be addressed where progress could be made: phthalates.
There is sufficient science to warrant a ban on phthalates in cosmetics, or at the very least, a limit on the percentage of phthalate-containing synthetic fragrances in cosmetics.
And when a supplier claims their synthetic fragrances are phthalate-free…they should have to provide test results and documentation to prove it. Because we all know there are plenty of suppliers selling “all-natural” “100% essential oil” strawberry and mango fragrances, and that just because you print it on the label, does not make it true.
March 11th, 2010 at 4:25 pm
Stacy,
I fully agree with your general concerns about exposure to toxic substances, especially in regard to aerosol sprays, household cleaners, paints etc. My main concern is safety, not whether a business is large or small. I was talking about chemicals that occur naturally in plants, and you are talking about petrochemicals. I flagged up the problems in Europe – and I think your use of the “sky falling” is totally apt – but I don’t see how your comments about small business is relevant to this.
March 12th, 2010 at 2:26 pm
Hi Robert, I agree it’s important to distinguish between chemicals that occur naturally in plants (which we’ve evolved with over millions of years) and petrochemicals (which are completely new to ecosystems within the past century). My point about how it’s relevant to small businesses is that it would be great if the independent business community in the natural products industry, which is full of people who are trying to make the world a healthier place, could support legislation that would help clean up the worst toxicity problems. I also think such legislation would be a benefit to small businesses (see my new post at http://www.notjustaprettyface.org). I’d be interested to hear what you think.
March 13th, 2010 at 2:00 pm
Stacy, it’s good to know we agree on at least one thing – distinguishing naturally-occurring substances from manufactured ones. That is largely a philosophical approach, and of course natural substances are not necessarily safe. The distinction can also be rationalized – a chemical is theoretically identical, whether it is naturally-occurring or synthetic. However, the reality is that no synthetic chemical is 100% pure, and the impurities can themselves cause problems, as has been seen with coumarin and skin allergy.
Looking at your post about Herbal Essences reminds me that the Skin Deep database does not make this distinction. It also has other flaws. Facts are cited, but the “weighting” given to those facts is necessarily subjective, and the result is sometimes, in my opinion, misleading.
As for making the world a safer place, I don’t see much future for a zero-tolerance approach for most substances. Formaldehyde, for example, can be found at some level in virtually anything. And, if you are going to set maximum exposure levels, you have to be able to rationalize them. This is difficult, but not impossible. Modeling European regulations may be sensible in some instances, and not in others.
I am concerned about the problem of many small amounts aggregating to something more. But, once you have divided the amount of a chemical that is non-toxic in a rat by 1,000 times, you have a massive safety margin, especially since in most instances, rats are more sensitive than humans to these toxins, not less.
Robert
March 15th, 2010 at 12:16 pm
Robert, yes there is always some common ground! (Agreed, too, that natural substances are not always safe.) However, it is difficult for me to see how it is rational to set a maximum standard (and for the government/public to have to justify it) for allowable levels of, say, quaternium 15 (a known allergen) and the formaldehyde it releases into baby shampoos that are marketed as “pure” and “gentle” and “for sensitive skin.” Is it not more rational to require companies to be fully transparent about what’s in products, so consumers can make fully informed choices? I also believe it is in the best interests of companies to reformulate products to remove those chemicals and to innovate the next generation of non-toxic products using the principles of green chemistry. This is not going to happen without standards in the marketplace.
June 11th, 2010 at 3:21 pm
It has been found that many companies tend to produce cosmetic products for men by using similar ingredients to what women skin care are made of but only the scent is changed.