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.
