Water is water, really!
Isn’t it fun to live in a democracy? Where we get to mud wrestle over issues like how to protect public health from harmful chemicals while also ensuring that businesses can continue to operate. Call me an idealist, but I believe it’s possible to have both!
The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics is committed to that goal, and is engaged in a stakeholder process with the many signers of the Compact for Safe Cosmetics to discuss the challenges and opportunities ahead in the effort to reform 70-year-old cosmetic regulations. There are certainly issues to work through as the legislative process goes forward.
There’s also a lot of misinformation being circulated by opponents of reform. No, the Safe Cosmetics Act would not ban coffee, it would not require testing of every product, it would not require labels to contain information about water contaminants in water.
For example, somebody posted on another website that the water in her product contains the following which would have to be listed under the bill:
Aqua (lead, acrylamine, alachlor, alpha/photon emitters, antimony, asbestos, arsenic, atrazine, barium, benzene, benzo(a)pyrene, beta photon emitters, beryllium, bromated, cadmium, carbofuran, carbon tetrachloride, chloramines, chlordane, chlorine, chlorine dioxide, chlorite, chlorobenzene, chromium, copper, cyanide, 2,4-D, dalapon, o-Dichlorobenzene, p-Dichlorobenzene, 1,1-Dichloroethylene, cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene, Di(2-ethylhexyl) adipate, dinoseb, diquat, endothall, endrin, ethylbenzene, fluoride, glyphosate, hexachlorocyclopentadiene, mercury, radium, uranium, vinyl chloride, xylenes)
First of all, if all these chemicals are in her water, she needs to get a good FILTER! This also says something about how polluted our water has become — and why it’s important to stop contributing “trace” levels of toxic chemicals to the environment from billions of products sold daily around the world.
But as for the legislation, no it wouldn’t require those chemicals to be put on labels. The FDA considers water to be water. The disclosure requirement in the bill is meant to address the common contaminants in products that everyone in the industry already knows are a problem: formaldehyde, 1,4 dioxane, etc.
August 10th, 2010 at 8:41 am
When will you respond to Lee Doren?
August 10th, 2010 at 9:02 am
Here is a good independent critique of Lee Doren: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/08/lee-doren-annie-leonard-story-cosmetics-critique.php
August 10th, 2010 at 1:08 pm
Thank you for this write up! The fear some are spreading about this proposed legislation is unbelievable!
August 10th, 2010 at 5:07 pm
If this is true, it is not stated clearly in the bill. The bill is a vague sloppy mess. Rewrite it, then resubmit it to congress. I can’t believe you expect small businesses to sit back and let this pass just because YOU say it will not pass as it is written now. That just is NOT encouraging. The CPSIA was not fixed before it passed, so we cannot trust that this will be either.
I can only hope that after hearing from so many small business owners, you will eventually see the truth of this bill and realize it is a mistake that could EASILY be fixed rather then continuing to try and discredit us and disparage our concerns. This is our life, our livelihood and our future you are playing with, you can’t possibly be surprised that we are pointing out the flaws with this sloppy bill. I would give anything for you to stop fighting us and try walking in our shoes.
August 11th, 2010 at 4:44 pm
Thank you for making this point. I am so *tired* of all of the misleading information and fact twisting out there!
August 11th, 2010 at 6:04 pm
Lauren, We are listening and working together with the small business community. Just today, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics hosted a call with over 60 companies that are signed onto the Compact for Safe Cosmetics to answer questions and air concerns about the bill, and there will be follow up meetings. Since 2004, there have been twice-yearly meetings at which the environmental/health/faith groups that make up the Campaign have discussed policy ideas with companies that attended the Compact meetings at Expo East and West. So there is no fight going on here, except in people’s minds.
To your question about listing contaminants in water, my understanding of the bill is that it leaves it up to FDA to make common sense decisions about this — that companies would list water as water, lavender as lavender, etc., and would have to report about the contaminants that are widely known to be a problem. It’s not me deciding these things (as much as I’d love to think I could dictate what Congress does!). But there is a chance for all of us to give input on the bill, and I think you are correct that certain concerns could probably be easily clarified in the language of the bill.
Regarding the CPSIA, that’s an example of the misinformation that is circulating. The regulation was fixed. No companies are going out of business because of the law. (NOTE: Here’s my clarification: I retract saying the regulation was fixed – clearly that’s too strong a word, and I understand that some businesses are having a lot of difficulties with the new law. Fixed also implies perfect and it is not that – there are plenty of baby products still on the shelves that are made of vinyl and reeking of phthalates. Figuring out how to solve these problems and truly protect kids from harmful toxins is not a simple task, but I do agree it’s got to be done in a way that preserves small business opportunities, and yet still fixes the problems).
Hopefully, fewer kids are getting unnecessarily exposed to phthalates. It’s kind of upsetting to think about how phthalates were banned from toys in Europe over a decade ago, yet American kids are still sucking on toxic toys laden with phthalates while companies complain that they can’t do better. The new law (which passed nearly unanimously and was signed by President Bush), is progress toward safer toys.
Thanks for the dialogue,
Stacy
August 12th, 2010 at 11:43 am
Stacy said, “Regarding the CPSIA, that’s an example of the misinformation that is circulating. The regulation was fixed. No companies are going out of business because of the law. ”
As a small toy manufacturer myself who has been heavily involved for the past 2 years in lobbying for changes to the CPSIA, let me enlighten you a bit.
Yes, there have been changes made to the CPSIA. Contrary to your statement, however, these changes fall far short of what is actually needed for a small business like mine to continue. We can start with the still mandatory tracking label requirement. This portion of the CPSIA went into effect in August 2009 and requires all children’s items to have permanent tracking labels (Manufacturer, date of manufacture & city/state/country of manufacture for us small guys, but add batch numbers to that for bigger guys). Adhesives are unacceptable, and the cost for me to permanently mark/brand/engrave my wooden toys has caused me to stop offering some of my best selling toys. The cost was just too high compared to what the toys sold for.
That aside, I’m technically still in business, but here’s the problem. The CPSC is working on determining an acceptable testing regiment for Use & Abuse testing (something that was optional pre-CPSIA but now is mandatory). This is expected to be required sometime next year (depending on when they release the guidelines, it will be required 90 days after that) and will officially be the final nail in the coffin for my children’s toy line. Here’s why.
Every toy will need to have 12 copies submitted to a lab for destructive testing. There are lab fees, shipping fees and the materials/labor that go into making each of those 12 sets of toys that I would have to absorb. And that’s just to bring a toy to market. I don’t have the convenience of focus groups to tell me how a toy will do before I begin making it- my focus group is my 5 year old daughter and 2 year old son.
So even though my toys are designed and built with a Safety First mentality (I have first hand experience with all of the different use and abuse tests performed on toys), the CPSIA deems toys unsafe unless proven otherwise.
I’m fortunate that I work with wood and can make things besides toys (even though it was my dream for the past 18 years). What is not so fortunate is the customer base I’ve built, the marketing I’ve done, the contacts I’ve made for my children’s toys will have all been for nothing.
What’s even more unfortunate is that there are people out there who still think the CPSIA is doing only good and hurting nobody. I believe in what the CPSIA is trying to achieve, but you can’t expect small businesses like mine to be able to adhere to the exact same criteria as Mattel. The CPSIA does little to differentiate between the two.
-John Greco
Greco Woodcrafting
August 12th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
John, thank you for writing with your views. I do see there are challenges in the toy law and I will clarify my comments in the above post. I believe that companies should be required to know if the toys they sell to children contain phthalates or lead – but you are correct of course that some companies know that without testing because they are sourcing the right materials in the first place (and unfortunately, so many companies do not source the right materials and sometimes do not even know what’s in them). So how do we balance the rights of companies to sell products with the rights of consumers to know what’s in products and to feel confident those products are safe for kids?
That’s the question at the heart of this debate about the Safe Cosmetics Act and I do think it’s important to acknowledge that there are a different set of circumstances here, and there are opportunities for the small business community to be engaged in a productive way that ensures the opportunities for small business are preserved while also achieving safer products — before the bill becomes law.
These are not easy challenges, I realize, but the toy bill is also an example that there is a huge amount of public support and widespread recognition that the chemical industry and related industries that are causing kids to be exposed to harmful chemicals have to be regulated differently than they have in the past (the past system being, basically, anything goes). To do it in a way that solves the worst problems and yet protects the small businesses such as yours that are vital to the economy and that are already making the safest products is what I am standing for – I believe it can be done.
Stacy
August 12th, 2010 at 3:23 pm
Hi Stacy
Thanks for your post.
The CPSIA, unfortunately, has not yet been fixed.
It is true, as John points out, that the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) – the agency responsible for implementation – has been able to move forward with limited interpretations that have provided some relief. But the CPSC has been unable to address some of the most fundamental problems that continue to create costs, hardships, confusion, and uncertainty for the regulated community and the consuming public.
Moreover, Congress has so far NOT taken any action to correct flaws in the bill, an important distinction since most of the fundamental relief needed is through an Act of Congress. Such relief – while already sorely needed – is going to grow increasingly urgent without Congressional action soon. Next year we will have to survive two new milestones – the lifting of the stay in February and the retroactive application of tighter lead limits in August – that will further disrupt the children’s product community.
Your response to John demonstrates some of the misinformation about the bill that continues to circulate – namely that is a bill that only affects toys with hazardous chemicals. In fact, it is a bill that affects ALL consumer products. And its application is done without regard to risk or recognition of what has worked extremely well in the past.
Your reply ends with this phrase: “yet protects the small businesses such as yours that are vital to the economy and that are already making the safest products.”
It would be great if the CPSIA had been written and were implementable with that principle in mind.
I look forward to reading your clarifications.
Thanks.
Steve
August 12th, 2010 at 6:06 pm
Hi Steve,
Yes I believe it’s important to preserve small business opportunities, for reasons I’ve written a lot about. At the same time there is a huge amount of public support for regulations that remove the most harmful chemicals from cosmetics and increase transparency about what’s in products. I don’t think the two goals are mutually exclusive, and I look forward to productive discussions about how new regulations can be made both meaningful and workable.
A note to all who commented: thanks for reading my blog, I am not publishing redundant comments or comments from people who are clearly not interested in having a dialogue. There are many other forums where those types of discussions are ongoing.
Thanks,
Stacy
August 12th, 2010 at 7:21 pm
Stacy,
What do you think the best way for small businesses to be engaged in this matter is? I’ve posted a few times with my small business concerns (which you believe will be fixed in the upcoming re-writes of the bill). I’d like to make sure I’m voicing my concerns in an effective manner. Do you have any thoughts? Is it possible to perhaps speak with you and your team about the concerns or send you a specific list of concerns that you might be able to go to Congress with so the bill can both achieve your safety concerns without harming small business?
August 13th, 2010 at 8:51 am
Hi Anne Marie,
The campaign had a call last week with companies who are part of the Compact for Safe Cosmetics and we are also doing surveys, emails and a follow up process with those companies. All the current Compact signers should be receiving the emails (if anyone is not, please let us know). Engaging stakeholders beyond the Compact community is also important and that is something we’re figuring out with more news hopefully coming soon. Meantime, if you’re not a Compact signer, yes we would still very much like to hear from you with either written concerns or a conversation.
Thank you,
Stacy
August 13th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
Like Anne-Marie, I too am interested in knowing how the small companies that are not Compact signers can participate as well. As you know, while many of the members of the Indie Beauty Network are Compact signers, many of them are not, yet their businesses will be impacted by new legislation. Everyone is interested in reasonable cosmetics law
reform that informs and empowers consumers without unnecessarily decimating small companies like members of the Indie Beauty Network and others. I look forward to working toward this goal.