Comments on: The Truth about the Colorado Safe Cosmetics Act http://notjustaprettyface.org/blog/the-truth-about-the-colorado-safe-cosmetics-act The Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry Thu, 09 Sep 2010 08:26:06 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: natural eczema treatment http://notjustaprettyface.org/blog/the-truth-about-the-colorado-safe-cosmetics-act/comment-page-1#comment-26858 natural eczema treatment Fri, 11 Jun 2010 22:21:05 +0000 http://notjustaprettyface.org/?p=1744#comment-26858 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. 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.

]]> By: Stacy Malkan http://notjustaprettyface.org/blog/the-truth-about-the-colorado-safe-cosmetics-act/comment-page-1#comment-22726 Stacy Malkan Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:16:32 +0000 http://notjustaprettyface.org/?p=1744#comment-22726 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. 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.

]]> By: Robert Tisserand http://notjustaprettyface.org/blog/the-truth-about-the-colorado-safe-cosmetics-act/comment-page-1#comment-22708 Robert Tisserand Sat, 13 Mar 2010 21:00:35 +0000 http://notjustaprettyface.org/?p=1744#comment-22708 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 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

]]> By: Stacy Malkan http://notjustaprettyface.org/blog/the-truth-about-the-colorado-safe-cosmetics-act/comment-page-1#comment-22702 Stacy Malkan Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:26:09 +0000 http://notjustaprettyface.org/?p=1744#comment-22702 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 www.notjustaprettyface.org). I'd be interested to hear what you think. 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.

]]> By: Robert Tisserand http://notjustaprettyface.org/blog/the-truth-about-the-colorado-safe-cosmetics-act/comment-page-1#comment-22693 Robert Tisserand Thu, 11 Mar 2010 23:25:15 +0000 http://notjustaprettyface.org/?p=1744#comment-22693 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. 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.

]]> By: Susan Apito http://notjustaprettyface.org/blog/the-truth-about-the-colorado-safe-cosmetics-act/comment-page-1#comment-22692 Susan Apito Thu, 11 Mar 2010 21:46:31 +0000 http://notjustaprettyface.org/?p=1744#comment-22692 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. 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.

]]> By: Marcia Elston http://notjustaprettyface.org/blog/the-truth-about-the-colorado-safe-cosmetics-act/comment-page-1#comment-22691 Marcia Elston Thu, 11 Mar 2010 20:29:47 +0000 http://notjustaprettyface.org/?p=1744#comment-22691 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. 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.

]]> By: Stacy Malkan http://notjustaprettyface.org/blog/the-truth-about-the-colorado-safe-cosmetics-act/comment-page-1#comment-22690 Stacy Malkan Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:27:09 +0000 http://notjustaprettyface.org/?p=1744#comment-22690 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. 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.

]]> By: Kayla http://notjustaprettyface.org/blog/the-truth-about-the-colorado-safe-cosmetics-act/comment-page-1#comment-22686 Kayla Thu, 11 Mar 2010 05:30:45 +0000 http://notjustaprettyface.org/?p=1744#comment-22686 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. 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.

]]> By: Robert Tisserand http://notjustaprettyface.org/blog/the-truth-about-the-colorado-safe-cosmetics-act/comment-page-1#comment-22685 Robert Tisserand Thu, 11 Mar 2010 05:24:29 +0000 http://notjustaprettyface.org/?p=1744#comment-22685 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 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

]]>