Safe Cosmetics Alliance Forms

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mary Humphrey on September 22, 2011 at 6:58am

I agree, it looks like an attempt to wipe out the Indie's, small businesses, all at once, with no exemptions.   And I see nothing that sticks out to me, either, that anything will be done to ensure cosmetics are any safer under the current cosmetic laws.  What I see is another angle, an attempt with a "new face," their efforts to move the ball forward. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kristin Fraser Cotte on September 22, 2011 at 9:58am

I think it's about time the bigger guys start helping to publicly fight this complex issue in a sound, scientific based way. We'll definitely have to see how this rolls out, but let's face it- the legislation has not been updated since the early 1900's and definitely could use some improvement! Here is a basic outline of what they are for http://bit.ly/qbsP09

I will support science-based legislation that protects everyone from the consumer to the farmer's market soap maker. If people register with the VCRP now, it will only help. If CA is any indicator (and I'm not saying it is, just putting the thought out there) the way the current CA proposed legislation is written, they will be utilizing the VCRP info if it goes through.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mary Humphrey on September 23, 2011 at 7:03am

I am all for safe cosmetics, Kristin.  I am also very much in favor of safe cosmetics that evolve from science-based legislation that protects everyone from the start-ups to the consumer. 

 

I am leary of any legislation, to be honest, and especially a group that isn't supplying much information.  I may be leaning towards being a stick-in-the-mud, the bottom line is I honestly feel very untrusting of this new alliance.  Keeping an open mind (either way) is my goal, and educating myself to what this alliance (and other's are attempting to accomplish). 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Yoki K Hanley on September 23, 2011 at 7:06am

Pressing the "Like" button Mary.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by dM, CEO on September 25, 2011 at 1:37pm

Thanks Kristin!

At this link, http://bit.ly/qbsP09, I don't see any mention of small businesses being included in "what's at stake." Do you have any specifics on what their position is vis a vis "small" businesses, and how they define that?

I'm curious, just in case you know or have any inkling.

Thanks!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mary Humphrey on September 23, 2011 at 7:08am

I also notice that the alliance includes the safety of bath soap in their pledge.  What will this do to the prospects of the small soap-maker? Soap is not considered cosmetic at this time.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by dM, CEO on September 23, 2011 at 7:49am

That is a very interesting observation, and a trend I've been noticing. Some people and organizations are not calling the products cosmetics anymore at all. They're calling them "personal care products," and they are listing "soap" as one of them. To be continued ...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Susan Mann - Manor Hall Soap on September 25, 2011 at 7:37am

I've never had a Pied Piper mentality, and tend to wait for the lyrics no matter how catchy anyone's tune may be. I have a problem when folk want you to sign on the dotted line while being selective in which colors they nail to their mast. It's like, "We do believe a few things, but this is all we're telling you for now." Yeah, right. Keep playing that tune, I'm staying inside the village walls.

 

I don't think there's an organization out there other than the IBN village that isn't hiding something where this confounded bill is concerned, either Federal or State. Why they can't nail all their colors to their mast is beyond me. If they are flying a flag, then fly the freakin' thing with pride in full glory of the colors that they really stand for instead of hiding behind only the pretty ones.

 

All I want is information... full disclosure. If my signature is required then tell me what you're all about. I'm intelligent enough to know shade when I see it. I hate sleight of hand, whether in action, speech... or print. See that word "shade" two sentences back? Yeah, well... it might look all innocent written as I have done like that, especially when used in such close proximity with words like "colors" and "pretty ones". But it was actually being pronounced as "shady" when I typed. Language... it's all in the language. Or lack of it.

 

I'm looking forward to being kept informed and well out of the shade. Thanks dM. Keep the info flowing!

 

-Susan

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ginger Moore - Neos Creations on September 25, 2011 at 9:25am

I totally agree. My gut is screaming on this one.  I don't see anything in this that says they are any different than all the others. They use the word "science"...well, the others guys declare research and science too just using different wording. If you look at their What is at stake page that Kristen gave a link for, It sounds all too familiar with the required registration, the formula submission and disclosure, and such.  Song song, different verse...different artist.  I suspect this is a veil that is meant to hide an agenda, give us false hope and to draw in those of use who have been crying FOUL based on the lack of scientific proof by the others who are trying to regulate us out of business.  These people have figured out that we (small independent businesses) are a force to be reckoned with because we do stand together and declare our dislike for their tactics. 

 

While  I agree that maybe some changes and updates to regulations could be useful...I see that those that are in effect now are not be enforced.  I see way too many small cosmetic businesses that are ARE NOT FOLLOWING CURRENT REGULATIONS for labeling and claims.  On average, MAYBE 10% - 15% of those I see at local shows and markets are doing it right, the rest are not and probably will not. Seriously!  What I see around here would outrage even the mildest mannered person here.  These are the ones that are giving us all a bad name and leaving a bad taste in people's mouths.

JMHO

 

~~Ginger 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jessica Bellantone on February 9, 2012 at 11:22am

@ Ginger-

Not only that, but since comfrey is on the FDA no-no list while neurotoxins banned by the EU* are not, what would that mean for those of us who support organic and truly natural products? It means we wouldn't be able to use them, or access to them would be limited.

We all want our customers and clients to be safe and happy - that's a given. As it stands, however, the cosmetic industry is unable to do so, because of its HUGE ties to -and absolute reliance on- the petrochemical industry, and its frequent use of toxins*. And the FDA is incapable of unbiased partnership or regulation of the SCA, because the chemical, pharmaceutical, and petroleum industries and corporations are the ones successfully lobbying the FDA, which is why the US still allows hazardous materials in cosmetics. That won't change with the SCA, because it would mean (for example) that the majority of nail polishes or products with fragrances would no longer be legal to produce or sell, a move that would put many of the SCA's members out of business.

It'd be great if the SCA was what it claims to be - an organization devoted to consumer safety - but it's just not. And right now, the FDA just isn't set up to create or oversee one. (As we've seen by the recent rulings in favor of Monsanto and against natural and organic growers/producers, the groups that have the most lobbyists tend to have the most laws in their favor). It is therefor CRITICAL that no-one in the indy community support this allianceUNTIL and UNLESS it includes unbiased participants and is based on scientific studies that were independently funded.

For the current members of the SCA to develop new regulations without including both (equally biased) US organic producers AND independent scientists whose work was not funded in the USA, would be farcical and completely unethical.
* The Skin Deep database is a great tool - just type in your favorite products and see their safety rating and why.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ginger Moore - Neos Creations on February 9, 2012 at 11:55am

Jessica,

I mean no disrespect here to you but Skin Deep is not a source I would go to for RELIABLE and UNBIASED information. They are among those that I would consider a part of the problem by spreading fearmongering misinformation based on junk science and no science, just as the EWG and the CFSC does. BTW, SD supports and endorses these 2 organizations and they in turn support SD. All 3 have a main goal..... to control EVERYTHING and gain a HUGE profit from it.  Period!!!

What baffles me is that so many small cosmetic companies (natural or not) are not getting that the legislation that's trying to be shoved down everyone's throats will put them out of business.  Not might...WILL!  It will make it impossible for anyone to stay in business. 

More regulations that stifle us in not the answer. We are already regulated more than many industries. While there are likely companies out there that are under the radar who are not doing it the right way. Those of us who are doing it right shouldn't be penalized along with them.

I highly recommend you visit PCT's (Personal Care Truth) website to gain better, solid science based truth on cosmetics, their safety and the cosmetic industry as a whole.  http://personalcaretruth.com/

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jessica Bellantone on February 9, 2012 at 8:17pm

Ginger,

Thanks for the link - I briefly checked it out and plan to do a more thorough perusal later on.

I agree that excessive legislation often penalizes small producers, growers, etc. while favoring large companies - and it's always a hot-button issue, regardless of the industry, because there's no fail-safe way to keep people safe and free (Just look at the raw milk!). As small businesses, we need to stand together to educate, support and regulate each other via leagues, guilds, etc. - it seems like common sense that the rules that govern large-scale production aren't necessarily applicable or practical to small businesses, and vice versa.

Personally, I think 2 things could happen to make things safer: The Toxic Substances Control Act should be brought up to date (I was glad to see that Personal Care Truth says that that is the EWG's main mission). And regulatory groups could be formed at different levels of industry to find ways for folks at each scale to do their thing safely and feasibly - and then follow up on it! If businesses aren't part of such a group, they should have to state that on their packaging.  Membership in a juried guild or league would let consumers know their producers adhere to a certain level of professionalism and promote local businesses.

(BTW, I don't know about you, but I sure don't have the equipment to do mass spectrometry on plants I grow! I would GLADLY put a label on my products declaring them made by a small-scale producer and therefor not tested to the same level of stringency as large companiesif large companies label their ingredients as genetically modified!)

Regarding the Skin Deep database, I do not believe they purport to be unbiased (nor did I say they are), but I have yet to see information listed there that I find unreliable - can you point me towards the reviews that are "junk" science or not scientific? I'm curious to see which ones you mean, as I've by no means looked at all the products reviewed!

The EWG is a lobbying group, make no mistake - but I believe they're lobbying in the right direction, ie: corporate accountability, public health, and sustainable and organic farming practices. I've found the Skin Deep database very transparent, in that they list all their sources so people can independently review them (I like anything that promotes personal research and responsibility), and they openly provide an easy to understand yet detailed breakdown of their rating systems that explains how source credibility is determined, why ingredients are given certain rankings yet the products they're in are not, etc etc. I also appreciate that they utilize information from as many sources as possible (and link to them when available), including gov't. regulations from the EU, Japan and Canada (not just the US).

So cool to be part of this network and have access to so many people's ideas and resources! I just joined today (yours is the only post I've commented on) and suddenly there are all these people to talk to who care about the same issues as I do - hallelujah! Blessings,

Jessica

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page