Donna Maria's Indie Business Blog » Advocacy

Update On Today’s Cosmetics Hearings In Massachusetts

Donna Maria — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 21:10:39 +0000

If you are not familiar with the Massachusetts cosmetics legislation, read here and here. Today’s hearings concluded mid-afternoon. So far, I have received two reports from IBN members who were in attendance and testified: Susan Mann of Manor Hall Soap Co. and Deb Scanlan of Grace Farm Organics.

In the photo, you can see left to right (with their backs to the camera): Susan Mann, an unidentified person (so far, at least), Marla Bosworth, and Deb Scanlan. (Photo credit: Nunzio Bruno.) In addition to Susan and Deb, several others testified including representatives from the Campaign For Safe Cosmetics, Personal Care Products Council and also IBN member Marla Bosworth of Back Porch Soap Co., whom I understand testified on behalf of her company as well as on behalf of the Handcrafted Soapmakers Guild. Here’s more …

My update from Deb was brief, but she told me the hearings went well and she was happy for a chance to share her perspective on the bill as a small cosmetics manufacturer. Susan provided a few more details and I wanted to share some of them with you. Here are the four main points Susan made in her testimony today.

Ingredient labeling. Susan showed an example of what a label for a 2-ounce jar of cream would look like — several paragraphs long — if the bill passes as drafted. She used data collected from this Essential Wholesale blog post to make her point on this topic.

I understand this made quite an impression, as she opened a 2-ounce jar and removed a long piece of paper containing the ingredient label.
Pending federal legislation. Susan testified that since the FDA currently regulates cosmetics, and since The Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011 (which addresses the same issues as the Massachusetts bill) is now pending in Congress, lawmakers should not rush to pass a state law when the existing federal law and one under consideration would serve the same purpose.
Composition of the Commission on Safe Cosmetics. Susan pointed out that, if the Commission on Safe Cosmetics called for in the bill was required to include a signatory to the Compact For Safe Cosmetics, it should also contain a small cosmetics manufacturer who is not affiliated with the Compact.
Explore need for legislation in advance of drafting it. Susan suggested that introducing legislation before the Commission studies and reports on the actual need for legislation is putting the cart before the horse. She testified that exploring the current state of science and the industry should come first.

I have a call into the Massachusetts Joint Committee on Public Health to request a transcript or audio recording of the proceedings so I can share more precise information with you. Meanwhile, I look forward to updates by those in attendance (including Nunzio Bruno, a staunch supporter of small businesses and whose company, Financially Digital, provides business coaching and consulting services to small businesses in Massachusetts) so we can benefit from their experiences and impressions too.

Thanks to Susan, Deb, Marla and everyone who took time from their busy schedules today to speak for small businesses!

Advocacy continues, and as I discover new information, I will update you.

“We should have no more regulation than the health, safety and security of the American people require.”

Donna Maria — Fri, 09 Sep 2011 12:16:47 +0000

Last night, President Obama asked Congress to pass the American Jobs Act. You can watch the entire 33 minute speech here.

I’m not going to get too involved in the political hot potatoes of tax cuts and Medicare, but I perked up big time when the President said this at 24:35:

“We should have no more regulation than the health, safety and security of the American people require.”

In making this statement, he referred back to his January 18, 2011 Executive Order to eliminate absurd and unnecessary paperwork, and “just plain dumb” regulations. And as I’ve always said (sorry if you’re tired of hearing it), poor regulations don’t just happen. They start with poor laws.

Which is why it makes no sense to pass new federal cosmetics laws that leave the door wide open for states the pass their own laws that regulate the exact same cosmetics.

Why have 51 potential laws that regulate the same tube of lip balm, when the end result will be that fewer people will be able to create their own job as a cosmetics company in an economy where the most logical job you can get is the one you create for yourself?

See the connection?

Dumb laws –> dumb regulations –> more confusion and uncertainty –> fewer companies start –> fewer companies hire people –> fewer people work –> the economy continues to falter.

Why don’t our lawmakers seem to get this?

P.S. – In a press release this morning, US Small Business Adminsitration head Karen Mills said that the president’s new plan “makes it easier for States to allow unemployed workers to create their own jobs by starting their own business.” I watched the speech, and listened for that statement, but never heard it. I would love to hear President Obama say that (and mean it). Did I miss it? Or is Ms. Mills just extrapolating a logical meaning from the president’s words? What’s your take?

Legal Soup: Are We Headed For a Patchwork Quilt of Cosmetics Laws?

Donna Maria — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 12:44:34 +0000

In this January 2011 post, I told you about President Obama’s Executive Order requiring that federal agencies ensure that regulations protect safety, health and environment while promoting economic growth. Specifically, the President said his intention was to seek more affordable, less intrusive means to protect the public interest, giving careful consideration to benefits and costs.

This is nothing new. From a policy perspective, and a common sense one, there is no need to pass news laws before conducting a cost-benefit analysis. There are always projected benefits, and there are always projected costs. If the costs outweigh the benefits, a proposed law should not pass.

As a small business advocate, this is the kind of position I have pursued for years, especially where small cosmetics companies like my IBN members are concerned.

Last week, as reported by the Wall Street Journal, the President took a step that shows he is serious about protecting the public interest without unnecessarily over-regulating businesses, when, citing the economy, he asked the Environmental Protection Agency to withdraw new rules that would have tightened air-quality standards and cost millions of jobs.

As we look to September 13 hearings in Massachusetts on proposed cosmetics laws, and to the pending Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011, both of which are backed by environmental groups like the Environmental Working Group and the Campaign For Safe Cosmetics, the President’s move is particularly significant.

It Starts With the Law

As I said in my January post, there is no new regulation if there is no new law. Therefore, when it comes to pending bills, we have an opportunity to conduct a cost-benefit analysis before any adverse impact. This is a clear advantage. It is always better to assess the impact of legal and policy changes on the public and business before the change is made. Failing to do so risks serious unintended and unfair consequences on our nation’s small business owners, as happened with the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008.

The Beginnings of the Patchwork Quilt: The Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011, State Laws, and the Pending Massachusetts Bills

- Cosmetics are now regulated by Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act the US Federal government, and enforced by the Food & Drug Administration.

- Cosmetics are also regulated in specific (and different) ways in the State of Florida, enforced by the Florida Department of Health.

- Cosmetics (and other products) designed specifically for children are regulated in specific (and different) ways in the State of Washington, enforced by the Washington Department of Ecology.

- Cosmetics are also regulated in specific (and different) ways in the State of California (PDF), enforced by the California Department of Public Health.

- Cosmetics are regulated in specific (and different) ways by the Kentucky Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.

- Cosmetics are regulated in specific (and different) ways by the Texas Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, enforced by the Texas Department of State Health Services.

- Cosmetics were almost regulated in specific (and different) ways in Colorado in 2010, but that bill didn’t pass.

- After next week, cosmetics could be regulated in specific (and different) ways in the the Commonwealth of Massachusetts by either the Act Relative to Safe Cosmetics or the Massachusetts Act Relative to Safe Cosmetics in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, both of which are summarized here.

- And thanks to this blog post by Kayla Fioravanti of Essential Wholesale, we now know that there are multiple new bills pending in California that would regulate cosmetics even more.

And there’s more.

- The New York Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011 is now pending.

And surely more that I don’t know about yet or haven’t had time to dive into enough to include in a blog post. (Give me a minute …)

Calgon (no pun), take me away!!

Speaking of “Conflict …”

Should we not stop this madness before it becomes unmanageable?

There is no reason to pass news laws in Massachusetts (or any other state) to regulate a cosmetic when there is now pending in the United States Congress a bill that would regulate the exact same cosmetic, and when companies already must comply with or monitor at least seven other states that either have laws or are likely to consider new ones.

Can you imagine having to learn about and then comply with federal law, Massachusetts law, and potentially 49 other state laws just to sell the same tube of lip balm? And to also have to monitor this legal soup to make sure that you comply with all of those laws as they change through the years?

I can’t.

To stay up to date on state cosmetics laws, and how they may or may not be impacted by passage of a new federal law, join us at the State Cosmetics Laws FaceBook Page.

Question: What do you think?

How To Participate In the Massachusetts Cosmetics Bills Hearing

Donna Maria — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 22:52:59 +0000

Earlier this week, I posted that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Joint Committee on Public Health will hold hearings on September 13, 2011, on two cosmetics bills. You can see the full list of bills that will be taken up on that day here. (The cosmetics bill numbers are highlighted.)

The purpose of this post is to inform you about how you can participate in the hearings, either in person or in advance by meeting or correspondence, so your voice is heard. Important Note: if either of these bill becomes law, they will apply to cosmetics manufacturers who sell cosmetics to consumers in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, even if those cosmetics are not actually made in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Advance Meetings

If you would like to meet with a staffer in the office of a bill sponsor, you can contact them to do so as follows: For H1513: An Act Relative To Healthy Cosmetics, Rep. Kathi-Anne Reinstein (D), and for H2361: An Act Relative to Safe Cosmetics in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Rep. Bradley H. Jones, Jr. (R).

You can set up an in person meeting or a conference call meeting by contacting their offices and requesting one.

Letters

If you wish to write to the Committee on Public Health in advance of the hearings to express your position on the bill(s) in writing, send your letter(s) to:

The Honorable Jeffrey Sanchez, House Chair
The Honorable Susan C. Fargo, Senate Chair
Joint Committee on Public Health
State House, Room 130
Boston, MA 02133

You can send the same letter to both chairpersons, but they must be sent separately because they do not share an office. If you’d prefer not to use snail mail, you may fax or email your correspondence as follows:

Ms. Fargo
Email: susan.fargo [at] masenate [dot] gov
Fax: (617) 626-0898

Mr. Sanchez
Email: kate-marieroycroft [at] mahouse.gov
Fax: (617) 722-2002

Talking Points

Two bills are pending: H1513 and H2361. These talking points deal specifically with the more detailed of the two bills, H2361. While IBN has not taken a position on either bill, here are some talking points you may wish to consider as you contemplate how these bills, if passed into law, may impact your business. You can use these points to craft letters of your own, meet with staffers, or craft your own testimony for the September 13 hearings. (Remember, you do not have to register for the hearings. The hearing starts at 10:00 at the Massachusetts State House, located at 24 Beacon St, Boston, Massachusetts 02108. To participate, just arrive on time (early is better), sign in to testify, be seated and wait for your name to be called. Testimony is generally limited to 3 minutes or so.)

HR 2356: The Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011. The Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011 is now pending in Congress. That bill addresses all of the same issues that are addressed in H2361, and then some. There may be no need to pass state specific cosmetics legislation when federal legislation that contains many of the same types of requirements is currently under discussion. Why not wait and see what passes at the federal level before passing a state specific law that regulates the exact same products.
A Patchwork Quilt. If H2361 becomes law, consider how having to learn about and follow federal law, and then learn about and follow the Massachusetts law, and potentially 49 other state laws, could impact your business. A small business owner often has a handful just keeping up with the comprehensive federal cosmetics laws. Having to consult and comply with a patchwork quilt of laws in multiple jurisdictions, and a the federal level — in order to legally sell the exact same product nationwide and in Massachusetts — could present special unfair challenges for small companies.
Commission on Safe Cosmetics. H2361 establishes the Commission on Safe Cosmetics, which has as its main purpose to “study and report on the implementation of the Massachusetts Safe Cosmetics Act, as well as the need for additional legislation to regulate cosmetics …”, and to publish a report on those topics by July 31, 2012.

Why not establish the Commission first, and read their report, and prepare draft legislation based on that report? That process may have advantages over passing a new law first, and then studying the industry afterward, and possibly discovering that the first law needs to be amended.

The bill requires that the Commission be composed of several people, including at least one signatory to the Compact for Safe Cosmetics, and also one additional person appointed by the governor. If there is a need for the Commission to study the industry, it would be important to also require that at least one member of the Committee be a small cosmetics manufacturer who has not signed the Compact for Safe Cosmetics, and who is not affiliated with the Compact or any other consumer or special interest group.
Exemptions. The particular bill exempts companies with “fewer than 100 employees or with annual aggregate sales of cosmetic products, both within and outside of Massachusetts, of less than $5,000,000 during the previous fiscal year.” While your business may fit that description, the bigger picture is still that, by passing legislation dealing with products that are already regulated by the federal government, Massachusetts sets a precedent that could ultimately lead to companies having to learn and comply with 51 separate laws in order to make, label and sell the exact same product. This would become a significant unnecessary barrier to entry and growth, especially for small businesses who want to meet Massachusetts citizens’s desire for cosmetics made on a small scale.

Virtual Streaming

I am told that each committee chairperson decides on a case-by-case basis whether their hearings are streamed live, and they do not announce this decision until the morning of the hearing. For those who cannot attend in person and who wish to listen or watch the proceedings live, I am told that if the decision is the live stream the proceedings, you will be able to click on the Massachusetts Legislature home page and see a link with instructions on how you can tune in. I will update this if I get better information.

There is also Massachusetts Legislature TV, which streams and archives proceedings in the Massachusetts House and Senate. The September 13 hearings do not fit that description, but I’m putting the link here anyway, just in case there’s a way to find the Committee hearings through that site on the day of the proceedings.

IBN member Marla Bosworth, one of IBN’s Massachusetts State Advocacy Reps, has informed me that she, Leigh O’Donnell, president of the Handcrafted Soapmakers Guild, and Debbie May, will attend meetings with legislative staffers next week.

How To Participate

These bills are scheduled for public hearing on September 13, at the Massachusetts State House, located at 24 Beacon St, Boston, Massachusetts 02108. You can see the full list of bills that will be taken up on that day here. (The cosmetics bill numbers are highlighted.)

The hearing begins at 10:00, and you can participate in person by signing up at the beginning of the hearing to testify. You do not have to register in advance, but you do need to sign up so your name is on the list, and the clerk can call your name when it’s your turn to speak. The earlier you arrive for this, the better. Your remarks will be generally limited to about 3 minutes, unless the lawmakers have questions. If you cannot appear to testify in person, you can submit a letter with your position.

If you’d like to follow this and other state regulatory issues, please join the FaceBook State Cosmetics Laws Page.

You may also wish to read Speak Out About Massachusetts HO2361, by Kayla Fioravanti of Essential Wholesale. That post covers a lot of the cosmetics ingredient issues.

Question: Well, those are the points I can think of. What did I leave out?

Massachusetts Schedules September 13 Hearings On Two State Cosmetics Bills

Donna Maria — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 18:08:18 +0000

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has scheduled hearings on September 13, 2011, on two cosmetics bills. H1513: An Act Relative To Healthy Cosmetics, introduced by Rep. Kathi-Anne Reinstein (D) will be heard along with H2361: An Act Relative to Safe Cosmetics in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, introduced by Rep. Bradley H. Jones, Jr. (R) The purpose of this post is to share basic information about the bills. Note that both bills are scheduled for joint hearing before the Massachusetts Joint Committee On Public Health on September 13, 2011. (More about that below.)

HR 1513: An Act Relative To Healthy Cosmetics is shorter of the two bills. Supported by the Personal Care Products Council, the bill essentially requires cosmetics manufacturers to report to the State of Massachusetts Department of Public Health their use in a cosmetic of any ingredient that the Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) has reported to the FDA as “unsafe at any level for use in a cosmetic product.” While there is no small business exemption in the bill, if a manufacturer does not use any unsafe cosmetic ingredient, as defined by CIR, then no reporting is required. If a manufacturer uses an ingredient that is deemed unsafe by CIR, then that cosmetic is by law misbranded, adulterated, or both. The other bill, H2361: An Act Relative to Safe Cosmetics In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, is a longer piece of legislation, and a summary is below.

Note that this is a very high level summary, because I don’t want your eyes to glaze over. If you have questions or need clarification, post in the comments section where specific questions can be addressed in a more organized fashion.

H2361: An Act Relative to Safe Cosmetics in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has six main components. They are:

Notification. If you make a product defined by FDA as a cosmetic, and you sell that product to anyone in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (whether or not the product is actually made in the Commonwealth), you must file a list of those products if they contain chemicals that are identified as “causing cancer, or reproductive, or developmental toxicity.”

A “chemical” is generally very broadly defined as an ingredient in the product, an ingredient created by virtue of a reaction between other ingredients in the product, anything that leaches from the container into the product, anything that is present in the product at “technically feasible detection limits, and any fragrance, flavor or preservative.
Master List. The Public Health Commission will compile and make public a list of all companies that sell or distribute products that contain ingredients that are chemicals identified as causing cancer, or reproductive, or developmental toxicity, as well as, a master list of all “ingredients of concern”. This list shall be made public on an annual basis.
Investigations. The Commonwealth shall be able to conduct broad and sweeping investigations of cosmetics companies in order to determine the potential health effects of exposure to ingredients of concern in cosmetics that are sold in Massachusetts. These investigations can range from things that are specifically contained in the bill, such as onsite manufacturing space, evaluations to review of health data maintained by a manufacturer, to collect “any other information used to substantiate the safety of such cosmetics or ingredients.”
Labeling. If a cosmetics sold in the Massachusetts contains a known carcinogen or chemical identified as causing reproductive or developmental toxicity, the label shall contain the word “WARNING or CAUTION.” The bill leaves it to the regulators to require more specific language.
Exemptions. The bill does not apply to any manufacturer of cosmetic products having fewer than 100 employees or with annual aggregate sales of cosmetic products, both within and outside of Massachusetts, of less than $5,000,000 during the previous year. This it is not altogether clear, it appears that this exemption covers all portions of the bill, not just parts of it. (Don’t quote me on that though …)
Establishment of Special Commission. The bill establishes a Commission on Safe Cosmetics, to study and report on the implementation of the law, and to assess the need for more legislation. The Commission consists of the following people:

- the attorney general
- the commissioner of the department of environmental protection
- the secretary of energy and environmental affairs
- the commissioner of public health
- the director of environmental health
- 3 members of the house of representatives, 2 of whom shall be appointed by the speaker of the house, and 1 of whom shall be appointed by the minority leader of the house
- 3 members of the senate, 2 of whom shall be appointed by the senate president, and 1 of whom shall be appointed by the senate minority leader; 5 members appointed by the attorney general, 1 of whom shall be a distributor of cosmetics, 2 of whom shall be experts in the area of toxicity: one from the UMass Lowell Center for Sustainable Production and one from The Warner Institute of Green Chemistry, and 2 of whom shall be the owners of businesses in the commonwealth that sells cosmetics, at least 1 of which has signed the Compact for Safe Cosmetics; and 1 member shall be appointed by the governor.

The duties of the Commission include working together and with other special interest groups to produce a final report and recommendation for further legislation no later than July 31, 2012.

If a company sells products containing chemicals identified as causing cancer or reproductive or developmental toxicity, and the company fails to comply, the products are deemed adulterated and misbranded.

How To Participate

These bills are scheduled for public hearing on September 13, at the Massachusetts State House, located at 24 Beacon St, Boston, Massachusetts 02108. You can see the full list of bills that will be taken up on that day here. (The cosmetics bill numbers are highlighted.)

The hearing begins at 10:00, and you can participate in person by signing up at the beginning of the hearing to testify. You do not have to register in advance, but you do need to sign up so your name is on the list, and the clerk can call your name when it’s your turn to speak. The earlier you arrive for this, the better. Your remarks will be generally limited to about 3 minutes, unless the lawmakers have questions. If you cannot appear to testify in person, you can submit a letter with your position. I will publish a post with more about how to do that later today.

What’s Next?

If you’d like to follow this issue, please join us at the FaceBook State Cosmetics Laws Page, which is open to the public. IBN members, you can attend a special call on state laws on Thursday, September 1.

IBN has not yet taken a position on this legislation, but I expect that to happen within days.

If you wish to attend the September 13 hearing, please leave a comment below or you may email me privately if you’d prefer that.

FaceBook Page Helps You Understand State Cosmetics Laws

Donna Maria — Sun, 21 Aug 2011 14:07:30 +0000

As you know, HR 2359: The Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011 is now pending in Congress. What you may not know if that some states are quite active in the cosmetics regulatory arena, namely California and Florida. Last year, we worked together with industry to defeat a Colorado bill that would have unnecessarily put thousands of small companies out of business. In order to better coordinate our efforts at the state level, to crowd source best practices, and inform the public and industry, I launched State Cosmetics Laws on FaceBook.

I am pleased to have the support and rolled up sleeves of two of the industry’s most influential leaders in this effort. Kayla Fioravanti, co-owner of Essential Wholesale and Lela Barker of Bella Lucce in South Carolina. These women have been an integral part of our advocacy efforts since the FDA Globalization Act of 2008 was first circulated, and they continue to do an extraordinary job of running their companies as they work tireless to help me preserve a playing field on which small cosmetics companies can compete fairly. Please subscribe to Kayla’s blog and Lela’s blog. Not only will you discover some super products, but you’ll also be able to read their amazing legislative advocacy posts.

Please join us on the FaceBook Page as we learn, share, and encourage one another an a growing industry.
Question: Are you a hybrid entrepreneur? What do you think of Felicia’s tips?

INDIE Beauty Network Opposes HR 2359: The Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011

Donna Maria — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 17:33:03 +0000

On July 4, 2011, I informed you that HR 2359: The Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011 had been introduced. You can read the text of the bill here. This month, I hosted two exclusive IBN member calls to discuss the bill. The first was July 6, to review the substance of the bill. If you are a member and you missed that call, you can log in to get it here.

During the second call, on July 19, I led a discussion with my members to obtain their feedback and opinions on the bill. If you are a member, you can log in for that call here. Both calls are very informative, and if you are a member and have not listened to them, I encourage you to do so. Following the July 19 call, I surveyed IBN members, and they have made their voices heard. Here is what they said:

I am in favor of HR 2359 as it is currently drafted: 1.4%
I am not in favor of HR 2359 as it is currently drafted: 95.9%
I am undecided about whether I am in favor of or not in favor of HR 2359: 2.7%

Based on this vote, IBN opposes HR 2359: The Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011.

I am authorized to share that IBN member Samantha Dickey of Dirty Beauty in Georgia voted in favor of the bill. All of IBN’s position statements will include this disclosure going forward. I will continue to make available to Ms. Dickey and her company all of IBN’s member benefits, with the understanding that IBN does not represent her position on this bill. This arrangement is open to all IBN members, each of whom may feel free to contact me to discuss their particular situation.

Voting is now closed, and this particular vote represents a snapshot in time. If because of the fluid situation we are in, it becomes necessary to do so, another vote will be taken.

If you are not a member of IBN, and you wish to join our advocacy efforts and take advantage of our suite of business building member benefits, including affordable products liability insurance, you may join today at this link.

I will continue to post IBN member updates, and will soon publish a more detailed position paper. Public updates will be posted in the Legislative Advocacy Category at this blog and in the public blog area at the INDIE Social Site. All other IBN-sponsored discussion about this bill will take place among members in our exclusive IBN member discussion forum.

Anyone can vote for or against HR 2359 at Open Congress.

If you oppose the bill, you can also sign this Petition To Oppose H.R. 2359: Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011, sponsored by Personal Care Truth.*

As always, in accordance with this blog’s Editorial Policies and Community Guidelines, you may feel free to share your questions, comments and ideas in the comments area and/or via the FaceBook plugin.

* Disclosure: IBN member Kristen Fraser Cotte of The Grapeseed Company is a founder of Personal Care Truth.

HR 2359: Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011: IBN Member Meeting: July 19, 2011

Donna Maria — Sun, 17 Jul 2011 00:48:32 +0000

This is a very quick note for members of IBN. On July 6, I hosted a call to discuss with Kayla Fioravanti of Essential Wholesale her position on the newly released HR 2359: Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011. If you are a member and you missed it, you can log in and get it here.

Now that members have had ample time to digest the issues, this call is a follow up, designed to allow me to hear from you in detail about how you feel about this legislation. As IBN has always done since 2008 when I post this fun summary after I first went to meet with legislative staffers following release of the first version of new legislation, IBN will take a position on this legislation once I hear directly from members. Here are more details.

How To Join Us

This is a call for IBN members only. The call information is posted here.

Post Questions and Comments

Feel free to post questions and comments before this event in the members only discussion forum for this issue at this link. I will take live questions and comments on the call on July 19 as well. You can also post questions here and I will consider them for the member call. I will not respond here, however. Thanks and see you on the call!

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming …

P. S. – I scheduled this call to last two hours in case we need it, but it need not last that long. Be sure to listen to the call from earlier this month (here) so we do not have to spend your valuable time re-hashing things we have already discussed. Thanks!

Text of HR 2359: The Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011

Donna Maria — Mon, 04 Jul 2011 15:51:47 +0000

As I mentioned in my posts here and here, HR 2359 has been on its way for quite some time. The long wait is over, and you can read the entire text of the bill at this link.

I’m not sure of the exact date of its official public release, but since I’ve been checking regularly and haven’t found it until today, I think it’s today, Independence Day, a day designed to celebrate our freedom and also, a day when not many people will be paying attention. I will be reviewing the bill in depth and will report to you my general thoughts.

For my IBN members, stay tuned for a more in depth summary, and an opportunity to help IBN shape its position on the bill. In the meantime, happy reading!

You can also check out what I think is the first frank and in depth analysis of the bill at Essential Wholesale’s blog — there are 10 posts in the series.

Question: Have you read the bill? Essential Wholesale’s post? What do you think so far?

HR 2359: the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011

Donna Maria — Sat, 25 Jun 2011 17:40:40 +0000

As I mentioned in my post of earlier this week, new cosmetics legislation has been expected for quite some time. I am now told that HR 2359: the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011, has been introduced and is expected to be available to the public online in short order. The bill is generating a great deal of discussion even before it has been officially released. As always, my focus is on consumer safety, the cosmetics industry in general, and of course on small and micro-businesses in particular. Once the legislation is released, I look forward to sharing my commentary.

Meanwhile, if you want to check out small business owners who make cosmetics in your area, visit the IBN Member Directory where you can search by state, company name or keyword for soaps, cosmetics, candles, artisan perfumes, fragrances and more. If you’re looking for something in particular that you cannot find there, leave me a comment below and I will help you find a local member company near you!

Safe Cosmetics Act Update

Donna Maria — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 13:05:29 +0000

This week, I received some news about the status of the pending Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010. For those who don’t know, the first version of new cosmetics legislation was circulated in the US House Energy & Commerce Committee in April 2008. My first post on the topic is here. (I had to archive the comments because all 2,000+ of them kept crashing my blog.) The release was quickly followed by an August 2008 trip to Capitol Hill to meet with legislators and introduce them to the small scale cosmetics manufacturing industry. You can read about some of my other advocacy trips here, and here.

You can also learn about several trips, phone calls and letters to Capitol Hill, the Food & Drug Administration and the Small Business Administration, and the head of the Democratic National Committee to introduce the small, micro-cosmetics industry to legislators and lawmakers. (More about the law and small businesses in my Legislative Advocacy Category.) Late last year, the Handcrafted Soap Makers Guild (HSMG) disbanded the coalition and hired a lobbyist to take over the effort. Since then, I have not been intimately involved in the discussions and meetings, but yesterday, Leigh O’Donnell, HSMG’s president, shared the following update about what new legislation may include, and she asked me to share them with you.

Registration: For registration of cosmetics manufacturing facilities and cosmetics products:

* Any cosmetic company with under $2 million in gross aggregate sales per year will be exempt from FDA registration for both the company and products being made.
* A company that makes between $2 million and $10 million in gross aggregate sales per year will register their company (facility) and their products annually. There will be no registration fees and no change forms if you introduce a new product within that year.
* A cosmetic manufacturer that has over $10 million in gross aggregate sales per year will register their company (facility) and their products and will be responsible for a registration fee to the FDA. This fee will be determined by the FDA and will be based on gross sales.

Labeling:

* All botanicals will be listed as what they are on the label and will not need to be broken down into their organic compounds. For example, Coconut Oil will be Cocos Nucifera (Coconut Oil).
* Also, the legislation will NOT require additional testing for products that use already tested, approved and labeled ingredients.

Ingredients:

* The FDA will be charged with coming up with three categories of cosmetic ingredients: Safe without limits, Restricted, and Prohibited.
* All food-grade ingredients will be on the “Safe without limits list”.
* Ingredients on the “Restricted list” may be used in cosmetics but will have restrictions on usage or quantity.
* Ingredients on the “Prohibited list” cannot be used in cosmetics and will have a 2 year phase out period.
* To facilitate compliance, the FDA will maintain an online site for companies to access information on the three categories of ingredients and will update regularly, including the addition of new ingredients after testing and determinations are made.

I am told that the “Soap Exemption,” a piece of legislation stating that soap with cleaning properties that come from alkali salts of fatty acids, and which are not labeled as anything other than soap, will continue to be exempt from regulation as cosmetics.

What Next?

With politics, and this being the start of an election season, it’s anyone’s guess.

It’s not clear from this new information what is being discussed with regard to how essential oils will be treated. Which of the above categories will they fit into? Will they be considered “food grade,” and thus safe without limits?

Additionally, if states can pass laws that impose different requirements on small manufacturers, the practical impact of any federal legislation — even with an exemption for small business — will be impacted. (Example: a 2009 Colorado state bill, which almost passed in 2009). These and other questions remain under discussion, I suppose.

I am told that a new bill may be introduced by the end of the summer. If that happens, some elected officials will support the bill and others will not. I look forward to what happens next, and to sharing my commentary and IBN’s response.

If the topic of how cosmetics are regulated in the United States interests you, click here for a list of links to online resources to help you learn more.

Question: What do you think of this new update? What questions or comments do you have?

Personal Care Truth Founders Share Their Mission

Donna Maria — Mon, 11 Apr 2011 02:02:46 +0000

In previous posts (here and here), I told you about Personal Care Truth (PCT), a website that launched in May 2010 under the management of IBN members Lisa Rodgers and Kristin Fraser Cotte. Until recently, Lisa was full-time CEO at Cactus & Ivy, a manufacturer of vegan bath and body products. Kristin is CEO and founder of The Grapeseed Company, creator since 2004 of cosmetics made from byproducts of the Santa Barbara, California, wine industry.

I have had a front row seat to the mission of PCT, not only in my capacity as founder and CEO of INDIE Beauty Network, but also as a small business advocate with concerns that uninformed popular untruths, opinions, and absurd conclusions could result in passage into law of bills that, as currently written, would burden small cosmetics manufacturers with regulations that stamp out the entrepreneurial dreams of future generations without providing any benefit to consumers. I sat down for a quick conversation with Lisa and Kristin to catch up on their activities and share some of the plans they have for PCT and its impact on the cosmetics industry as a whole. Here is some of what they told me.

dM: What is PCT and why is there a need for it?

Kristin and Lisa: PCT provides science backed information on the personal care industry, from respected experts and scientists in the field. Its purpose is to educate consumers and give those in the industry a public platform to comment, question and discuss the safety of cosmetics – specifically ingredients, science, regulations, and legislation.

There is an incredible amount of false information floating around the Internet concerning the safety of cosmetics. The Campaign For Safe Cosmetics site was censoring comments at blogs they controlled whenever we (and countless others) brought up questions surrounding the misleading information they were sharing. Also, previous proposed legislation would have unnecessarily put small manufacturers out of business by imposing hefty regulations and costs that were not necessary to protect consumers. We wanted our voices heard, and we can tell that lots of others wanted to be heard as well.

Since launching, PCT has enjoyed 38,306 unique visitors and 1,329,967 page views — 25,495 of the unique visitors from 2011.

We first came up with the idea to build a science-backed and information-packed website after trying to find common ground with people who were spreading misinformation. When it became clear that common ground was not going to be found, we created PCT to inform and educate the public with truth-filled information about the personal care industry, based on scientific research.

dM: What do you envision for PCT, say, 5 years from now?

Lisa and Kristin: Our hope is that PCT will be viewed as a trusted site for consumers to find the truth about personal care products. There are many things we have planned for PCT, however, we are keeping them under wraps for now. Exciting plans, nonetheless!

dM: How did you choose the experts? Are you looking for more?

Lisa and Kristin: We started with experts that we turned to, read, and respect in the industry. We’ve been contacted by many folks who would like to be experts; right now we are content with our panel and are not looking to add anyone else to the team.

Every single expert contributes their work for free, as they are just as concerned with the truth and future of our industry without over-regulation based on internet myths.

dM: What are some of the challenges with running a site like this?

Lisa and Kristin: It’s a huge undertaking that we have almost completely self-funded and put countless hours into. From the beginning, we received comments from people who were constantly questioning where the money for the site was coming from. Thick skin is a must.

We publish every comment on our site that does not violate our comment policy. While we have received tremendous positive response, we’ve also had detractors. The amazing thing is that everyone involved with the site is so passionate about setting the record straight, and we have open conversations with everyone, including people who don’t see things the way we do.

dM: Is the site part of a formal business?

Lisa and Kristin: We are working to make PCT an LLC. Because we were unsure how consumers and the industry, as a whole would accept us, we decided to start with the basics. Now that we know PCT is a valuable site, we will make it official in the eyes of business.

dM: How will you grow PCT going forward?

Lisa and Kristin: We made the decision early on that PCT would not be about promoting a particular product or brand. While doing so, it tied our hands, to a certain degree, on what type of advertisers we could contact and list on the site. Currently, we are hoping for monetary support through donations.

dM: What one message would you like to leave readers with about the personal care industry in general?

Lisa and Kristin: The personal care industry has a long record of safety. No one has ever died from using soap or putting lotion on their skin. It’s incredibly important that those of us within the industry (especially small businesses and entrepreneurs) speak up about our concerns before legislation is passed that may take away everything we have worked so hard to build.

Together, we can dispel the myths and scare tactics plaguing the internet in regards to the personal care products industry.

dM: Visit Grapeseed Company here. Visit PCT’s website and follow them on Twitter and on FaceBook. You can read PCT’s comment policy here, and you can make donations, as I have, by clicking here.

Question: Do you support Personal Care Truth? If so, will you make a donation today?

A Change

Donna Maria — Fri, 11 Mar 2011 01:06:07 +0000

Last year, I introduced you to Personal Care Truth (PCT). Founded by Kristin Fraser Cotte and Lisa Rodgers, PCT educates and empowers consumers with scientific information about the personal care products they use every day. For the past several months, I have been honored to serve on the site’s “Expert” Panel. After much careful deliberation, on March 6, 2011, I withdrew as a member of the Panel.

While I am honored to have played a small role in PCT’s success, my duties as founder and CEO of the Indie Beauty Network are such that I am increasingly finding myself without the time needed to continue to make meaningful contributions going forward.

PCT is about change — very important change. And while my formal affiliation with PCT has changed, my commitment to encourage Lisa, Kristin and their team has not. Now, I will be doing so in my new capacity as supporter and commenter. Thanks to everyone for the opportunity to serve and learn with you!

Meetings On Capitol Hill Regarding Cosmetics Legislation

Donna Maria — Sat, 12 Feb 2011 03:56:24 +0000

Ispent most of early February on pause. As soon as my pause ended, however, I headed to Washington, DC, to continue conversations with legislative staffers about issues associated with HR 5786: The Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010. While that piece of legislation is not now actively being considered, last month, I was contacted by staffers in Rep. Edwin Markey’s (D-Ma) office, who wanted to discuss the legislation.

This past Tuesday, along with representatives of the Handcrafted Soapmakers Guild, I met with staffers in Rep. Markey’s office and in Rep. Jan Schakowsky’s (D-Il) office. The photo is of me and Leigh O’Donnell, the Soap Guild’s president. The conversation was wide-ranging, covering topics such as cosmetics company registration, testing, a small business exemption and other provisions contained in HR 5786. It seems likely that new legislation will be introduced in the future, and I am excited that the staffers reached out to us. Discussions will continue as the issues unfold and I will share relevant updates.

You can read Leigh’s post about the meeting, and other meetings she attended while in DC, at this link.

If the topic of HR 5786 and new cosmetics legislation is new to you, you can come up to speed by reading some of the posts in the Advocacy Category of this blog. Current cosmetics laws and FDA’s cosmetics rules and regulations are available at the FDA’s website.

Question: What would you like legislators to know about the value of your small business — cosmetics or otherwise?

Obama’s Executive Order To Eliminate Absurd And Unnecessary Paperwork, “Just Plain Dumb” Regulations

Donna Maria — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 14:09:21 +0000

President Obama ~~will~~ signed today an Executive Order requiring that federal agencies ensure that regulations protect safety, health and environment while promoting economic growth. In an opinion piece in today’s Wall Street Journal, Obama says his Order will seek more affordable, less intrusive means to protect the public interest —giving careful consideration to benefits and costs.

This means writing rules with more input from experts, businesses and ordinary citizens, which I hope includes consumer-business owners. This is the kind of advocacy I have pursued since 2008 when the first draft of new cosmetics legislation was circulated in the US House Energy & Commerce Committee. Of course we’ll have to wait and see exactly what the Order says, but there is one huge advocacy point we must remember as we move forward as we move forward as small and independent business owners.

It Starts With Congress

There is no regulation if Congress does not first create a law that empowers the regulator to actually regulate. As a result, not only do we need to look at existing regulations and those coming down the pike, but we also need to give much closer scrutiny to pending bills to make sure that they do not empower the regulator to promulgatge new rules that require absured and unnecessary paperwork, or which are, as Obama says in his opinion piece, “just plain dumb.”

Regulators Can Do Nothing Without Congressional Authority

The regulator does not do anything Congress does not first empower it to to. This makes it critical the we catch any problems while bills are pending, and not after they become law. As we know from the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008, once a law is passed, it’s pretty much impossible to remove regulatory power that has already been granted. Hopefully, the new Executive Order will inject the voice of reason into how the Consumer Product Safety Commission enforces that law. (This post shares the stories of 6 mom-owned businesses that closed as a result of the CPSIA.)

The Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010

The new Executive Order could also provide guidance on the most reasoned path concerning HR 5786: The Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010, which is still pending. Contrary to erroneous, one-sided reports, the cosmetics industry is already regulated, and it is overwhelmingly safe.

Before passing new legislation that adds more layers of regulation, lawmakers and policymakers should first assess current cosmetics laws in light of Obama’s new Executive Order. There is no sense in passing new laws before we, as Obama’s opinion piece says, first “root out [existing] regulations that conflict, that are not worth the cost, or that are just plain dumb.”

The Problem Is Not Lack Of Money. It’s Too Much Regulation!

It’s not lack of money, but excessive regulations that are destroying America’s small businesses.

You don’t have to look far to see what men and women can do with just a few dollars to create a small company that can sustain them and provide a valuable or product service that enhances people’s lives. Hundreds of members of IBN are a great place to start to meet them first-hand. You can follow them on Twitter here.

The money we do have is useless if lawmakers, followed by state and federal regulators, pass laws that make it impossible to put those funds to good use.

After two long years of bailing everyone else out, Obama seems to have turned his attention in the direction of real people. Let’s see what he does next, and how we can help him and his administration do right by America’s smallest companies.

As a small business advocate and the leader of a national trade organization, this is the best possible news to wake up to. ~~I look forward to reading the new Executive Order, and~~ You can read Obama’s new Executive Order here. I will keep you posted.

You can read Obama’s opinion piece in Today’s Wall Street Journal at this link.

Question: Do you think this news is as potentially exciting as I do?

What Will Be America’s Next Chapter?

Donna Maria — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 21:59:27 +0000

Last week, I was invited by Tavis Smiley to be one of a select group of official bloggers for America’s Next Chapter, held last evening at George Washington University’s Lisner Auditorium in Washington, DC. Due to prior commitments at The Media Is You and the Indie Business Book Club (not to mention snow days!), I was unable to attend in person, so I Tweeted it live via Ustream. Here is some of what I learned.

The panel, moderated by Tavis, included a cross section of influential leaders (listed below), but I was disappointed (and surprised) it did not include an African American woman.

How can you have an informed discussion about America’s Next Chapter without including a black woman in the discussion?

According to 2009 census data, the United States population is composed of 37,264,679 black adults, 19,513,012 (well over half!) of which are female. (There are 17,751,667 black men in America.)

What about amazing women like Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute President Shirley Ann Jackson, Ph.D., physicist and first black woman to orbit the earth, Mae Jemison, NPR’s Michel Martin, former National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice? The list goes on.

As much as I enjoyed last night’s program, this left a gaping — and I think obvious — hole in the discussion.

Tavis did a great job of managing the panel personalities, many of which were polar opposites. I enjoyed seeing him do what he does best in terms of leading a challenging discussion, keeping it real and avoiding cat fights. (He also does a wicked Oprah Winfrey impression.)

Small Business And Entrepreneurial Discussion

I was thrilled that the topic of small business ownership and entrepreneurship was raised repeatedly, especially since I raised it with Tavis last week. While most of the panelists mentioned the topic, Arianna Huffington’s remarks resonated most with me. I Tweeted some of her insightful insightful comments here, here, and here.

Arianna also invited everyone to check out Etsy to see people pursuing their dreams, telling their stories, finding their voices, and being empowered by their ownership of a business — even a very tiny one.

In Arinna’s words (at 2:38:52 in the video time stamp):

We have people who are starting their little businesses on etsy.com. Have you been there? They are taking their passions and their hobbies and they are turning them into a way to make a living. … So there is an explosion happening around the country, but we are not talking about it, we are not chronicling it. So I think what we need to do is to bear witness not just to what’s happening in Washington, but also to what’s happening around the country. We need to tell stories. We need to bring these people to prominence in a way that can encourage others to get involved. …

Arianna Is Spot On!

Arianna’s point sare precisely the ones I made in this post. As the leader of IBN, a nationwide trade organization with hundreds of members on etsy, I believe — no, I know for sure — that Arianna’s assertion that the solution to our nation’s economic woes lies in the hands of small and family businesses — if only the government gives them a chance to thrive without unduly burdensome regulations that would strangle them before they have a chance to start.

Will that happen? I’m not sure, but I have posed the question — to Small Business Administration head Karen G. Mills and to President Obama through Democratic National Committee Chairman Gov. Tim Kaine.

What Arianna articulated is the essence of human life — to have the freedom to harness your gifts to provide for yourself, and to make the world a better place.

Education Is Only Part Of The Solution

Education is part of it, yes. The pursuit of knowledge is a noble one. But it’s what one does with knowledge that enables him to make a meaningful contribution. And before a person can do something with knowledge, he must be in an environment where he is empowered to use knowledge to improve his own personal situation. He must know that he will be supported and not trampled. He must know that everyone from his closest friends to the official he voted into the White House will do everything possible to create a level playing field so he can learn, thrive, and contribute.

I hope that the other panelists, Tavis, our nation’s elected officials, and everyone who tuned in live or watches the live re-broadcasts on PBS will take Arianna’s comments to heart. From the smallest etsy startup to the multi-billion dollar Wall Street firm that may one day provide credit to the firm, we are all responsible for creating a world that empowers everyone to maximize their potential What better way to do this than to own and manage a profitable small or family business?

The Economy Will Not Recover Until Legislation Stop Making It Impossible For Small Business To Plan And Thrive

As Maria Bartiromo pointed out, our economy will remain stalled until businesses see that looking regulations will not make it impossible for them to plan, produce and hire without taking unreasonable risks.

This is the essence of human existence, and American businesses, American legislators, American educators, and American families have lost sight of it.

America’s next chapter must include all of us, and it must embrace the notion that everyone can be a capitalist, even in a small way.

Questions: What do you think of Arianna’s comments? What prominent black women leader would you like to have seen on the pane? Do you think it matters that no black women were included? What do you think will be America’s next chapter?

*America’s Next Chapter Panelists: Arianna Huffington, David Brody, David Frum, Dr. Cornel West, Dana Milbank, Maria Bartiromo, John Chen, and Maria Teresa Kumar. The discussion was wide-ranging and included education, race, racism, politics, immigration and yes, even small business. Of course, if anyone was paying attention to my Twitter stream, this is the topic I was most focused on

Join Tavis Smiley On January 13, For “America’s Next Chapter”

Donna Maria — Thu, 06 Jan 2011 16:46:24 +0000

This morning, I participated in a press conference call with Tavis Smiley, host of America’s Next Chapter, which will take place from 6 pm to 9 pm on January 13 at George Washington University’s Lisner Auditorium in Washington, DC. The event, designed to bring together thought leaders to wrestle with the question of “how America can return to its greatness,” is free and open to the public. (Register here.)

America’s Next Chapter is the next generation of Smiley’s trademark State Of Black America, which he moderated for several years during Black History Month. I was honored to be invited to today’s conference, and to ask Tavis two questions. Of course, mine concerned the extent to which he expects to include the topic of small and family business ownership in next week’s discussion. Here’s what the told me (I’m paraphrasing because the call was not recorded):

How will next week’s discussion hold the Administration accountable for new legislation that is unnecessarily burdening micro-business? Not unlike Democratic National Committee Chairman, Gov. Tim Kaine, with whom I met last year, Tavis pointed out that Obama’s first two years were invested in helping Wall Street, to the possible detriment of small and micro-businesses who are not benefiting from the big bank bail outs. He said he intends to use next week’s discussion as a way to hold the current administration accountable for the policies that resulted in banking institutions now sitting on billions in assets that are not trickling down to the small companies that need financing to grow and rebuild the nation’s economy.
How can we as a nation ensure that small, micro-business participate in the national conversation where the economy is concerned? Smiley pointed out that there were no micro-businesses represented at Obama’s December 15, 2010 Business Summit. He acknowledged that the concerns of tiny businesses are also not a part of the Sunday morning talk show circuit, and that his vision includes raising these types of issues in next week’s discussion.

(Throughout my conversation, I was careful to clarify that, when I asked about “small business,” I was not asking about “small” as defined by the Small Business Adminstration. I was asking about tiny, solo and family owned businesses — micro-businesses if you will. Tavis seemed to appreciate this vital distinction.)

Tavis concluded the call with an interesting observation. Again paraphrasing, he said that if America properly acknowledges and responds to the needs of persons of color, it will by necessity also properly acknowledge and respond to the needs of everyone else. I didn’t get a chance to follow up on that statement, but I did find it — and its possible implications — interesting.

America’s Next Chapter will be broadcast live on C-Span on January 13. The conversation will be rebroadcast for three nights on Tavis Smiley on PBS beginning January 18 through January 20. The conversation will continue on Smiley & West from Public Radio International. Check your local listings for specifics.

Tickets to America’s Next Chapter on January 13 rom 6 pm to 9 pm are free, and I am planning to attend. It appears from the website that you’ll be able to watch live via Ustream at this link. Panelists will include publisher Arianna Huffington, Princeton professor and author Dr. Cornel West, CNBC’s Maria Bartiromo, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank, and other prominent influencers and thought leaders.

If you’d like to join me live and in person at the event, you can register here. If enough people come, I will see if I can host a meetup after the event so the discussion can continue. If you plan to attend, please let me know in the comments.

To Tweet the event and help spread the word, please use the #americasnextchapter hashtag. You can follow Tavis on Twitter at this link.

Question: What questions do you think Tavis should ask the panelists next week?

Video: Small Business Commentary From Santa Claus

Donna Maria — Sat, 25 Dec 2010 18:21:42 +0000

Today is a happy day, and I am enjoying celebrating the season with my family. Santa was generous, blessing my children with all things Kinect and American Girl, not to mention the baby boy whose birth I celebrate today.

But the news is not all good from the North Pole, particularly as it concerns Santa’s toy business. (Someone has to pay all those elf salaries, right?) In this video (1:37), Santa laments the complicated tax code. As a toy manufacturer, he could have also thrown in CPSIA, which surely decreased the number of artisanal handmade toys he was able to give this year.

But Santa is tenacious, and like all small and independent business owners, he didn’t let the overregulation from Washington get in the way of the holiday. I’m looking forward to connecting with lawmakers and regulators in 2011 to work toward ensuring that the voice of the INDIE is heard and acknowledged in 2011. After all, pointing out the problems is not enough. We must continue to rise up and make one collective voice heard. It’s not easy, but you, me and Santa are getting through it together.

Question: I’m up to the challenge. Are you

Food Safety Modernization Act Amendment Would Protect Small And Independent Family Business Food Producers

Donna Maria — Sun, 21 Nov 2010 19:52:38 +0000

SB 510: The Food Safety Modernization Act (PDF), introduced by Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL), will likely soon become law. If passed, it will give the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) increased authority to inspect food manufacturers, processors, and packers. It would also create new provisions for suspension of food facilities that do not comply with certain reporting and monitoring requirements, and directs FDA to impose fees on manufacturers.

In addition to food, FDA also regulates cosmetics, and HR 5786: The Safe Cosmetics Act, contains provisions that would change the way cosmetics are regulated. (You can read more about that at the Oppose SCA Blog.) Senator Jon Tester (D-MT) is working closely with Senator Kay Hagan (D-NC) and Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR), to include an amendment to protect local family-scale producers from provisions in the new law that would unnecessarily regulate them out of business. In this Congressional video, Sen. Tester outlines the basis for his belief that the amendment must pass.

His remarks are not unlike commentary I have shared at this blog that small and independent, family-owned manufacturers should not be regulated in the same way as large, multi-national companies are. Specifically, I said, “The main concern is with the potentially broad application of laws to tiny businesses where there have been no problems with the cosmetics they make, nor is there a foreseeable risk that there will be. The likelihood that any problem will be caused by tiny businesses is so low that the burdens associated with proposed laws, without exemptions for little companies, outweigh any benefits.” If you are a small manufacturer of anything in this country, it’s worth watching this 5:56 minute video. If you don’t have time to watch, you’ll find a few of the highlights below:

Grow you soap and body care business with soap making equipment, tools, and supplies. Visit Soap Equipment for more information, and tell them dM sent you!

Don’t blow local family-scale producers out of business.. Sen. Tester warned that, without the amendment, the Food Safety Bill would “blow local family-scale producers right out of business” by burdening them with expensive new federal regulations and time-consuming government paperwork. He also said that without an exemption, the new law would cost jobs.

Here’s a direct quote at 1:15: “These folks are really folks that help build this country and undue regulation on them (and I do think it would be undue regulation) would simply stop a movement in this country that has gone on since this country’s inception, but more recently, we’ve kind of gone back to it with locally produced foods.”

He pointed out that people who sell produce directly to consumers create desirable relationships that allow people to know exactly where their food comes from.
Consolidated, industrialized, and highly mechanized production is different.. Beginning at 1:37, Sen. Tester points out that small companies are different from large ones when it comes to how they manufacture products. He says we should not encourage that consolidation. “If we can get more locally grown food, if we can get producers to connect up with consumers, eyeball to eyebeall, that’s a positive thing, and I don’t want to diminish their ability to do this. My amendment really protects the ability for the farmer markets to flourish and provide food for people locally, without shipping it halfway around the world and back again.

This is a significant statement, and I believe one of the first in recent memory that recognizes that one-size-fits-all regulation of differently sized and operated businesses, even when they are in the same industry, is both unnecessary and counterproductive.
Pride of ownership.. At 3:05, Sen. Tester recognizes the pride small companies take in the products they make. Their small size complements and supports this pride of ownership, and translates into direct producer–to-consumer relationships that Sen. Tester believes must be preserved and encouraged.

At 3:13, he said, “They raise food, they don’t raise a commoddity as happens when operations get bigger and bigger, and there’s a direct relationship with that processor or that farmer that means a lot.” According to Tester, mistakes are rare, and when they happen traceability is immediate. It’s far more complicated when it happens large companies that manufacture products on a grand scale.

If the amendment is included in the bill, it will protect small family-scale producers who sell mainly directly to consumers, local restaurants and retailers, and who gross less than $500,000 a year in sales.

The FDA maintains a listing of food safety recalls here, and you can sign up to receive safety alerts and recall announcements at that link.

Food And Cosmetics

There are some differences between food and cosmetics. First, cosmetics are not generally made with ingredients that the manufacturer grows in a field himself or herself. Additionally, unlike food, cosmetics are not now heavily regulated at the local level.

Having said that, the similarities are obvious and more important. In both cases, the products at issue are produced on an extremely small scale. Also, excessive and unnecessary paperwork adversely impacts safety by taking the manufacturers “out of the field,” as Sen. Tester put it. At 4:10, he said, “We don’t want to throw undue paperwork on those folks. They don’t have the ability to do it. It takes them out of the field to do that.” In the case of a cosmetics manufacturer, the field is the mixers, pots, and spatulas used to create the products.

Many small scale cosmetics companies sell their products “eyeball to eyeball” at local farmer’s markets, right alongside the people who grow and sell the fresh fruits and vegetables, and the meats, cheeses, candles, herbs, flowers and other items sold at farmer’s markets nationwide. And frequently, small scale cosmetics companies herbs, beeswax, honey and other ingredients from local producers.

Sen. Tester’s remarks conclude with this statement at 5:31:

Allow the little guys to grow and employ people, and allow that economy to get bigger and better as time goes on.

Here! Here! My position is simple, and it has remained unchanged since 2008 when the first draft of new cosmetics legislation was introduced. Small companies should not be forced to deal with the same expensive regulations that are aimed at big industry scale producers. You can watch my video along these lines, from June 2008, at this link.

In My Home State

Other statements along these lines from North Carolina Senators, as reported in the Winston-Salem Journal last week:

“Because most contamination problems come from large farms and grocery- store chains, which may have difficulty tracking just where a batch of lettuce or a bushel of tomatoes came from, it makes sense to tailor the legislation and exempt farmers who sell directly to customers.” Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC)

“Any final food-safety bill must not be a “one-size-fits-all’ approach,” Burr said in the statement. “I will continue to work to include key provisions for small processors and farms.” Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC).

It is not insignificant that similar concerns are being addresses by elected officials on both sides of the aisle. I am very encouraged by this development, and encourage you to read local papers in your state to find similar statements by your elected officials. If you come across any, please let me know in the comments.

Question: What do you think of the proposed amendment? Do you think a similar exemption should exist for small cosmetics manufacturers? Why or why not?

Happy National Entrepreneurs’ Day!

Donna Maria — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 21:58:40 +0000

In a November 15, 2010, President Proclamation, President Barack Obama declared today National Entrepreneurship Day, declared today National Entrepreneurs’ Day, and declared National Entrepreneurship Week November 14 to November 20. It’s interesting that the proclamation was issued on November 15, the day after the start of National Entrepreneurship Week. I thought the timing was a bit odd in that the proclamation was issued the day after the state of the proclamational week.

In any event, I’m thrilled to see our nation’s chief elected official take notice of entrepreneurs in this way. I’m very interested to watch tomorrow’s weekly address to see if Obama elaborates on the proclamation. In the meantime, I’d like to share a bit of commentary on some of the quotes contained in it.

“My Administration has taken decisive action to accelerate growth and remove barriers for entrepreneurs and small business owners to grow, hire, and prosper.” The Small Business Jobs and Credit Act was a good step. In fact, one of my members received a $10,000 loan as a restult of the new law. (More about that news here.)

It’s important to point out, however, that removal of barriers is more than just making funds available. It’s also removing unnecessary, cumbersome, duplicative, and burdensome legislation that creates needless barriers to entering into a market. The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act is a great example of a law that unnecessarily burdens small business owners. HR 5786: Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010, as drafted, poses the same types of dangers.
As we look to a new year, I hope the administration ensures that any new laws do not burden our nation’s smallest businesses.
“The National Advisory Council on Innovation and Entrepreneurship is collecting input from across the United States to recommend policies that will bolster our economic growth and lead to sustainable, well-paying American jobs.” The point I’d like to make here is that a growing number of Americans are creating their own jobs by starting their own business. In other words, there’s a new type of small business owners, called consumer-business owners, and their businesses are their jobs. Since many of these new business leaders cannot find a traditional job, they have created their own.

I hope the administration begins to see these tenacious, innovative people as worthy of protection from unnecessary regulation, so they can keep the “jobs” they created via their businesses.
“All Americans can play a role in increasing the prevalence and success of new start-ups.” This paragraph specifically points out what universities, mentors and philanthropists can do to encourage small business ownership. I’d also like to also see it include proactive efforts to encourage consumers to do business with micro-businesses, and to enlighten them about the benefits of doing so.

Why not have a National Farmer’s Market Week where consumers are encouraged to buy freshly made fruits, vegetables, baked goods, and confections from farmer’s markets?

How about a National Online Micro-Business Week where people are reminded of the importance of supporting small and family companies that sell the items they make online? American Express recently announced “Small Business Saturday” on November 27, to support small retail stores nationwide. “Cyber Monday” is known to be the biggest online shopping day of the year.

Neither Small Business Saturday no Cyber Monday was created and sanctioned by the government. I’d like to see the administration create “weeks” not just for “entrepreneurs” in general, but for specific types of entrepreneurs. In this way, the public can be encouraged to understand that small businesses come in all shapes and sizes. I’d like to see an educational component added, where small business leaders offer classes and workshops to help people in their communities launch and manage a small and family business.

You can read the entire Presidential Proclamation here. You can learn more about Small Business Saturday here. Get more information about Cyber Monday here.

As an entrepreneur, I take pride in offering products and services that enhance people lives while also generating a fair profit that allows my business to grow as I also provide for myself and my family. We employ ourselves and my assistant, Sophia President, and we hope to hire more people in the coming months. Our business is growing, and we recently leased office space in uptown Charlotte.

We are in the process of launching INDIEgu, a new social commerce website that will use a live online shopping show format to sell products made by small and artisan business owners nationwide. Like so many of you reading this post, I am enjoying my life, helping others, improving my community, and setting a good example for my children, especially as they grow up into a world that will have offer fewer and fewer traditional job opportunities.

This day, this week, and this new Presidential Proclamation is for you. I celebrate you today, and wish you continued success as you pursue the business and the lifestyle of your dreams. Let’s continue to make it happen together!

Question: What do you think of the new Presidential Proclamation? Would you add anything? How can the proclamation be turned into action that makes a tangible difference?

What 2010 Mid-Term Elections Mean For Small Businesses

Donna Maria — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 13:07:02 +0000

I know you voted yesterday, as did I. And even though all the final tallies are not in, I’m sure you are aware that the Republicans won back the House of Representatives, and the Democrats retained control of the Senate, by a slim majority.

I am anything but a political commentator, but here’s my short take on what this may mean for small businesses, and in particular for small cosmetics manufacturers looking to see what may or may not happen with HR 5786.

In my experience, Republicans are less likely, and Democrats are more likely, to pass legislation that makes it harder rather than easier for small companies to thrive and grow.

Having said that, while no politician on either side of the aisle will proactively support legislation that “dumps” on family and “mom-and-pop”-owned businesses, I don’t see anyone doing anything to proactively and specifically support long-term conditions that pave the way for tiny companies to thrive.

Obama’s administration has taken the position that the big banks and other Wall Street insiders must be bailed out and fixed (or whatever you want to call it) first. My understanding from my meeting with the head of the Democratic National Committee in September is that the second part of this plan is the creation of tax cuts and small business loan funding, the beginning of which I suppose was the Small Business Jobs Act.

Speaking of the Small Business Jobs Act, I am excited that IBN member Candy Sweeney of Nakee Natural procured a $10,000 loan resulting from the recently signed Small Business Jobs Act. But as I’ve said before, it’s not solely lack of financial resources that prevent INDIEs from owning profitable ventures. It’s the crazy patchwork quilt of rules and regulations that strangle them and leave them drowning in so much paperwork that it almost defeats the purpose of running a business of any kind.

As excited as I am for Candy, the truth is that a one-time loan funding program (which really means that big business tax increases are literally funding the growth of small businesses — but that’s another blog post) is a one-time program. It is not a long-term strategy that creates a solid landscape upon which small businesses can base future plans and strategies.

I think the Obama administration’s strategy to take care of the big guys first and the little guys second contributed to yesterday’s results. That, and the “hidden” health care provision requiring businesses to issue a 1099 form to everyone from whom they buy more than $600 in goods or services in a tax year. (See report from here by CNN Money.)

What Does All Of This Mean?

I don’t know really, but what I do know is that as we look to 2011, we also look to the fact that there are still not enough jobs to go around. In my opinion, there never will be, and the sooner we all accept that (for ourselves and our children), the better.

What we need to accept is that for those who cannot find a job, or who don’t want one because the available options don’t suit them (as was the case for me when I started my business), the answer is entrepreneurship. The answer is to leverage your assets: your background, your education, your reading experiences, your friends, your credit history, your tenacity, the energy of your youth, and all of your other assets to create a business that can secure your future and the future of coming generations.

I look forward to continuing to work with elected officials and policy makers to create a small business friendly landscape. One that regulates only when necessary to protect the public good, and one that is coordinated at the local, state and federal levels to prevent unintended consequences such as those depicted in this video about why Chuck can’t get his business off the ground.

That includes new laws and regulations that affect small cosmetics companies that are already producing safe cosmetics. We must work together to ensure that, as consumers a protected, the small companies that are paving the way for the future prosperity of our nation are not unnecessarily regulated out of business before they even get a chance to start.

These are lofty aspirations, I know. We have our work cut out for us.

Won’t you join me?

[Video] Why Can’t Chuck Get His Business Off the Ground?

Donna Maria — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 23:49:17 +0000

I was thrilled to learn that IBN member Candy Sweeney of Nakee Natural procured a $10,000 loan resulting from the recently signed Small Business Jobs Act. But as I’ve said before, it’s not solely lack of financial resources that prevent INDIEs from owning profitable ventures. It’s also unnecessary federal, state, and local government red tape. This video, by the Institute For Justice, illustrates the point.

Money is a necessary part of running a business. One can never really have enough of it. But even if you have money, and even if you manage it well, you can still be strangled by red tape. This is especially so when the products or services you offer are regulated by more than one agency — which is almost always the case.

In the coming months, I look forward to working with state and federal officials to ensure that their oversight is carefully tailored and coordinated so that small and independent businesses don’t suffer from regulatory duplication that inhibits their ability to introduce new products to a waiting market place.

Question: What governmental red tape do you face in your neck of the woods?

Mr. President, Is It Main Street’s Turn Yet?

Donna Maria — Fri, 24 Sep 2010 13:03:47 +0000

Yesterday, the House approved HR 5297: The Small Business Jobs and Credit Act, a $42 billion bill to aid “small” businesses. It includes a $30 billion Small Business Lending Fund, and is expected to be signed into law by President Obama in short order.

I love the idea of a new law to help businesses thrive. But we all know that a bill’s name rarely reflects its real life practical effect. (See this bill, for example.) Giving $30billion to community banks to lend to local businesses will not help “real” small businesses. You know, the ones on the much talked about “Main Street.” It won’t help people like Emily Caswell of GCDSpa in Topsham, Maine.

Emily makes bath and body care products by hand. Her specialty is customizing lip balms for special occasions. At my request, Emily customized 100 of the pictured quarter-ounce lip balms for me in Cranberry Spice (a custom scent for me) to celebrate the fall season. I plan to gift them to clients and friends to promote the capabilities of my IBN members. As you can see, my image and the Indie logo grace the lid label, and the back label contains an ingredient listing, my website address and a notation that the balms were “Made especially for IBN by gcdspa.com.”

When passed, HR 5297 won’t help people like Emily because Emily doesn’t want a loan. Like many Indies, she is building her family business wealth slowly. She doesn’t want to go into debt at this time, and she doesn’t want to turn over ownership of her business in exchange for the ability to grow faster. She’s what I call a “consumer-business owner,” and HR 5297was not designed with them in mind.

About Emily

Emily has been a member of IBN since 2006. In this 2009 article from Indie Archives, I interviewed Emily about her business. Nearly two years later, GCD Spa is today going strong and growing, and Emily is fast becoming the company of choice for people who want customized lip balms to commemorate special occasions.

Here’s an update on Emily and how her business has grown over the past two years — with no small business loans and no employees except her, her husband and the help of family members and friends when needed.

The Launch

Emily launched Graham-Caswell Design, LLC in 2005. Before launching her business, she was employed as a graphics designer. She started her company in part because she wanted to be more available to her husband and two children, aged 10 and 12. Emily also realized that she could put her design expertise to good use designing her own cosmetics labels and also customizing designs to match the customized products she makes for wedding showers, bridal parties, anniversary celebrations and other special occasions.

What Emily Makes

Ninety percent of Emily’s products are customized to order and sold only once, and only to the customer who purchases them. Emily’s business requires her to respond to her customers on a moment’s notice. For example, one customer ordered lip balm favors for a bridal shower and requested her friend’s favorite drink flavor.

Emily’s stock lip balm line did not include that flavor, but after an inventory check, she was able to formulate a suitable flavor just for the client, and just in the nick of time for the shower party. This type of custom work is a special service Emily offers, and one that many customers request regularly.

Earlier this year, Emily took on her first “back bar” customer, a luxury hotel in Beverly Hills, Ca, which now uses her products on clients in their exclusive spa. She also landed her first wholesale account, which buys customized products for sale in a retail store in upstate New York.

In addition to making great products, Emily is a super fun person, as evidence by this guest blog post and her own blog.

Emily Would Not Take Out A Small Business Loan

When I asked Emily whether she would take out a loan, she said this:

NO, I would not take out a loan. That may help other small businesses, but I’ve never considered it. I have always bootstrapped my business, figuring that it grows at the rate I can handle it if I reinvest in myself and expand as I can afford to. Of course, I’m in a different position than other small businesses because we don’t rely solely on my income to support my family. I’m sure each business is different. But no, for me the loans are not as big an issue as over regulation.

Emily Is Not Alone

For a story reiterating how other consumer-business owners don’t want loans, even with President Obama’s new plans, read this August 2010 Wall Street Journal article about entrepreneurs Erica Duignan Minnhan and Susan Reiner, who said they “wouldn’t take out a bank loan if President Obama delivered it on a silver platter.”

Emily Is Growing!

Last year, Emily and her business were featured in Good Housekeeping Magazine. In May of this year, Emily and her husband began construction on an addition to their home, that is expected to become Emily’s manufacturing area. In the depressed economy in her town, Emily has hired electricians, plumbers and woodworkers to built out her manufacturing so she can grow her business.

I am thrilled to see that Emily’s business is growing. She’s recently been featured in a number of other women’s and wedding magazines. Her slow but steady growth has been good for her, good for her family, good for her community, good for the local economy, and good for America. Emily serves customers all over the nation and I am proud and honored to be one of them.

HR 5297 Won’t Help People Like Emily

HR 5297 is well intended. But “Small Business Jobs” in the name of the bill is aimed at jobs that don’t include people like Emily — the actual owner of the business — and those are the jobs that need to be addressed now.

The bulk of businesses that will benefit from this bill are not really “small.” They are larger businesses that can afford to hire several employees and/or that have the collateral or personal credit that’s necessary to secure a small business loan these days.

Those businesses are important, but they are not “small.” The definition of small has changed, and our government policies must now change with it.

The real Main Street economy is composed of consumer-business owners, artisans, crafters, Indies and family business leaders. These business owners make up the real Main Street. They are often not in a position to hire anyone, but they have hired themselves and that counts too! They don’t want mortgage their homes, their children’s college fund or their own 401Ks to build a business faster — and they should not have to.

As alluded to by Emily above, the challenge for the real Main Street is that the government is not in tune with how new laws, rules, regulations, paperwork, registration requirements, testing requirements, and other unnecessary and burdensome requirements are slowly strangling them to death. These are the issues Main Street is dealing with, and it’s time to address them. Seriously.

People like Emily helped to bail out banks, the automotive industry, and the nation’s “not so small” small businesses, and they’ve done so without complaining. Now, it’s time to empower them, financially and otherwise, to achieve their full potential as the leaders of their families and their businesses.

It’s time to look at newly introduced bills as more than just affecting businesses. It’s time to look at them as affecting consumer-business owners on Main Street — men and women who are losing their jobs, but working hard in jobs of their own creation. They are holding it together in a tough economy, and they should be recognized and rewarded for that.

So, Mr. President, with all due respect, is it Main Street’s turn yet?

I posed a similar question to the administrator of the US Small Business Administration yesterday in a post via the American Express OPEN Forum.

Question: What do you think?

My Question For SBA Administrator Karen G. Mills

Donna Maria — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 14:18:25 +0000

Enarlier this month, I met with leaders in the Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy, and also with Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Kaine to discuss the impact of current law and public policy on tiny companies owned by men and women across the nation. I sometimes call them Indies, or even “consumer-business owners”, because their lives straddle both categories of people. These tiny businesses are not “small” in the traditional sense. After all, a “small” business in this nation can generate millions of dollars in annual revenue and still be described as “small.” My message about “micro,” as opposed to “small” businesses was well-received by SBA staff.

This morning, John Jantsch Tweeted that Karen G. Mills, Administrator of US Small Business Administration (pictured), is accepting questions from small business owners via American Express OPEN Forum. I’ve been an American Express member since 1991, and have participated in the Open Forum since its inception. I jumped at the change to pose a question, and I am hopeful that Ms Mills and her team will respond to it. I was limited to 500 characters, hence a few abbreviations. Here’s what I asked:

How can we help you empower families to start businesses without loans? Today, men and women losing their jobs start businesses to support themselves. They don’t want a loan, and sometimes can’t get one.

Their businesses ARE their jobs, yet laws w/ unintended consequences, like Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, put them out of biz with no benefit to consumers.

These families don’t have lobbyists, yet new laws affect them more than large companies with such resources?

How can we help?

If you are a member of OPEN Forum, you can ask your question here. The live Q&A will be broadcast on OPEN Forum on Wednesday, September 29th at 2:00 pm ET. All questions must be submitted by 5:00pm ET Monday, September 27th. Speaker and broadcast dates are subject to change.

Question: Is this an important question? Did I make good use of my 500 characters? If you asked a question there, what did you ask?

My Meeting With Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine

Donna Maria — Fri, 17 Sep 2010 18:25:03 +0000

Last week, I shared some of the details of my meeting with members of the Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy. Yesterday, after being referred by Gina McCauley, host of the Blogging While Brown conference where I spoke earlier this year, I seized the opportunity to share with Tim Kaine, chairman of the Democratic National Committee (pictured with me below), some of my concerns about “consumer-business owners,” and about lawmakers’s support of legislation that would unnecessarily decimate small businesses.

While my focus was on small cosmetics manufacturers, due to the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010 (see this website for in-depth commentary and updates), I also expressed concern about the relationship between the high unemployment rate and the lack of support for very tiny startup businesses. Here is how Kaine and his staffers responded — my paraphrasing of course:

Two-Pronged Approach To Economic Recovery. Kaine said that there are two parts to the Obama Administration’s approach to stabilization of the economy. The first, which has just passed, is the stabilization of the banking and housing markets. The second is the creation of tax cuts and small business loan funding, including legislation that passed the Senate yesterday, establishing a $30 billion government fund to help open up lending for small businesses, cut their taxes and boost Small Business Administration loan programs. (ABC News coverage.) Kaine stated that these measures should address some of my concerns.
Barber Shop & Beauty Salon Meetups. Steve L. Walker, the Southern Regional Director of Organizing For America, a DNC project, said that “Beauty & Barber Shop” meetups are planned as a way to get people together to discuss issues affecting very tiny businesses. I was excited to hear this, especially since I serve beauty and barber industry participants. I’m looking forward to following up with Walker to make sure that my IBN members have a chance to participate in these discussions and share how new cosmetics legislation will affect their ability to successfully own and manage profitable cosmetics-related businesses.
New Media Outreach. While Kaine said that an outside firm has been hired to handle the DNC’s traditional media buys for upcoming campaigns, an internal group of social media practitioners are handling outreach to voters via social media. As Kaine put it, “Once an ad runs, it’s gone; then after the election’s over, it’s gone forever. But the build-up of people via social media never ever goes away.” As they did in the 2008 elections, it’s clear that the Obama campaign is poised to maximize the use of social media to reach voters.

This was confirmed by Greg Greene, the DNC’s Director of New Media Outreach.

It Is Good To Participate

Kaine was present in the meeting for well over an hour, and his staff stayed long after that to continue the conversation. I am excited to see the head of the DNC taking the time to meet with bloggers to discuss voter concerns. While my main focus was on small businesses, my fellow bloggers in attendance expressed numerous other concerns. Kaine and the staffers we open-minded and seemed genuinely interested in addressing everyone’s points of view, and also encouraged everyone to continue the conversations as we move closer to mid-term elections and, of course, another presidential election.

I am excited to have so many significant opportunities to represent my members to as many people as possible, especially those influencing the lawmaking process first-hand.

Other Attendees

While I was unable to collect the contact information for all bloggers in attendance, I did connect with: Danielle Celena Belton, JJ Ghatt, Kristal High (for Politic 365 and Leutisha Stills (for Jack and Jill Politics). There were many others, so if you were there and I didn’t get your info, please leave a comment here so we can connect.

It’s Not About Politics — It’s About People

Too many Americans are suffering, and that is not a political issue. Jobs are not a political issue. Each of us, regardless of political party affiliation, should do our part to pave the way for all Americans to successfully build wealth through small (or tiny) business ownership. I am hoping to create an opportunity to meet with Michael Steele, head of the Republic National Committee, to discuss similar issues. (Something for the vision board …)

Question: What would you tell Tim Kaine if you had the chance? What would you tell Michael Steele?

My Visit With Small Business Administration Officials

Donna Maria — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 17:01:28 +0000

As a small business advocate, I have always known of the US Small Business Administration’s (SBA) mission to help Americans successfully start, build and grow their businesses.

Last week, along with IBN members Jamyla and Pierre Bennu of Oyin Handmade in Baltimore, Md (Jamyla is pictured below), I had a behind-the-scenes look at how they accomplish that mission. This post summarizes some of what I learned, and encourages you to take advantage of SBA opportunities and benefits.

The Office of Advocacy: We were welcomed by the Assistant Chief Counsel for Congressional Affairs, Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy. The first thing he told us was that he was glad we were there, and that the always SBA wants to hear from small and independent business owners.

He informed me that, while the Office of Advocacy is funded by SBA, it operates as a separate and independent division of the overall agency. (He called the funding arm “Big SBA.”) The purpose of the Office of Advocacy is to work with legislative officials and agencies to ensure that lawmakers and policy makers are aware of the impact of pending and existing legislation and rules on small business owners.

The Office of Advocacy does not take official positions on pending legislation, but rather meets with elected officials to remain abreast of statutory changes and proposals and their impact on small companies. They meet with lawmakers regularly and are in a position to introduce us to influential decision-makers who want to hear from small companies so they can make create and implement laws and policies based, in part, on specific information provided by small companies.
Regulatory Input. Within the Office of Advocacy, a group of persons is responsible for working one-on-one with agency officials to ensure that new regulatory requirements do not unnecessarily burden small business owners. In our meeting, the Assistant Chief Counsel for Food, Drug and Health Policy at the Office of Advocacy described this process as collaborative and efficient.

When an agency is about to publish new rules, SBA, through the Office of Advocacy, has an opportunity to review them in advance. During this time, small companies can be in touch with SBA officials so they can discuss and/or recommend to agency officials appropriate changes before rules are published in the Federal Register. During this process, the drafts can be, and are frequently, changed based on direct input by this office.

(The efficiency and effectiveness of this process was confirmed in my meeting with an FDA attorney at Hyman, Phelps & McNamara. I encourage you to subscribe to this firm’s blog if you keep up with FDA issues.)
Stories and Stats. Both SBA officials emphasized the importance of stories and statistics, which they say go hand in hand to make clear the impact of new laws on small companies.

Stories are important because they put a face on the issues. Sharing still photographs, audio and video about you and your business are easy ways to use a well maintained blog to update the public and government officials about what you are doing. This way, you are never without an easy and personal way to show anyone how your business operates and how a new law might affect it.

For example, saying that your business would be adversely impact by a new law is one thing. Saying that it will be impact in specific ways (such as you’d have to hire 3 staff members at an annual cost of $50,000, or you’d have to purchase $20,000 in additional supplies in order to comply) is quite another. Combining the story with the statistics gives lawmakers something they can sink their teeth into and makes it easier for them to justify any changes.

That’s Jamyla! You can find your local SBA office using the map here.

As you may know, Washington, DC, is my hometown. As an interesting side note, I learned that four former co-workers and childhood friends are now employed in various capacities at SBA. That was a fun discovery! I enjoyed the opportunity to see some of the amazing ways these people have reinvented themselves as they have pursued their next careers!

Question: What do you think of how the Office of Advocacy can make a difference? Do you know where your closest SBA office is located? Have you taken advantage of what they have to offer?