The Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010 Has Been Introduced

by Donna Maria

The Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010 Has Been Introduced

Yesterday, I told you in this post to brace yourself for the Campaign For Safe Cosmetics’s (CFSC) latest effort to scare everyone into thinking that cosmetics are contaminating them with cancer causing chemicals. As I suspected, the video they are circulating today is filled with misinformation and generalities designed to imprint your brain with the impression that you cannot trust cosmetics companies to produce safe personal care products.

One thing not mentioned in the video posted here yesterday, or in the one released today, is that CFSC and Congressional representatives worked together to time the release of the new video with a star-backed (that’s where Fran Drescher comes in) Capitol Hill briefing slated to take place tomorrow (see below), and with the introduction just moments ago of the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010 by Reps. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisc.

As you probably know, CFSC is backed by a variety of powerful tax-exempt organizations, including the Environmental Working Group (EWG). These organizations are using scare tactics to collect money to fund their efforts to put you and companies in your local community out of business. (For a good summary of the money trail, including the fact that the top 8 EWG executives earned $1,185,775.00 in 2008.annually, click here to read all about it at Essential Wholesale’s blog.) Of course I could engage in a point-by-point blog debate about each misleading point raised in this video, but I think a better use of my time is to share these important things:

Sources tell me that the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010 seeks to charge cosmetics manufacturers an annual fee. We addressed a proposed user fee of up to $12,000 a year in the draft of the FDA Globalization Act of 2008. The fee was dropped from the FDA Globalization Act of 2009, which was introduced last year.

The non-profit organizations that sponsored this video will seek to revive that fee, forcing thousand of small companies to go out of business, and thousands more not to ever start.

UPDATE: Now that the proposed legislation has been published (PDF), I am slowly reading through it. The proposed law does instruct the FDA to impose fees, but such fees will “only be assessed on companies with annual gross receipts or sales of more than $1,000,000.”
Sources tell me that the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010 seeks to require cosmetics companies to test for specific ingredients and trace elements in cosmetics before they can be sold. Can you say C-P-S-I-A?

CFSC’s proposed legislation is apparently poised to ensure that every company in your community is closed — yes, maybe even the ones making a few thousand dollars a year making quarter-ounce tubes of lip balm with olive oil, vegetable wax and lavender essential oil. Companies making products will high proportions of ingredients sourced in your own local area will be forced to close down. You won’t see them at farmer’s markets anymore, and you won’t see them at your favorite boutiques. You won’t see them on the FaceBook or on their blogs.

You just may be limited to cosmetics made by big companies that can afford to test for everything imaginable. They may hire a few full-time employees to manage the newly required testing (one silver lining I suppose …). They will likely have to raise their prices to pay them. At the end of the day, you may not be able to buy the amazing Indie and artisan crafted products you love.
Celebrity star power and lots of money mean less opportunities for you and your neighbors to create any kind of business wealth to support your families and your community. Tomorrow, CFSC along with celebrity TV star and cosmetics company owner Fran Drescher, will host a briefing on Capitol Hill to discuss the new legislation. (Fran recently tweeted that “the jig is up” for the cosmetics industry.)

Such briefings must be planned weeks in advance, so it is no coincidence that the new Act is being introduced today, the day before the scheduled briefing.

I find it revealing that CFSC claims to be interested in acknowledging small business in its overall efforts, yet it works to introduce legislation that could decimate them (even the ones who signed CFSC’s Compact For Safe Cosmetics) without allowing anyone to see a draft of their proposals first.

Of course I don’t know exactly what the legislation says, so this post will be supplemented once I have a copy and have a chance to read it. I hope that our nation’s lawmakers will deliver on their promises to support the men and women who are leading small business in this country — who work hard every day to support their families and rebuild their communities in the midst of this country’s worst economic recession in generations.

I want to work with them to make sure that happens. Don’t you?

I have calls and emails into the offices of Reps. Schakowsky, Markey, and Baldwin to request a copy of the newly introduced Act. I will post it here as soon as I get a copy. I will keep you posted. UPDATE: Here’s a PDF copy of the proposed legislation.

Question: What are you willing to do to make sure your representatives live up to their promises to support small business owners?

You Might Also Like:

Tagged as: advocacy, campaign for safe cosmetics, cfsc, cosmetics, environmental working group, ewg, fda, fran drescher, public policy, regulation, safe cosmetics act of 2010, scare tactics, small business

posted on July 21, 2010 ·

Facebook comments:

http://www.soapylove.com Debbie Chialtas

I will certainly write a letter to them to state how backwards this legislation is, especially as we are trying to recover from the most serious recession since the Great Depression. How can the government squash entrepreneurs when small business is the best way to get our country back on its feet? Shame shame!
http://twitter.com/BathBodySupply Allison B. Kontur

I think the more important question here is, “Who is speaking for small businesses?” It is obvious to me that no consideration has been taken for anyone whose company makes less than a million dollars a year. Small business has already taken significant hits this year with new credit card regulations, taxes and now the “mandatory” health care debacle threatens to wipe out any chance of our small business being able to expand or even thrive. Now we have a consumer group spewing misinformation and fear tactics which threaten to not just make it difficult for small businesses to stay alive…they threaten to eliminate us. Over what?

I love this quote from the Personal Care Products Council’s president and chief executive officer, Lezlee Westine: “For decades, the industry has had an impeccable safety record under the existing requirements implemented by FDA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Our products remain among the safest in the marketplace.”

It seems to me that if our products are already “among the safest in the marketplace”, the newly proposed legislation is simply a method of eliminating competition while systematically wiping out the livelihoods of small business owners and their employees across the nation.

Forget about the American Dream, it's only available if you can afford it.
http://www.sarassoapsnsuch.com Sara

And let's not forget the “promises” our current president made in his campaign speeches about supporting small businesses with tax breaks and other legislation to help them (US!) thrive, recognizing that, as Debbie said, we're the only way to get the US out of this recession. I'll be right there in the midst of a letter-writing campaign. I've worked too darn hard to ensure I run my business by every letter of the law to have it pulled out from under me by a bunch of bureaucrats!
Julie Hammond

I hope that our nation’s lawmakers will deliver on their promises to support the men and women who are leading small business in this country — who work hard every day to support their families and rebuild their communities in the midst of this country’s worst economic recession in generations.
—————————————————————————————————————————
Donna, I do not think the above will happen. There is an underlying movement within our government. This pattern you are seeing is the same pattern that cheese makers are going through at this time in Texas.

The new regulations for cheese makers in Texas note many new expensive requirements including a $10,000.00 – $17,000.00 pastuerizer. It was noted in the pre-amble of these new regulations the hardship to small businesses – yet the regulations passed. It has also been proven to the state that pastuerization can be easily accomplished via a double boiler method on a simple stove. It has also been brought to the State's attention that the required chart recorder that they are wanting that charts the temperatures on the pastuerizer (not charted on the double boiler method) can be faked with a simple pencil drawing. So this does nothing for Food Safety.

In addition to this new pastuerizer (price varies depending on who you purchase it from) there are upgrades to all of the small farms to their facilities putting many out of business. Yet, the legislators continued forward and pass regulations they knew would put many small cheese makers out of business. In addition to upgrades for the cheese makers, there are also Grade A requirement upgrades to the many small farms who are supplying the milk for the cheese makers.

So, legislators will push this through even when they know it will put the small business out of business.

In addition to testing I have heard that you will have to manufacture in a commercial kitchen. Please note – Cosmetic products can not be manufactured in a commercial kitchen that is used for food manufacturing. So, for those who live in subdivisions who think they can just go out and rent a commercial kitchen – think again.

Best Regards,
Julie Hammond
Julie Hammond

It cost me: $1260.00 for 2 years for my Cheese License in Texas. Why is it going to cost me $12,000.00 to manufacturer my Goat Milk Lotion?
Anise_scout

I think you guys are missing the bigger picture of the issue. Irresponsible companies, big or small, should be held accountable for the ingredients in their products. Cosmetic companies have had the luxury of putting anything & everything in their products without any oversight for the past 34 years. Now studies are showing that some of these chemicals are dangerous to people and/or the environment. I don't think these are just “scare tactics” used by the EWG. Regardless of how much money their EO's make, the fact is: NO ONE knows whether these chemicals are safe. If studies indicate they may not be based on animal testing, then further studies should be done. I think this wait and see mentality is flat out criminal. I don't want myself or my family to be guinea pigs for businesses. If businesses (big & small) acted more responsibly, then maybe the Government wouldn't have to intervene! But, you guys probably don't have to worry too much. You have P&G and Johnson & Johnson up on capital hill lobbying to make sure this bill doesn't pass. So, we'll all continue to be a big biology experiment.
Rdusek

It's “deja vu' all over again”. During the CPIA debacle….on one of the note pages, it actually said something along the lines of 'Hey alot of small businesses are going to go under….oh, well',,,,that included me, I sure as heck hope I have a chance to start up this time.

Tracy Dusek
http://twitter.com/BathBodySupply Allison B. Kontur

Just want to point out that Proctor & Gamble is a member of the Personal Care Products Council who happens to be lobbying FOR the passage of a one size fits all law like this one. This legislation is only being introduced to pacify consumers who have been told rather forcibly by the CFSC and EWG that they are being “poisoned” by “irresponsible” businesses. This legislation is not about chemicals at all. This legislation is about regulating BUSINESSES.

Perhaps if you read the actual bill you would notice that it is requesting cosmetic manufacturers be held to the same standards they have ALWAYS been held to with one major difference…now we will be required to PAY to PROVE it. This will eliminate all small indie cosmetic businesses since we just cannot afford to pay thousands of dollars to register and test for trace chemicals. You can rest assured that you'll still be able to buy your bottle of Burt's Bees Cleanser (owned by Clorox, by the way) because Clorox can afford to pay the fees.
http://www.brambleberry.com/ Anne-Marie

This legislation is coming at a time when cosmetics and personal care consumers have never had more choice, nor have the products they have to choose from ever been more safe. Just look at these quotes from experts:

Pamela Bailey, President of the Personal Care Products Councill (formerly CFTA), stated in her April 12th testimony to the Energy & Commerce Committee, “Cosmetics and Personal Care Products are the safest category regulated by the FDA.”

Additionally, Stephen F. Sundolff of the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition stated, “The FDA’s oversight has ensured that the Nation’s cosmetics are among the safest in the world.”

The experts quoted above believe the system is already working. It is illegal to manufacture cosmetics that are unsafe. It is illegal to put heavy metals in your products. Yet, the data continues to be bandied about there are 'all of these chemicals' that are poisoning us with scant evidence to prove that to be so.

What we do know: Obesity, smoking and drinking alcohol to excess ARE killing us slowly through a range of medical problems, including increased cancer rates. Why isn't anyone trying to legislate that?
Anise_scout

Actually, I did read the bill and the bill I read stated a fee would only be accessed to companies with annual gross receipts or sales more than $1,000,000.00. This bill is also restricted to businesses in the cosmetic industry, not all businesses. If you had read the bill, you would know that it does not hold companies to the same standards they have today. The last law written in 1976 listed specific chemicals that could not be used in products and established the EPA to enforce it, but it did not require companies to test or prove the ingredients they put in their products to be safe. So, for the past 34 years, companies have been allowed to produce products with ingredients that no one has tested to be safe. Quite frankly, if “small indie cosmetic companies” can't afford to test their products for safety, I don't want them in business. If you can't afford to test your product, then you shouldn't be in business. Personally, I don't want the government to get involved. They typically make more of a mess then actually fix things. But, I do believe there is a lot unknown about all the chemicals that are being unleashed on us. I read somewhere there are 85,000 chemicals in everyday products and we know the health affects of about 200! So, the legislation IS about chemicals and if all these chemicals are safe, then great! Test them and prove it. The EU just recently passed a similar law and already they have banned several chemicals that after being tested proved to be human carcinogens. Also, if these businesses want to sell in Europe, they are going to have to do these tests anyway. One other point: I'd like to read this one size fits all law that PCPC is lobbying for. Sounds like the inmates running the jail, but would make for an interesting read. By the way, I'm not worried one bit about having product available to me. I don't buy most of that crap in Target & Walmart. I'd much rather buy from small businesses and I do. BUT if they can't reassure me that the ingredients in their products don't cause cancer, then I wont buy from them either.
David Fisher

There's a thread of conversation/information that I haven't seen figured very prominently in the conversation just yet.

While certainly putting small/indie businesses OUT of business is a great argument, especially in this economy, and to economic development legislators in general – we need to remember that our whole industry's renaissance – pioneers like Sandy Maine and Ann Bramson – got started to embrace the very ideals that this video is espousing – to put more natural things on our bodies – and have a smaller footprint on the earth. As small soap and cosmetics manufacturers, we come from that natural heritage. Now many of us may be using fragrance oils and preservatives, or other chemicals that we're not quite sure what they are…but I still believe that the foundation of our industry is based in simple natural products, made by people you know, that you feel confident in using.

Another notion I keep thinking about, and I'll throw it out there at risk of being flamed, is that while any manufacturer savvy enough to be reading this board most probably has impeccable ingredient knowledge and safety standards, how many craft shows have you been to where you've seen sheer garbage being sold? Improper labeling, misinformation about ingredients and the products. Our industry is being brought down to its lowest common denominator by these unprofessional crafter/hobbyists. Perhaps somewhere in an ultimate compromise, there will be a way to regulate those folks out of business, but not those of us who are serious, conscientious, informed, care-filled indie business owners. It's a tight wire to balance on.
http://www.indiebusinessblog.com Donna Maria Coles Johnson

I won't flame you, David, and I don't think anyone else here will either. My Editorial Policies state that rude and flame-type commenters will be banned.

You make an interesting point. I offer training to IBN members and it's covered by their dues. In fact, we have a regulatory training webinar set for next week with an FDA official who is willing to take an entire afternoon to meet with serious cosmetics companies to answer questions and offer guidance on FDA laws. I made it available to non-members for a reasonable price. The link is here for anyone interested: http://cosmeticordrug.eventbrite.com/

I am not the only person offering assistance. Marie Gale has a fantastic book out on labeling, and other organizations offer FDA compliance events (virtual and in-person) regularly. Not only that, the FDA's website is quite user-friendly when it comes to most of the regulations. I cannot speak for the companies you are describing, but I can agree with you that any company of any size that is not complying with current law cannot advocate with a straight face about proposed legislation. And yes, they can adversely affect our efforts simply by existing.
Anya

Not worry- fee only goes for big companies,but what about testing your own products?Any ideas? Not on animals for sure.On friends and family?
David

I have only skimmed over the pdf legislation. Does it list what chemicals are the ones that are being deemed harmful?

And isn’t the supplier (someone like Essential Wholesale or Wholesale Supplies Plus) the one who has to pay for the testing before they sell it? If I would purchase something like Sodium Laurel Sulfate I would want to know that 1) whether it was tested on animals 2) whether it was tested at all 3) whether it fits the current federal guidelines as a safe ingredient for the body). But it seems this legislation is saying that whether the supplier tests it or not, I still have to pay for the test to prove its safety? I’m confused
http://twitter.com/BathBodySupply Allison B. Kontur

I think you're missing the point here. Indie businesses have some of the safest and most natural skincare products on the market. If this bill had been passed years ago, then we would not have natural skincare companies like Burt's Bees or Tom's of Maine to name a few. These businesses started as Indie Businesses. (Burt's Bees was bought by Clorox and Tom's of Maine was bought by Colgate-Palmolive when these larger companies deemed that “natural” could be profitable.) These companies started small and they wouldn't have been able to afford testing on products that have already been approved for use by the FDA either. I'll repeat myself again, this bill is not about eliminating chemicals. It's about regulating businesses.
http://twitter.com/ChooseWiser Kristi Marsh

I am so confused! I thought the Personnel Care Products industry just announced through a press release last week with headlines “Cosmetics trade association the Personal Care Products Council has asked the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to play a larger role in the regulation of cosmetics products in the country. ” They want change – acknowledging change is needed and they cant do it. There doesnt seem to be consistent message coming from PCPC.
David C. Steinberg

Just to show you, that all of you will be put out of business: “The name, identity, and structure of a chemical substance, contaminant, or impurity that is an ingredient and all information concerning function, exposure,”

I would love to see the structure of any “natural” ingredient.
http://www.indiebusinessblog.com Donna Maria Coles Johnson

Yes, David! And this affects all businesses, not just “small” ones, yes? It seems impossible to comply with, even if you have the best scientific testing equipment in the world at your finger tips. Am I overstating that?
http://www.indiebusinessblog.com Donna Maria Coles Johnson

The legislation as drafted seems to me to be overreaching, unfair, unnecessary, reactive, offensive and intrusive. It exposes the ugliest parts of how our government works and how “public interest groups” can use scare tactics to impact public policy.
maggiemahboubian

So you would rather have your government tell you what is safe rather than take responsibility for yourself, especially when you have a choice in the matter? I know my products are safe because I can eat the ingredients I use. Still, I educate myself on every ingredient, whether it's something I eat or use on my body. Even water can be toxic if too much of it is ingested, so how can you truly legislate even the most “benign” ingredient? At a certain point every individual needs to take RESPONSIBILITY for their own safety and fortunately there are a lot of choices out there to make it easy. If this legislation passes, the choices you enjoy will be gone and guess what . . . you'll be stuck with the very companies you're railing against, the Proctor and Gambles, the Johnson and Johnsons. Only they will be able to survive the cost differential. Remember, it won't just be the fees we'll have to pay, but surcharges on every ingredient. You would be naive not to rethink your stance. I understand where you're coming from as I come from there too (why do you think I started making my own skincare?), but I also see the other side of the fence. Don't let them laugh all the way to the bank because they scared you into changing the laws when it really wasn't necessary. Take advantage of the current laws that REQUIRE disclosure of all ingredients for free (except for fragrance, in which case you can elect not to buy that product). If this law is enacted, among other things, we'll have to pay to list our ingredients, a cost many of us cannot afford. There will still be questionable ingredients in personal care products and you will still have to educate yourself and use your best judgement at the cash register. But you won't have a handmade, fresh to order or customized product. You can bet on that! At least now you have the option NOT to buy commercial personal care products and pick a safe alternative. Exercise it!
maggiemahboubian

Again, only YOU can reassure YOURSELF if the ingredients in a product are ok to use. I'd like to see you take responsibility for yourself and become an educated consumer regardless of the legislation. Really, are you going to blindly trust that the government is going to determine that safety for you? Creating a nanny state is not going to make personal care products any safer. Not even the food industry is held to these ridiculous standards. Sugar causes type 2 diabetes which is epidemic. You don't see the government banning sugar. As a consumer it is your RESPONSIBILITY to not buy products with sugar in them, knowing what it can do. In fact, I'd even argue that sugar is far more dangerous than many of the ingredients found in commercial personal care products.
ter456

Great response Allision…and that is what is at the crux of this matter. That small companies who are not using toxic ingredients are going to have to pay to proove this…and almost any natural ingredient (as Cindy Jones so expertly pointed out) is going to have trace ingredients that come from the soil, etc. So, we are in danger of having beneficial and safe botanicals and extracts outlawed completely. This could turn into a sciene fiction movie!
Anonymous

It’s clear that the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics isn’t trying to harm business, big or small. PLEASE see for yourself and don’t be misinformed: http://www.safecosmetics.org/article.php?id=695#small-business
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1505915866 Amy Sprewell

I have to agree with you here on this one, too. I have seen what you are talking about and it's a toss up. It may weed out the bad and “pop up soap shops” at the craft shows. Don't flame me folks either, but I don't sell at craft shows anymore and I have a hard time getting in because my products look “too commercial” for the jurors. Fine by me. I take it as a compliment now days.

My only concern is the supply of products in smaller quantities, the insurance, the reporting to the FEDS, and just big government being in MY business. From the moment I wake up til the moment I go to bed. Enough already…
http://www.indiebusinessblog.com Donna Maria Coles Johnson

Hi Amy! I won't flame you — it's not tolerated here. You're right. There are a lot of people selling substandard products out there. But that is an enforcement issue — it's not a legislative one. If the FDA needs more resources to enforce laws already in place, that's one thing. Whether Congress should pass new laws that place burdens on companies that are not necessary to accomplish specific legislation goals is a different issue altogether. If you are concerned about the government not taking action that eliminates “products made in smaller quantities,” then you probably understand the difference between legislating small companies out of business and legislating in a way that curbs the behavior of manufacturers in a way that genuinely helps consumers.

Thank you so much for being here and for sharing your views and concerns!
http://www.indiebusinessblog.com Donna Maria Coles Johnson

Thanks for your comment and questions. I don't see a company grossing $1M a year as a “big” company. The US Small Business Administration defines a manufacturing company as small even if it makes up to $7M a year.

A few other things concern me — should cosmetics businesses have to pay the federal government to regulate them? I don't think that's a good precedent to set in the cosmetics industry, which as a very good track record of safety. And even if the “big” companies only had to pay the fee, what does that mean for you if and when you decide to become a “big” company. Will the fee be OK for you then? One final question — the fee would be passed along to small companies anyway because the suppliers that must pay it will raise their prices. This will increase everyone's costs — yours as a manufacturer and the price paid by consumers when you have to raise your prices.

You hit a big nail on the head with your question about testing. It's no necessary, especially for small companies that are already using documented and safe ingredients in their products. Forcing us to test will put us out of business with no benefit to consumers. The only effect on them will be that they'll have less small scale manufactured, locally produced, safe products to choose from and they'll have to pay more for them.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and questions, Anya!
http://www.indiebusinessblog.com Donna Maria Coles Johnson

I'm with you, Tracy! Let's stand together for our nation's small and independent businesses!
http://www.indiebusinessblog.com Donna Maria Coles Johnson

Glad to have you on board, Sara! I remember very well what President Obama promised. Having said that, I don't think he was talking about “small businesses” the same way we are. We're different in many ways from “small” businesses the way our nation's lawmakers look at them. We have to educate them about who we are and how new laws can and should address our unique needs and the unique needs of our customers. Thanks for your comment!
http://www.indiebusinessblog.com Donna Maria Coles Johnson

Hi Allison! Good question — who is speaking for the “real small businesses” of our nation? Well, I'm headed to the US Small Business Administration with some IBN members in a few weeks to ask that question and to offer our assistance to them. My goal is to meet with them so they have faces to “small,” and can get a better understanding of our needs and how they can serve us better. Can't wait to share how it goes!
http://www.indiebusinessblog.com Donna Maria Coles Johnson

Shame indeed! Hopefully your letter and others will help open their eyes and we can work together to create new cosmetics legislation that is truly helpful without unduly burdening America's “real” small businesses!
http://www.indiebusinessblog.com Donna Maria Coles Johnson

It shouldn't cost you, and that's why we are working with the powers that be to create something that will serve legitimate government goals without decimating small companies like yours. Glad to be in the mix with you, Julie!
http://www.indiebusinessblog.com Donna Maria Coles Johnson

I cannot speak for PCPC, but it's clear they believe some new laws are necessary. I don't read from their press release that they thing SCA 2010 is a good way to go though.
http://www.indiebusinessblog.com Donna Maria Coles Johnson

Yes! It's important to not just watch videos and read other people's blog only. You have to read the legislation for yourself in order to be informed. That's the only way you can make a meaningful contribution to the discussion. Thanks for the reminder!