I wonder if L’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’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’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’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

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’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’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 . . .

It’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’s the last time we saw a bill sail from introduction to law with no debate? It’s why I’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’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

“You know, I’ve learned a lot from Mr. Bailey. I’ve learned that just like salt… and 1,4 dioxane, human feces are ok as a food additive… so long as it’s in small quantities. (Handing him a silver fork) Mr. Bailey… your dessert tonight has only a very, very small quantity of excrement in it. I’m sure you won’t mind.”

His argument is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard.