You are here: Home / Regulations / The Real Cost of Unnecessary Pre-Market Test Proposed by Skin Deep & The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics

The Real Cost of Unnecessary Pre-Market Test Proposed by Skin Deep & The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics

Posted by on June 17, 2010 · 23 Comments 

There is a misperception that cosmetics are untested.  That couldn’t be further from the truth.  I’ve been formulating a new shampoo and I’ve had at my fingertips a variety of test results to help guide me in choosing the right ingredients to not only fit my standards for human safety but also environmental impact.  I have studies on the biodegradability, oral toxicity, eye irritation, contact sensitization, skin irritation, inhalation studies, 28 day subchronic toxicity study, mutagenicity, carcinogenicity, mammalian toxicity, studies on how ingredients interact, what percentages are best used, by products, pH, and every other detail you can think of needing to know before using the ingredient in a products.

A closer look at what Skin Deep and the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics wants legislated made me realize it isn’t the cosmetic ingredients themselves that they are demanding pre-market testing on, since most of those have a massive amount of pre-market testing already, it would be testing for finished products that they are seeking.  Since it is already illegal to sale a product that is contaminated in any way it isn’t the already required microbiological testing that they want, it is testing to show that from nature or as a by-product finished cosmetics do not contain anything from their list of ‘dangers’.

In order to show small businesses and consumers the impact of the legislation that organizations like Skin Deep and Campaign for Safe Cosmetic would require I researched the cost of having one batch of a single product one scent tested to prove that it is free of many of the alarm bells rung by Skin Deep and Campaign for Safe Cosmetics.

The tests it would take to get approval if Skin Deep and Campaign for Safe Cosmetics could force legislation through for additional regulation on the cosmetic industry would include:

$440.00 Paraben results in ppm
$950.00 Nitrosamine results in ppm
$950.00 Phthalate Free results in ppm
$700.00 per metal Heavy Metals (Lead, Arsenic, Cadmium) results in ppm
$275.00 Mercury results in ppm
$1185.00 Standard 9 Metals
$750.00 1,4 Dioxane results in ppm
$275.00 Formaldehyde results in ppm
$300.00 Ethylene Oxide results in ppm
$450.00 Residuals results in ppm
$1500.00 Fragrance allergens
$350.00 Fragrance Allergens Confirmation test per sample, per per allergen

Total $8125.00 or more pre-market testing per product

If testing was required per lot number per SKU of product the prices of cosmetics would sky rocket.  Even if the testing was required per formulation per SKU the testing would put the majority of small businesses out of business over night.  The testing is not only over the top, but it is uncalled for since all cosmetic chemicals are pre-market tested, all FD&C colors are premarket tested per lot per color and the ingredients are known to be safe based on testing and history.

PrintFriendly and PDFPrint Friendly
Be Sociable, Share!

More about the author:  Kayla Fioravanti is the Vice President, Chief Formulator, ARC Registered & Certified Aromatherapist for Essential Wholesale and its lab division Essential Labs. Read more from this author

Related posts:

  1. Opinion Poll :: Should We Give Up Lipstick, Candy, Water or Listening to Skin Deep?
  2. Personal Care Products Council Statement on Campaign for Safe Cosmetics’ “Market Shift” Report: Industry Safety Initiatives Have Produced Tangible Results
  3. The Real Story On Lead In Cosmetics

Filed under Regulations · Tagged with , , , , , , ,

  • Sagescript

    Well thanks for putting that in perspective Kayla. So are you saying that most consumers are not willing to pay $8,000 for a bottle of lotion? Another thing to consider then is how many products would actually even pass those tests? Even all natural cosmetics are going to have trace amounts of heavy metal in them from soil and water sources. Anything with essential oils in it will most likely have some allergens. So even if one could afford the testing, no natural product could pass it.

    • Kerrie9

      Foods in the US are regulated by the FDA I don’t know of any food
      product that cost $8,000. Regulation means saftey not always but
      for the most part. The only true all natural cosmetics I know
      of are regulated already because they are food grade they are regulated
      by the FDA. Correct me if I am wrong.

      • Anonymous

        Hi Kerry,
        thanks for the comment; my comment was 9 months ago so I am trying to remember the conversation. I think the original post here was in reference to the proposed legislation on cosmetics. This legislation proposed testing of final cosmetic products in a number of ways that would become very costly for the consumer. I don’t sell food so am not up on those regulations, but I am not aware of any testing of final products for the above contaminants that is required on food products. That is part of why this proposed bill was ridiculous; it would regulate cosmetics far more than food is regulated. And no, food grade cosmetics are not regulated any differently by the FDA than non food grade cosmetics; all cosmetics are required to not contain toxic ingredients.

      • Perry Romanowski

        Kerrie – “Organic” cosmetics actually fall under the regulation of the USDA. They are responsible for allowing the organic seal to be put on labeling. There is a conflict here between agencies because the USDA does not have the authority to regulate cosmetics but they are doing it in this specific case.

  • http://www.indiebusinessblog.com Donna Maria Coles Johnson

    This is a fantastic post, and confirms the craziness of what the Campaign For Safe Cosmetics is doing. I have been telling its leadership for over a year that their positions are headed to drive small businesses straight out of business for no good reason, yet they persist. Thank you for sharing specific numbers that we can use in our advocacy. The last thing we need is another CPSIA, which put tiny toy companies out of business because they don't have millions of dollars to perform tests that do nothing to protect consumers.

    • Kerrie9

      It is actually consumer driven. The majority want some kind of regulation.
      So don’t kill the messanger just listen to the message. I am sure compromise
      can happen to make both the cosmetics companies and the consumer happy.

  • http://www.wingsets.com Annrn @ Wingsets

    Kayla – YOU ROCK!! Very well written and I know it took precious time and effort to do it – so thanks very much!

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

    Lest we forget the Phthalate report on 60 minutes interview with a toy manufacturer who is able to remain in business, but explained how testing his telescope will cost him $8000.00 for just that single toy and he said the only place possible where there may be phthalates are deep within the telescope on a single part which is why the testing is so expensive, each individual part needs to be tested for them under the law congress passed last year based on one single, narrow study…shameful! And exposure….zero since the part is in a spot where it won't ever be seen, touched or tasted for good measure.

    • Kerrie9

      Katherine parents would rather be safe than sorry. Why run the
      risk. Parents are still buying toys and will continue to do so
      the extra cost is priceless for peace of mind. Fear based or not.

      • Perry Romanowski

        @Kerrie – the problem is that people are not consistent and have no good sense of risks. For example, it is much more dangerous to get in a car with your child than to let them play with a toy made with phthalates. People’s irrational fears should not dictate regulation. IMO – It should be guided by emotionless, rational evaluation of the risk.

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

    Thanks for this post Kayla! It is important for consumers to see a breakdown of what pre-market testing would cost. I'm not sure Bath & Body Works, Burts Bees and Lush's of the world would fork over $8k per product. I know I won't.

  • Sagescript

    Well thanks for putting that in perspective Kayla. So are you saying that most consumers are not willing to pay $8,000 for a bottle of lotion? Another thing to consider then is how many products would actually even pass those tests? Even all natural cosmetics are going to have trace amounts of heavy metal in them from soil and water sources. Anything with essential oils in it will most likely have some allergens. So even if one could afford the testing, no natural product could pass it.

  • http://www.indiebusinessblog.com Donna Maria Coles Johnson

    This is a fantastic post, and confirms the craziness of what the Campaign For Safe Cosmetics is doing. I have been telling its leadership for over a year that their positions are headed to drive small businesses straight out of business for no good reason, yet they persist. Thank you for sharing specific numbers that we can use in our advocacy. The last thing we need is another CPSIA, which put tiny toy companies out of business because they don't have millions of dollars to perform tests that do nothing to protect consumers.

  • http://www.wingsets.com Annrn @ Wingsets

    Kayla – YOU ROCK!! Very well written and I know it took precious time and effort to do it – so thanks very much!

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

    Lest we forget the Phthalate report on 60 minutes interview with a toy manufacturer who is able to remain in business, but explained how testing his telescope will cost him $8000.00 for just that single toy and he said the only place possible where there may be phthalates are deep within the telescope on a single part which is why the testing is so expensive, each individual part needs to be tested for them under the law congress passed last year based on one single, narrow study…shameful! And exposure….zero since the part is in a spot where it won't ever be seen, touched or tasted for good measure.

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

    Thanks for this post Kayla! It is important for consumers to see a breakdown of what pre-market testing would cost. I'm not sure Bath & Body Works, Burts Bees and Lush's of the world would fork over $8k per product. I know I won't.

  • Pingback: Sunday Beauty Reads, 20/06/10 | beautifulwithbrains.com

  • Cosmetic Chemist

    Kayla
    I am a bit confused? Are you saying you do all of the tests listed in your first paragraph on finished goods, or do you have them on the raw materials in an MSDS from the manufacturer? I would hope you are not doing mammalian toxicity tests with your products. Yet in another article “Consumers Should Get Cosmetic Safety Information From the Real Experts” you claim that going off of MSDS's to get safety data is irresponsible. Could you clarify this?

    In my experience with formulating personal care products, and working with standards, doing those tests on the finished goods would be superfluous. If you go to the manufacturer of the raw material you can get certification from them that these materials are free from whatever you are looking for. If you cannot trust the companies you are buying your raw materials from, why would you be buying from them in the first place?

    You seem to be using the same scare tactics you complain about. Looking over your list of tests, why would you ever test for ethylene oxide? any residual will react with itself to form the dioxane. You list searching for 13 metals, most of these metals are listed on an MSDS, at least the Hg and other heavy metals, once again trust your vendors. The fragrance and phthlate tests I feel would be superfluous as well. Most of the large fragrance houses can make fragrances phthlate free, and without EU allergens, but you have to go to them and specify this in advance, and be vigilant with them to ensure it is done properly. The Nitrosamines? We all know how to formulate to minimize the formation of nitrosamines. Do the tests if you want, but a decent chemist could formulate without having any formed, the real issue comes down stream where the chemicals meet other chemicals in the waste stream. Once again proper thought and planning can minimize this, stay away from secondary amines.

    I do find your take on the situation interesting, but with some pre planning and proper screening of whom you do business with much of this cost can be avoided.

  • http://twitter.com/LaurEss LaurEss

    I believe her point is exactly what you said, these tests are superfluous. However, we worry that legislation will be passed that will require all these unnecessary tests on our finished products based on the lobbying efforts of the CFSC and EWG.

    • Kerrie9

      and lobbying of cosumers who just want to go to the store and
      buy some toothpaste,shampoo,deodarant and know what we
      are buying want cause us any harm.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_RM6FYXYOF2F6DPIXTOEKXA3724 Bruce

    There will not be legislation requiring those tests passed. This is a scare tactic just like she is complaining about. Using reasonable judgement, and not using materials that are suspected carcinogens is not too much to ask. I would like to see one place where the EWG is asking for testing on ethylene oxide levels, or testing for allergens in fragrance. The allergens test is silly, we know what allergens are present in the essential oils, and if you are using synthetics, then your supplier should be able to tell you this. Why test? Lets stop with the scare tactics on both sides, and look for a rational reasonable way to make safer better products

    • Kerrie9

      Thank you Bruce. All in favor. I

  • http://twitter.com/LaurEss LaurEss

    This sounds great! I would love for this testing to never be required. Yet…. under the definition of Ingredient in the Bill it states that the definition of ingredient includes
    Sec. 611: “(E) contaminants present at levels above technically feasible detection limits;

    “(F) contaminants that may leach from container materials or form via reactions over the shelf life of a cosmetic and that may be present at levels above technically feasible detection limits;

    Then in Sec. 614
    manufacturers and distributors of cosmetics and ingredients shall submit to the Secretary…regarding the physical, chemical, and toxicological properties of single or multiple chemicals listed on the cosmetic labels under section 613, including—

    “(i) functions and uses;

    “(ii) exposure and fate information;

    “(iii) tests of finished cosmetics; and

    “(iv) any other information used to substantiate the safety of such cosmetics or ingredients.

    This says to me that we are required to submit to the secretary information on the physical, chemical, and toxicological properties (not just batch microbial testing) of single and multiple ingredients in our finished products. Now if we used a blending process that could have added a “contaminant” or our containers may have “leached” then we would need to do testing to list those accurately. Right? But what if we didn't introduce any contaminants during processing? How would we know without testing? Right? So this legislation although vague about what it exactly means, could very well be used for the exact purpose that Kayla spelled out. But come on, the government and the EWG would never really expect companies to do this would they? I would bet a million dollars this is exactly what they want and are planning to push.