You are here: Home / Information / Straight From the Horse’s Mouth

Straight From the Horse’s Mouth

Posted by on June 25, 2010 · 14 Comments 

Kristin and I started Personal Care Truth for a variety of reasons.  The main one being we were and still are, tired of the half truths and fear mongering floating around on the web.  The misleading information is sprouting up because of the alarmists cramming scare tactics down the throats of consumers.

When writing about the things we hear, see and do in the personal care products industry, it is really nice to have audio of scientific data or claims made by either side of the isle.  Kristin and I pride ourselves on providing truthful information and when we have the opportunity to share an audio of something we have both written posts on, well, it gives more credibility to our cause.

As my dad always says, “I’m from Missouri, you’ve got to show me”.  Well, here ya go.  You’ve read many posts that reference the Colorado Safe Personal Care Products Act that was brought before Colorado legislators back in March, 2010.  We’ve all quoted what we heard while listening live to the session.  Now, you can hear what we heard and then blogged about.  It’s hard to say you didn’t say something when there is a recording to prove otherwise.

For the record, I contacted Robin with the Colorado Legislative Council and received permission to use snippets from the recording I captured of the live session in March, 2010.

The following audio snippet contains Susan Roll, a social worker and a founding member of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, testifying as the Vice Chair of The Women’s Lobby of Colorado.  Ms. Roll was asked by Representative Daniel Kagan, “Where are the independent scientific studies”?  Listen below.

Wow! "We don't have the science".  Come on!  Do the alarmists really believe it is right to mislead consumers on a hunch?  On an educated guess?  All the while sending out newsletters asking for $5 here and $5 there.

As defined by Wikipedia, “The precautionary principle states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action”.  The truth is, in all the years personal care and household products have been on the market, they have been scientifically proven to be safe.  Remember, “the dose makes the poison”, which is a fundamental principle of toxicology.

With no scientific backup, Ms. Roll urged Colorado lawmakers to pass a law that would have limited consumer choice, strangled innovation and decimated thousands of small and family-owned businesses that are the backbone of the economy. I am relieved that Coloradans rejected the proposed bill. It would have had a needless adverse effect on the lives of the very women on behalf of whom Ms. Roll claimed to speak. – Donna Maria Coles Johnson, Indie Beauty Network

There is a great deal of danger in misinformation, half truths, bad science and the manipulated data used by organizations like Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, Environmental Working Group and Skin Deep.  Based on a “feeling” they are misleading consumers into believing the safe ingredients are dangerous.  Not only do these organizations have bad science, but they lack it all together, and yet they are leading a charge to nowhere.   I think that Nobel Prize Winner John C. Polanyi said it best, “Nothing is more irredeemably irrelevant than bad science.” – Kayla Fioravanti, RA, Essential Wholesale Labs

People generally view substances as either “safe” or “dangerous”, and unless they have studied a life science, they may find it difficult to grasp the concept that it’s just not that simple. The human body only reacts to a substance when its concentration crosses a certain threshold. Above that threshold dose, there is an effect (whether “good”, “bad”, or both) and below that, THERE IS NO EFFECT AT ALL!

Yes, there can be cumulative effects, when different or similar substances aggregate, or “conspire” together to cause an effect, even though each of the substances alone may be below threshold. And, chronic, occupational, or lifetime exposure to a substance, even at below-threshold levels, can be problematic. But, that’s really because the threshold actually needs adjusting. Toxicity levels for short-term exposure are quite different to those for long-term exposure.

Toxicologists address often address these issues by giving rodents quite high doses over two years, pretty much a lifetime exposure for a rodent. Then, they figure out the dose that has no adverse effect, and then scale it down, usually by 500 or 1,000 times, before extrapolating to humans. These “uncertainty factors” are the main way of taking into account all of the above issues, and the fact that rodents may be less sensitive than humans to the toxicity of the substance. Though in most cases, it’s the other way round. – Robert Tisserand, The Tisserand Institute

So based on conjecture, supposition and “educated” guesses the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics feels they can dictate what ingredients are safe for us to use by removing an individuals personal choice on what they wished to use on their own body through legislation, believing that only the government knows what is best for us.

This entity is extremely flawed and though perhaps well intentioned in the beginning as they gathered our signatures, they have now turned into a ruling authority utilizing political powers, dictating whether or not our products are toxic or that we may use toxic ingredients, and then instill fear in compact signers, they will be removed from the data base if they don’t comply.

These tactics are slowly eroding the foundation they were built on and I along with many in our industry, who have defected, and have seen the truth behind their agenda, are coordinating our efforts to attempt to undue the damage they have caused with their irrational thinking and illegitimate research. – Katherine Corkill, Sterling Minerals

Ironically, the very people who are trying to take these things away from us are the people telling you they are trying to protect them; the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. Its very unclear to me what their motive is and that of their parent group the Environmental Working Group. Out of an apparent fear of chemistry they want to ban an extraordinary number of chemicals from skin care, chemicals that we eat in our food everyday.

Their fear of chemistry is such that it prevents them from seeing that many of the chemicals they would like to ban are ubiquitous chemicals occurring naturally in our environment; chemicals that compose the aroma molecules of essential oils, the antioxidants of vegetable oils, and miscellaneous molecules of fruits, vegetables and herbs.

Did the relatively few small businesses that supported this bill even read the list of substances to be banned? I doubt it. If they had they would see that passing this bill would have made it impossible for any cosmetic company to manufacture or sell in the state of Colorado, including themselves. – Cindy Jones, Sagescript Institute

Personal care products are not introduced directly into your body in a dose (like a drug); they are not in any way introduced ‘in vitro’. They are leave on and rinse off.  If lotions really absorbed in all that well, anti-wrinkle creams would work like the packaging says they do.

We need to speak up for safe and knowledgeable regulation that takes into consideration natural occurrence and recognizes the difference between concentrated doses and personal care product use. Remember, salt and water can kill and no one is looking to ban any of those items. – Anne Marie Faiola, Brambleberry

It is surely of some considerable concern that a highly specialised, scientific subject such as toxicology relating to the safety of substances is being challenged by a social worker with no scientific background. If the lobby group that put Susan Roll forward as the spokesperson cannot offer a more credible champion, perhaps they should re-consider their entire strategy, i.e. disband.

It is comforting that the person putting the questions to Susan Roll was capable of coherent and logical thought processes and had an awareness of the difference between hazard and risk. It is less comforting to know that there are probably many hundreds, maybe thousands, of Susan Rolls’ around the world, lobbying for other causes of which they have a complete lack of insight or understanding. Susan Rolls is exactly the sort of person who would campaign for the banning of dihydrogen monoxide. I find it difficult to be more damning than that! – Dene Godfrey

By the time I found the link to listen live to the legislative session, 30 minutes of the opponents testimony had already passed.  The audio picks up at the end of Dr. Jones testimony.  If you would like to hear the 2 hours I was able to record, you can do so below.  {Apologies for audio quality.  I was in a mad dash to get it recorded once I found the live link}

Print FriendlyPrint Friendly
Be Sociable, Share!

More about the author:  Lisa is the CEO, Founder and Creator Extraordinaire of Cactus & Ivy, a manufacturer of cruelty free and vegan spa, bath and body products. Read more from this author

Related posts:

  1. Who is Personal Care Truth?
  2. Personal Care Truth Mission Statement
  3. 5 Ways The “Safe Cosmetics Act” Will Harm Consumers

Filed under Information · Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention Straight From the Horse's Mouth | Personal Care Truth or Scare -- Topsy.com

  • http://www.sterlingminerals.com/ Katherine

    APPLAUSE ……APPLAUSE! I need say nothing more!

  • http://twitter.com/essentialU Kayla Fioravanti

    The audio speaks for itself…the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, EWG and their database Skin Deep has no science.

  • Sagescript

    It will never cease to amaze me that they introduced this bill and that they think it has any validity or worth-fullness. Even their scientific expert could not back it. If they are really concerned about estrogens in the water system they should look at birth control pills and hormone replacement therapy.

  • Pingback: Is the Cosmetic Sky Falling? | Personal Care Truth or Scare

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_Q4WEO4ZI3U3TBHU2KNB6ULXZLM JakeL

    I have to say you have completely misinterpreted the precautionary principle here. The “action” referred to in this case is the ability of manufacturers to include certain ingredients in personal care products. Thus, the burden of proof to prove these ingredients are not harmful falls on the industry itself. Since hundreds of ingredients have not been tested for safety to this point, the industry continues to operate with little regard for the precautionary principle.

    Take the classic example of parabens – certainly controversial, with studies emerging on both sides of the issue (safe and non-safe). Triclosan is another example where the potential benefit does not justify their use over traditional, safe alternatives, given the potential risk involved. The simple truth is that they should be disallowed, not allowed, until the industry can point to substantial (non-industry-funded) studies which prove their safety. The burden should not be on consumer advocates to prove otherwise.

    I agree with your views that the dose level is crucial, and natural ingredients like olive oil should not be ruled out for minute traces of certain chemicals – however, neither does the industry provide information on how much of each ingredient goes into their products. Do you think a “nutrition facts” model is the answer, to fully inform consumers of how much of each ingredient is in their product and absorbed by their bodies, rather than simply the basic ingredient list? The Skin Deep Database works with the information that is available to them. If the “science is not there”, the burden is on the industry, not the consumers and their advocates, to do research into the safety of particular dose levels.

    If you think that the legislation is oversimplified, please do not respond with an equally oversimplified argument that “the science is not there”. There are hundreds of substantiated studies pointing to toxic effects of certain ingredients. Of course there needs to be more completed – but at the very least, you have to acknowledge that if the industry were asked to prove beyond doubt that all of their ingredients were safe in the long term for consumers, “the science is not THERE” either.

    I would appreciate if you would point out the exact pieces of the current bill you take issue with, and why, so that an informed debate could take place on the topic rather than a blame game from both sides.

  • http://www.cactusandivy.com Lisa M. Rodgers

    Hey JakeL -

    Thank you for your comments. An open dialogue is most welcome and the answer to your last paragraph is as taken from our petition, this is why the small business manufacturers oppose 'HR 5786 The Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010':

    While we are unquestionably in favor of safe cosmetics, this bill contains a number of unnecessary provisions that would decimate our nation's small scale cosmetics manufacturers without any benefit at all to consumers.

    This bill treats a company making 100 bottles of lotion each year the same way it treats a multi-billion dollar, multi-national company making 100 bottles of lotion each second. It is grossly unfair, unduly burdensome, intrusive and unnecessary in a number of aways, among them the following:

    Point 1:
    HR 5786 is unnecessary. Small cosmetics companies have a history of producing safe cosmetics pursuant to current laws that require companies to clearly identify the products they sell, provide all manufacturer contact information and truthfully label products with ingredients.

    Point 2:
    HR 5786 contains onerous registration requirements. HR 5786 contains intrusive and unnecessary requirements that would force small companies to disclose to the federal government information that the government does not need, which is unduly burdensome for small companies to provide and which does nothing to protect consumers from unsafe cosmetics. Specifically, in addition to having to register their company name and location, small companies would also have to file with the federal government product descriptions, product ingredients, trace ingredient in products, gross sales numbers, the name and contact information of the suppliers of the ingredients used in their cosmetics and their number of employees.

    Point 3:
    HR 5786 contains unnecessary labeling requirements. Current cosmetics laws already require small companies to list ingredients on labels. HR 5786 expands labeling requirements to include trace elements found inside those ingredients. For example, a product containing water (or any other natural ingredient), would have to contain a label listing the water and also every other trace element inside that water. (Water contains a number of chemicals, including nickel, lead, copper, silver and dozens more — depending on the water source.) Requiring small companies to include such a list on each label is onerous and unnecessary.

    Point 4:
    HR 5786 requires small companies to conduct unnecessary scientific testing. Under the bill as drafted, small companies would be required to test all of the products they make, and be in a position to produce data to the federal government about the ingredients, components of ingredients, and also, components that may be produced when known ingredients are combined. Those are impossible (and unnecessary) standards.

    Point 5:
    HR 5786 is anti-American. At a time when our Congressional representatives should be seeking to revitalize the American economy, especially where manufacturing is concerned, HR 5786 would eliminate it in cites and towns in every state across this nation.

    Point 6:
    HR 5786 specifically allows all 50 states to pass stricter requirements. Even with the sweeping nature of HR 5786, it specifically states that each state can pass additional laws as it sees fit. This provision is Congressional permission for each state to pass whatever laws it wants, creating a patchwork quilt of laws that no small company can comply with. If Texas adds labeling or manufacturing requirements that are different from HR 5786, and also different from other states, then no company will be able to sell so much as a quarter-ounce tube of lip balm without first checking to make sure they are not in violation of 51 separate cosmetics laws. No small company can do that (and most large ones can't either).

    Point 7:
    HR 5786 does not contain an exemption for small business owners. Many laws in this country exempt small companies because compliance would put them out of business without any real benefit to society. The same is true in this case. HR 5786 treats the smallest company making 50 products a day the same way it treats our nation's multi-million dollar companies. While there is an exemption from the annual payment of fees, the testing and paperwork requirements in this bill place burdens on very small businesses that are unfair, overreaching, unnecessary, offensive and intrusive.

    America's Small Businesses
    Our nation's small cosmetics companies are in large part launched by men and women who want to create alternatives to products that can be purchased at “Big Box” stores. They use a high proportion of naturally occurring ingredients when compared to larger companies, and they are not producing cosmetics on a large scale at all. And that's why their customers love their products, and that's why Congress must make sure that it passes no law that puts them out of business without any benefit to consumers. This is one such law.

    Summary
    Small companies are the backbone of our nation's economy. In fact, today, they are sustaining it almost single-handedly. As unemployment figures continue to rise, small companies are hiring employees, contractors, vendors and other small scale service providers to help their businesses grow.

    Consumer Choice
    At farmer's markets, locally owned spas and boutiques and in the retail stores that small cosmetics manufacturers are opening everywhere, consumers are able to choose to buy a wide and appealing variety of cosmetics to suit their personal needs. They can choose from products made by big companies and they can choose from products made by smaller companies. That choice will be removed if HR 5786 becomes law. if that happens, consumers will be left with a small selection of products sold only by our nation's largest retail chains.

    America is filled with talented innovators and entrepreneurs who don't need a big bank loan or a huge line of credit to manage a profitable business. Small cosmetics companies can continue to do their share to carry this nation, but not if HR 5786 passes.

    It is the duty of our Congressional representatives to pass laws that are carefully tailored to deal with specific problems that need to be addressed on a national scale. HR 5786 is not carefully tailored to help anyone.

    If HR 5786 as drafted becomes law, it will close multiple thousands of small companies immediately and in one fell swoop.

    This is why we oppose 'HR 5786 The Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010'. You can find the petition: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/oppose-hr-5786…

    Thanks and have a great day!

    Lisa

  • Dene Godfrey

    Thanks, JakeL, I WILL take the classic example of parabens, as you suggest. I presume that you have heard of Stacy Malkan, and you may even have read or participated in some of her blogs on her web site “Not Just A Pretty Face”, used to publicise her book of the same name. In a post earlier today, Stacy demanded that safety studies should be carried out; made public and assessed by scientists employed by the government in order to fully satisfy safety criteria. I took the trouble to point out to Stacy that there are many hundreds of published studies in peer-reviewed journals and that, in the European Union, there is a committee of independent scientists employed by the European Commission to scrutinise these published studies and assess the safety of the ingredient in question, and to give an opinion on its suitability for use in cosmetics. This system has been in place for over 20 years. This system meets all of Stacys demands that she makes of US legislation specifically regarding safety assessment. Additionally, in my reply, I pointed out that this independent group of experienced scientists recently issued a report that concluded that methylparaben and ethylparaben are safe for use in cosmetics at concentrations not exceeding 0.8% in total. I then challenged Stacy to accept that parabens were acceptable cosmetic ingredients, as the system that is in place for assessing their safety met all her stringent requirements. For some inexplicable reason, my post was not published. This is the second time that I have challenged Ms. Malkan on parabens, and it is the second time that she has found herself backed into a corner from which there is no escape – so she just censors the comments. At the time of writing this post, I have a pending comment awaiting “moderation” (quite an inappropriate word, under the circumstances), whereby I am challenging her to post my earlier comments and engage in an open and honest debate. She may change her mind; she may not. We will see . . , but I doubt that “credibility” will ever become her middle name!

    I have to take you to task regarding your comments about “not having the science”. In order to make a decision on health and safety of cosmetic ingredients, there HAS to be a scientific basis upon which that decision must be made. Toxicology is a science, so how else can the decision be made? If “the science is not there”, there can be no basis for a decision, so that is a perfectly acceptable and logical response, and it is not an oversimplification. The point is that Susan Rolls was representing an organisation trying to force adoption of legislation that required a science-based decision, and the science was NOT there. Making unscientific scientific decisions is less than an oxymoron – there is nothing oxy about it! Proving safety” without doubt” is not possible. Proving an acceptable level of risk based on current knowledge, however, is achievable, and has been acheived for many more ingredients than EWG are prepared to admit.

  • Dene Godfrey

    Let me offer an alternative definition of The Precautionary Principle:

    The Precautionary Principle states that as soon as a study is published that identifies any adverse effect for any synthetic chemical, regardless of the quality of that study, or any risk assessment carried out on the results obtained, the Environmental Working Group shall immediately post distorted and misleading stories around the internet, all of which must include the term “toxic chemicals” at least three times.

    Ridiculous? I think not.

    Returning to your/my earlier example of parabens – a study published in 1998 by Routledge et al, measured in vivo oestrogenic activity in butylparaben (and NONE in methylparaben). Despite the FACT that the activity measured was 100,000 times weaker than oestradiol, and even this minor effect required a dose around 4,000 times greater than any possible daily exposure in humans (plus intravenous injection to administer this massive dose, further exacerbating any adverse effect), this was seized upon as evidence that “parabens cause cancer”. Further exacerbation resulted from the publication of a candidate for the title of The Worst Scientific Study Ever Published in 2004 (Darbre et al), claiming to have detected intact parabens in human breast cancer tissue. This latter study was exposed by many commentators are being deeply flawed in many respects, and there is no unequivocal proof that parabens were actually present in the tissues as claimed and, furthermore, the conclusions of the study stated very clearly that the “findings” did not prove any link between parabens and cancer. That statement, and the other mitigating factors I have just described did not prevent the invocation of The Precautionary Principle and the subsequent campaign of hysterical opposition to their continuing use in cosmetics. So forgive my cynicism when the PP is mentioned, but it is an entirely subjective principle and, as I said before, not a basis for legislation.

  • http://twitter.com/SerendipityJane Lydia Proschinger

    Someone should stop the fear-munger’s strategies to manipulate the industry.

    This is like sending everyone to jail because they have the potential to harm someone, and only letting them out if they have proven to be on highly mind-numbing brain-drain drugs that make you incapable of using your free will…. HELLO!!

    Everyone knows that to develop cancer you actually have to be in a toxic and acidic pH state – cancer does not develop in a pH alkaline body.
    Thanks for posting this. This is not about “safety” it’s about money and power.

  • Pingback: Opposing Views Are Welcome | Personal Care Truth or Scare

  • Pingback: Vested Interest, Truth and Safe Cosmetics | Personal Care Truth or Scare

  • Earthangelminerals

    This is going to hurt all of us Indie Companies who really care about our ingredients & what we offer to our clients! I am making a name for my company & growing every year! If all this passes, it will put myself along with others totally out of business! When I first started this business, I did sign that compact because I thought it was doing the right thing! AS soon as I found out their agenda, I had them remove me off the list & told them the reason why. I actually received a reply from her telling me they would protect all the small indie companies & we would not be affected by the regulations like the big corporations! If you believe that…. :-)

    Shame on her for trying to persuade me to stay on the compact! I told her no thanks!

    Thanks for loading the audio! Its appreciated! I just don’t see how this could be happening in our country! It’s all about the mighty dollar & how much they can benefit! SHAME ON THEM!

  • Pingback: Speak Out About Massachusetts HO2361 | Personal Care Truth or Scare

Content Protected Using Blog Protector By: PcDrome.