Archive for ‘HR 5786 The Safe Cosmetics Act 2010’

July 5th, 2011

Small Businesses are NOT Exempt from the New HR2359 The Safe Cosmetics Act 2011

It just figures that our government would wait to release the full text of the newly proposed HR 2359 Safe Cosmetics Act 2011 until a National Holiday like the 4th of July. I think they believe we were all too wrapped up in grilling our hot dogs and burgers, and watching fireworks to care about something as insignificant as a teeny, tiny bill that could ultimately wipe out our entrepreneurial businesses.

For anyone who hasn’t been following this issue, allow me to summarize.

The FDA regulates food and cosmetics. They are charged with enforcing the Food and Drug Act, a set of regulations that prohibit the use of toxic chemicals, specify labeling standards and ingredient disclosure, and provide a reporting and notification procedure should unsafe products be suspected. Adequate funding and a few revisions would allow the current law to be effective.

However, someone wants more money and less competition, and would rather create new legislation. Simply throw in a few carrots for small business, such as exemption from fees and certain registration requirements, hide the entire smothering, suffocating, job-killing monster full of regulation and fees under the friendly sounding title “The Safe Cosmetics Act,” and you’d think they’ve got this thing in the bag.

In the current Go Green atmosphere of the 21st century, public support for anything natural sounding is easy to come by. Who wouldn’t want to support a bill called “The Safe Cosmetics Act,” especially when so many people believe  that cancer causing toxic chemicals are allowed in our cosmetics?  This anti-toxic-filth movement has been perpetuated by powerful lobbying groups. They’ve worked hard to help build and sustain an atmosphere of distrust of the cosmetic industry, creating cute animated YouTube videos that sound convincing, make unsubstantiated claims, and quote bad science to induce a panic among all of us. They suggest that toxic chemicals aren’t regulated, that lead is “put” into lipstick by uncaring manufacturers, and that the products we all use daily are responsible for surging cancer rates.  Consumers, who often know little about real chemistry or science, believe this, and jump on the bandwagon supporting bad legislation that profits no one but the lobbying groups, and ultimately hurts consumers.

How do these groups (we all know who they are) profit from this legislation? First, the proposed legislation gives them carte blanche to file claims against businesses should they have “ANY reason whatsoever” to believe a product is misbranded. This gives them a ridiculous amount of power, as far as wiping small businesses out of the arena. Second, they could profit tremendously by ensuring that their database, and their bad science become the go-to source in deciding which chemicals will and will not be permitted in products should this bill pass.

Let’s learn a bit about these groups, shall we? One of the groups, created and manages an online database of chemicals and cosmetics, which allows users to identify the supposed health hazards of the ingredients found in their cosmetics. It assigns hazard ratings to each, and looks quite scientific and well-founded, but has been publicly attacked for being anything but.  The other group is actually an off-shoot of the first, and produces cutesy YouTube videos about hot button issues, garnering support for their causes, using scare tactics, broad generalizations and bad science to encourage the public to believe things that just aren’t true. Did I mention that both are huge political lobbying groups? Do you think now, that perhaps there’s something in it for them if a Safe Cosmetics Act can be passed into law?

Last year, HR 5786 The Safe Cosmetics Act 2010, was introduced, but was ultimately defeated due to its lack of exemptions for small cosmetic businesses. EWG and CSFC spent millions trying to rally support for it, but thankfully, indie businesses prevailed. Through an aggressive anti-Safe Cosmetics Act campaign, small cosmetic businesses were able to squelch the bill.

Unfortunately, a newly updated version of the bill was introduced in Congress on June 24, 2011, and we find ourselves defending why we are against The Safe Cosmetics Act, once again. This time, it’s HR2359, named, not surprisingly at all, The Safe Cosmetics Act 2011. Not very original, but effective, since of course, no one in their right mind would want to be anti-Safe Cosmetics, right? Before the bill’s text was even available to read, people had chosen sides. I withheld my decision until I could see what changes had been made.

The last time around, Indie’s were upset that there weren’t exemptions for small businesses. Well, in all fairness, this time around we got what we wanted, at least as far as that one issue is concerned. There IS an exemption for small business, BUT it only exempts us from registration and fee requirements. There are still disclosure requirements that will essentially require our products to be tested in order to discover minute amounts of “contaminants” in the formulations.

There are reporting standards that only allow for a 24 hour window of action. Better keep those business lines open on weekends! This will practically create the need for us to keep lawyers on hand 24 hours a day, in order to defend against unwarranted claims and supposed failure to act.

We will be required not only to keep toxic chemicals out of our products, a requirement already mandated by the FDA, but we will also be required to not use products which might be determined to be unsafe down the road. This would require us to have an omnipotent knowledge of these things.

Another important point, is that should a product be determined or even thought to be unsafe, anyone who has used the product will be notified. This will require a record of each and every person you have sold your product to. For those of us who participate in craft fairs, this will be a nightmarish record keeping task. “Please provide complete contact information, mam, so that I can notify you if the ingredients in my product are ever suspected of being a health hazard.” Can you imagine keeping track of thousands and thousands of customers? For what length of time? Indefinitely? Even tax records are only required for a 7-year span…

Then there are huge perception problems that will be created with passage of this bill. Small companies, who, lucky for us will be exempt from all the registration mandates (yay for us!!!), could be perceived as being “unregulated,” and therefore unsafe (hey- that’s not fair!). After all, no one is watching what we’re putting in our natural-ingredient-laden, untested products, right? Large corporations could use that as an easy advertising campaign against the small businesses that have actually been making the most natural, unadultered and safe products all along.

How about those of us who private label? Because of mandated transparency provisions in the bill, you would have to disclose your complete supply chain. Everyone will now have potential access to the same product you once thought was your “Signature Blend.”

Finally, do you really think being exempted from fees is going to save you money? Nope. Larger corporations, who supply your suppliers, think Cargill, will certainly fall under the umbrella of regulation, and wind up paying huge fees. How does this effect you? The cost of your supplies will go up, as these corporations attempt to minimize the impact of the new fees on their bottom line.

As I have learned from reading, re-reading, and dissecting the new bill, small businesses aren’t really exempt at all. We’re put in the unfortunate position of having giant red and white striped targets strapped to our backs, paying more for supplies, and having to keep file cabinets full of, most likely, useless information. And why? Because someone wants to make some money.

Please help us defeat HR2359. We want to keep making the safe, natural products you’ve come to trust and that your skin craves. With simple updates to current listings of unapproved chemicals, and appropriate funding to allow enforcement, the current FDA act adequately protects the public from adulterated, unsafe products.

You Can Help by Signing the Petition to Stop HR2359.

 

 

 

CategoryHR 5786 The Safe Cosmetics Act 2010, HR2359 The Safe Cosmetics Act 2011, Petition Links to Oppose Bad Legislation, Soap Regulations and Requirements, Uncategorized | CommentNo Comments »

Tags:
June 28th, 2011

HR2359 The Safe Cosmetics Act 2011

Oh my. It seems we’re in this again. Another bill has been presented in Congress attempting to help clean up the ingredients found in our cosmetics. Will this bill provide the reforms we need and support Indie Cosmetic Businesses that are dedicated to making safe products? Or, will this bill merely increase regulation without noticeable benefit to consumers?

While many of us are absolutely FOR safe cosmetics, and absolutely AGAINST toxic chemicals in the products we use on our bodies, we at The Natural Bar Soap Company feel it is very important to not take a stance on supporting or not supporting proposed legislation, until we read the full text of a bill. The parts of a proposed bill that will affect us the most, are often found in seemingly minute details.

In the case of HR2359, The Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011, the full text is still not available. There are many many blog sites that purport to tell us what the bill is about, and the specifics of this proposed law. However, even though the bill was presented to the Congress on June 24th, the text has not been released by The Government Printing Office, as of June 28, 2011 for us to read.

Until we see the text, we will not take a position. We obviously need to change something, as current FDA laws that prohibit filth in our cosmetics are not being enforced, and many known-to-be-harmful chemicals are showing up in the body products we use daily. However, change for the sake of change, is not necessarily a good thing. It must be GOOD change.

This link to the Library of Congress, will allow you to read The Safe Cosmetics Act when it becomes available. At that time, we can all read the bill, and decide whether or not this bill is the good change we need.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.2359:

 

CategoryHR 5786 The Safe Cosmetics Act 2010, HR2359 The Safe Cosmetics Act 2011, Soap Regulations and Requirements, The Business of Natural Soap, Uncategorized | Comment2 Comments »

Tags:
June 25th, 2011

HR2359 The Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011, Safe Cosmetics ActTo Amend Title VI of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to Ensure the Safe Use of Cosmetics and For Other Purposes.

Almost a full year ago, I blogged about HR5786, The Safe Cosmetics Act that was presented in the 111th Congress in July 2010. Small cosmetic businesses around the country rose to the occasion and voiced our disapproval of this bill that would impose overreaching regulations on our entrepreneurial endeavors.

Groups such as Donna Maria’s Indie Business Network began circulating petitions gathering support for the bill’s opposition. The Handcrafted Soapmaker’s Guild established a Legislative Advocacy Committee, and solicited donations for a Legislative Advocacy Fund to fight the proposed legislation. We were all appalled that the government would impose product testing requirements on those of us using ingredients that are GRAS (generally regarded as safe), that nightmarish paperwork and data submission requirements would be imposed on us, and that trace elements in our ingredients would need to be discovered and disclosed on our labels, potentially even minute particles found in water (which vary depending on the water’s source).

We were particularly upset that small businesses would fall under the same umbrella of restrictions and regulations that large corporations would be subject to. What was being presented as an effort to ensure safe cosmetics did little to help that cause or protect the public, and instead buried small business under stacks of unnecessary, burdensome regulation.

On June 24th, a newly written bill, HR2359 The Safe Cosmetics Act to Amend Title VI of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act to Ensure Safe Cosmetics and For Other Purposes was presented to the 112th Congress, sponsored by Rep. Janice Schakowsky (D-Il), Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D, WI) and Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA).  The new legislation is co-sponsored by:

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA)

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR)

Rep. Judy Chu, (D-CA)

Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL)

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA)

Rep. James Moran (D-VA)

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Shultz (D-FL)

Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA)

HR2359 has been referred to the House Education and the Workforce committee, and the House Energy and Commerce committee, to discuss the provisions of the bill that fall under each respective committees’ jurisdiction.

It will be interesting to see how the concerns of the small business cosmetic industry are addressed in the new bill. As of 12:30am June 26, the text of HR2359 had not been released by the Government Printing Office. Apparently, after a bill is presented to the Congress, it can take a few days for the text to be made public, and sometimes longer, if the GPO is experiencing a back log of print requests.

Ideally, we would like to see exemptions for small businesses. We would like exemptions for products labeled as “Soap,” which do not currently fall under the Food and Drug Act’s jurisdiction. We would also like to be able to use ingredients without restriction, so long as they are already GRAS. As an industry, we welcome legislation that prohibits the use of toxic chemicals in cosmetic products, but demand that such legislation recognizes that many chemicals that are toxic at high levels, are perfectly safe at lower levels. We want legislation that is based on true science, rather than over-generalizing, fear inducing databases such as EWG’s Skin Deep database.  Legislation should above all, be applied fairly and reasonably, and not cause unnecessary fear or burden.

President and CEO Lezlee Westine, of The Personal Care Products Council made the following comment regarding presentation of the new HR2359 Safe Cosmetics Act two days ago.

“We are still reviewing the provisions of Rep. Schakowsky’s new bill, but we   are very concerned that, as written, it contains provisions that will place unnecessary burdens on (the) FDA and businesses of all sizes and may compromise jobs without providing meaningful benefits to consumers. Strong federal safety requirements already govern cosmetics and personal care products sold in the U.S. The safety of cosmetic and personal care products in the U.S. is overseen by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), which requires that all cosmetics be substantiated for safety before they are marketed, contain no prohibited ingredients, and that all labeling and packaging be in compliance with U.S. regulations. Under the FD&C Act it is a crime to market an unsafe cosmetic product.”

We the people should demand safe cosmetics, but we should also demand laws that serve the public interest, not special interest and lobbying groups. I am looking forward to the text of the new HR2359 to be released to discover whether or not our elected policy makers were listening when we objected so loudly to HR5786.

CategoryHR 5786 The Safe Cosmetics Act 2010, Soap Regulations and Requirements, The Business of Natural Soap, Uncategorized | Comment1 Comment »

Tags:
September 2nd, 2010

(we already have a) Safe Cosmetics Act

We at The Natural Bar Soap Company feel that this topic just cannot get enough attention. Our livelihoods depend on a successful defeat of the atrocious, overburdening, overreaching legislation presented to Congress on July 20, 2010.

Proponents of HR5786, which shadily masquerades under the title, “The Safe Cosmetics Act 2010,” claim that the bill will finally bring regulation to an unregulated industry, and that it will make our products safe, and bring an end to the pandemic use of toxic chemicals.

That’s exactly what EWG, The Environmental Working Group would like us to believe. They are a major supporter of this bill, and along with efforts by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, EWG wants to convince the public that the cosmetics we purchase are not regulated, and teeming with carcinogenic, toxic chemicals. They are doing their best to convince the public that the overreaching monstrosity known as HR5786 will provide the regulation necessary to ensure safe cosmetics for consumers.

Supporters of HR5786 may be interested to know that the FDA already regulates cosmetics. Here are some enlightening facts. FDA requires cosmetic products to not be “adulterated” (contaminated, unsafe, etc), or “misbranded” (falsely, lackingly or misleadingly labeled). They require manufacturers to be responsible for substantiating the safety of their product. Under current FDA regulation, it is illegal to market products that are known to be unsafe.

Under HR5786, manufacturers will still be responsible for substantiating safety…and products will still be required to be labeled in an accurate way. And, as before, the FDA will continue to prohibit the use of chemicals that are known to be unsafe in cosmetics.

So, what exactly is HR5786 doing that is not already being done, aside from creating an overreaching, excessive paperwork load for all cosmetic manufacturers, and increasing costs for everyone?

If we want to effect positive change, then the FDA needs to be given the resources to enforce CURRENT legislation. There is no need for NEW legislation since the requirement for manufacturers to create safe cosmetics already exists.

I’ve been reading quite a bit about the non-profit Environmental Working Group. In addition to being known for their support of this bill, they are also known for promoting bad science and creating media hype and consumer hysteria, as I feel they are doing with HR5786. I find it particularly notable that the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics released their cutesy YouTube video, “The Truth Behind Cosmetics” the same week that HR5786 was released in Congress. Scare tactics and fearmongering are despicable ways to ensnare an uniformed public into supporting legislation that ultimately will profit EWG and CFSC, and drive prices up for consumers.

This is not the first time EWG has resorted to such tactics. Their involvement in numerous bad-science issues can be found all over the internet. Luckily, an equal amount of information can be found which repudiates their dishonest hype. For example, the FDA’s official response to reports by EWG and others about TOXIC LEVELS of LEAD in lipstick is particularly telling. As it turns out, when EWG claimed that lipsticks had toxic levels of lead in them, they were using data on acceptable levels of lead in CANDY (intended to be consumed, and taken internally), as a basis for their analysis of the amount of lead in lipstick (which is applied topically, with minimal ingestion). FDA.gov has the entire report, complete with testing that reveals the truth, and safety of lipstick. Or, read here (http://activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/o/113-environmental-working-group) about EWG’s false claims of contaminated tap water in Florida. Turns out that EWG was basing that unnecessary hysteria on a test performed on untreated groundwater. These two examples are only a drop in the bucket representing EWG’s proven track record for junk science.

I do not feel that a complete overhaul of our current cosmetic regulations are necessary. There are certainly ingredients that could be added to the “do not use” database. But, I feel that funding the FDA to enforce the laws already on the books would be a more effective way to ensure safe cosmetics than by incorporating EWG’s junk-science-based Skin Deep Database into our cosmetic laws, and bulking up the salaries of their already over-paid executives.

For more information on this topic, please read our other blog posts HERE, and visit http://opencongress.org to read the full text of HR5786 The Safe Cosmetics Act 2010. There are many great blogs and comments there as well, that help to explain the many negative effects this bill will cause if allowed to pass.

Please also consider opposing this bill, and signing the petition: HERE. And, know that we do NOT oppose safe cosmetics. On the contrary, we oppose over-regulation, unreasonable paperwork loads, and the killing of small business and entrepreneurial spirit.

CategoryHR 5786 The Safe Cosmetics Act 2010, The Business of Natural Soap | Comment1 Comment »

Tags:
August 4th, 2010

Safe Cosmetics Act Talking Points

Opposing Safe Cosmetics doesn’t sound right, unless you’re talking about opposing the Safe Cosmetics Act.  HR 5786 is being called a “pink slip” for all of us home-based or otherwise small, independent cosmetic companies. For many of us, the income we generate from selling our products supplements other household income that has been reduced by budget cutbacks, lay-offs, and furloughs. The worse part, is that our businesses stand to be punished by this bill, in the same way large corporate cosmetic companies will be, in spite of the fact that we are using safe ingredients in our products, while they are not.

Some talking points to consider:

1.  The Campaign For Safe Cosmetics, which claims to represent many of us in the cosmetic industry, sponsored the making and release of a cartoon YouTube video last week called The Story of Cosmetics, using skulls and crossbones and other scare tactics aimed at alarming the public. They were quite effective in  convincing many people that studies by Skin Deep and the EWG (Environmental Working Group) are scientific fact. Their studies are hardly the whole truth, though. Consider this article by Robert Tisserand, titled Tunnel Vision, that they don’t want to hear anything about.  These huge lobbying groups will of course not admit that the video they released is equivalent to yelling “FIRE!” in a crowded room when there is none.

2. Ingredient lists will be required to disclose each and every detectable trace chemical in a product. This does not mean that just the ingredients will be listed. It means that every single solitary molecule of anything that can be detected will be required to be put in the ingredient listing. Not only will this require those annoying “fold out” style product info lists because of the ludicrous number of trace chemicals, but it will overwhelm consumers with information they may not understand or find to be useful.

3. Because of the ingredient listing requirement, expensive testing will be necessary to determine each detectable trace chemical. Knowing which molecules exist in the parts-per-billion range is really not at all necessary. Many of the foods we eat, including  water, contain trace amounts of ingredients that are absolutely harmless, but which could needlessly scare consumers if mentioned. For example, arsenic in water. On June 29, 2010, our family used a water fountain in the visitor center at Mt. Rushmore that was found to have higher than normal amounts of arsenic in it’s supply.  The fountain was operating, but a sign was posted above it, stating the arsenic level, and that it was safe to drink. It is scary to think that a business could go under simply because a trace chemical that has always been there, now has to be reported, and will scare the consumer. Most natural ingredients contain elements which are toxic in large amounts.

4. The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics says we shouldn’t be worried about the cost of testing, because the large companies will pay to test their products and simply pass the results of those tests down to us little guys. I find that rather unlikely. Will our products be similar enough to use the results they file with the FDA? Will  these reports be written in lay-person terms? Would they be useful to us? Data is useless when it it can’t be understood. And, why would large companies, paying millions of dollars to have their products tested share those results FOR FREE with us?

5. I take the most issue with the reporting and registration requirements. My gross sales. Number of employees. Names and addresses of my suppliers. I constantly change suppliers, searching for better quality and better pricing. But, I also change suppliers from time to time because of out-of-stocks or their decision to discontinue a product I use often. The attention I will need to devote to reporting these changes to the FDA, essentially amounts to “busy work” and  does nothing to help me devote attention to making safe products.

5. As far as fees go, many small businesses are dismissing this part of the bill because there is an exemption for businesses making under $1 million a year.  Capitol Hill wants us to believe that this is a “Small Business-Friendly” bill that is somehow “Fair” because it only requires that fees be paid by those most able to afford them. I don’t agree with that. I don’t believe in taxing only the rich. Furthermore, we have yet to learn how much the fees will be. How much money will the government need to pay new FDA workers hired to file registrations, suppliers names and addresses, and updates? Until that is determined, the fees will remain undetermined. And, although small business will not be required to pay the fee directly, we can be assured we will pay in the long run. Large companies will trickle those costs down to our suppliers, and then down to us, and then down to the consumers, leaving them with less money to buy our already-safe products.

6. The bill includes a Savings Clause, which is pretty typical of federal legislation. It allows any state, or “tribe” (city, etc),  to enact legislation that is more specific or severe than the federal law. Currently, I can ship my product to any of the 50 states. But, if other states enact their own legislation, I may not be able to market the same product to Michigan as I do to Texas, for example. I would have to be sure that my product doesn’t violate another state’s cosmetic laws.

Although well-intentioned, HR 5786 really does little to ensure safe cosmetics.  Aggressive lobbying groups are using it for political gain, pitting the “Green” movement against corporate America. They are turning this into a Capitolist vs. Consumer Safety issue.  They tell indie businesses not to get our panties in knots about it, because the bill will definitely need to be “tweaked” before passing, and that we’ll reach a reasonable compromise. But look at all the time that us small business owners need to devote to this to ensure that happens. We are forced to stop making products, and instead focus on attempting to have our voices heard. I started following the Campaign For Safe Cosmetics several months ago because I thought they represented my best interests. It is abundantly clear that they do not. Their video with skulls and crossbones does everything to scare consumers into thinking even all-natural products aren’t safe. I even saw a blog that said “just because it’s natural doesn’t mean it’s good. Poison ivy is natural.” Please.

Our small businesses represent what’s good about America. We represent entrepreneurial spirit, and a desire to provide for our families. A desire to share good things with the good people of our country. I would venture to state that almost all indie cosmetic businesses are owned by women. We want to take care of our children, yet also provide financially for our families. We are being led to believe we are not important in this economy. We aren’t sitting around wiating for the government to bail us out. We are trying to survive in this economy by making products that meet the needs of our customers, are safe, inexpensive and useful. If the supporters of HR 5786 have the intention of requiring ALL cosmetic companies to formulate safe products, maybe they should consider spending less attention on the ones who already are, and instead, devoting more attention to those who aren’t.

CategoryHR 5786 The Safe Cosmetics Act 2010 | CommentNo Comments »

Tags:
July 30th, 2010

Safe, Natural, Anti- HR5786 Soaps

Had to share a few more GREAT, SAFE, Natural soaps with you.

Attention Government: These are made with ALL NATURAL oils and essential oils. OLIVE. COCONUT. PALM. CASTOR. Nothing hazardous here, thank you very much!!

You don’t need to regulate them. I don’t need to add any hazardous material disclaimer to their labels.  Because THEY ARE SAFE!

Olive Oil Soap scented with Frankincense and Myrrh

Olive Oil Soap scented with Frankincense and Myrrh

Olive Oil Soap Purification Bar

Olive Oil Soap Purification Bar

And, for anyone wondering why I would want the government to know this is an all natural, SAFE product, check out my blog articles about current legislation being considered that would effectively put soapcrafters like me out of business. And, if you’d like, please sign the petition to oppose this horrid bill, HERE. Our nation needs Safe Cosmetics. Companies like ours are already providing them.

Thank you for your support! :)

Erin

CategoryHR 5786 The Safe Cosmetics Act 2010, Uncategorized | Comment1 Comment »

Tags:
July 27th, 2010

Safe Cosmetics Act 2010, HR 5786

So, it’s my birthday today.

And, I got the best birthday present ever. My blog was picked up by http://opencongress.org, and was listed right on the homepage of HR 5786.  I’ve been busy with the comments on it all morning. People are lining up in opposition of the bill. They recognize that although the intention of reforming our current cosmetic ingredients is a good one, a noble one, a necessary one… this bill, HR 5786 is not the answer.Not even a propaganda-rich, cutesy and entertaining YouTube video sponsored by The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics can hide the ineffectiveness of  this bill from savvy soapcrafters and cosmetic users like us!

While I appreciate the intent of HR 5786, the regulations suggested are far too overreaching. The FDA has a hard time enforcing the regulations that DO exist. How will they handle the influx of duties this new law could create? Natural products, especially innovative ones being developed by “Green” companies require constant experimentation. This bill would require changes to be documented and reported each time they are made. It will require documents to be filed each time a home-based natural soap crafter changes suppliers to get better pricing on raw ingredients. This will cause small businesses to close, at a time when our nation’s people desperately need work. Reform is needed, but in order for this bill to be useful, it needs to be re-written to not penalize Green Businesses who are already using safe, natural oils (olive, coconut) and other natural ingredients in their products. Lumping us into the same boat as the corporate, hazardous chemical using behemoths is not the answer.

It’s OK to oppose The Safe Cosmetic Act. It doesn’t mean we oppose Safe Cosmetics. We oppose this horrendously written, pathetically overreaching  attempt to reform the cosmetic industry. Rather than effecting any positive change, this bill shrinks entrepreneurial small business, while growing government.

CategoryHR 5786 The Safe Cosmetics Act 2010, Uncategorized | Comment6 Comments »

Tags:
July 26th, 2010

Oppose HR 5786 The Safe Cosmetic Act of 2010

On July 20, 2010, legislation was introduced in Congress  “To amend title VI of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to ensure the safe use of cosmetics, and for other purposes.”

We all know there is a lot of “junk” in our personal care products. We know of the drying, harsh effects of detergents. We know that many commercially produced products have ingredients that are known to cause cancer and reproductive issues in animals when used in large amounts. It is a travesty that these ingredients are allowed to be put into products used by babies, children, and all of us other humans, too. The writers of this legislation obviously recognized the need for regulating what can be used in our nation’s cosmetics. Unfortunately, they missed the boat with this garbage bill they want to push through.

If HP 5786 is allowed to pass, it will effectively put an end to the cottage industry of natural soapcrafting. It will squelch our ability to be creative, to choose suppliers that offer the best quality and pricing on our raw materials, and will require us to file documents, registrations and updates about our revenues, employees, suppliers and proprietary recipes.

The complete bill can be read by clicking here:  HR5786

The text of the “Registration” section of the bill requires that all manufacturers of cosmetic products furnish:

“(B) a description of the establishment’s activities with respect to cosmetics;

(C) the number of workers employed at the establishment;

(D) the gross receipts of sales; and

(E) the name and address of any company that supplies the establishment, if the establishment manufactures cosmetics, with any ingredient (including preservatives, fragrances, or any other chemical component of a finished cosmetic product) and the name of the ingredient supplied to such establishment by such supplier.”

While this may not seem like a big deal, consider that many of us smaller soap making business (unlike Proctor and Gamble, for example), are creative types, who constantly come up with new scents, and formulas for their soaps. What does the bill say about making changes?

“(A) IN GENERAL- The registrant shall notify the Secretary in a timely manner of changes to the information described in paragraph (1).”

So, every time I use a new ingredient, or change suppliers,  I will have to forward new documents to the Secretary.

Additionally, there is a provision that states I must “notify the Secretary of any change in the products, function, or legal status…including cessation of business activities,  not later than 60 days after the date of such change.”

The companies who really should be targeted with legislation such as this are the huge commercial manufacturers who only care about profit. They are the ones using synthetically derived detergents in their body products. They are the ones who use labeling such as Clairol’s Herbal Essences that falsely leads consumers into thinking the product is actually GOOD for them…

Unfortunately, the text of this bill makes no distinction between small and large businesses as far as the registration policies are concerned. We certainly do need to reform the cosmetic industry. I just don’t think that lumping all natural cosmetic makers into the same boat as corporate, synthetic beauty product behemoths  is the way to go.

Please help us fight this poorly written legislation by signing this petition:

Sign Petition Opposing HR 5786

Reform is definitely needed, but this is not the reform we need.

CategoryHR 5786 The Safe Cosmetics Act 2010, The Business of Natural Soap, Uncategorized | Comment3 Comments »

Tags: