The Safe Cosmetic Act of 2010 is Not the Solution

I’m taking a moment to update you all on new proposed cosmetic legislation that will ultimately impact everyone, from large cosmetic companies, to small, green indie manufacturers (like me), to anyone who sells personal care products and cosmetics, to you, the consumer.

HR 5786 The Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010 was released last week. I’ve had a chance to read through the document multiple times and have huge concerns and questions with the bill as drafted. The entire bill can be downloaded by clicking the link above. In attempt to share my personal experience and not turn this post into a novel, I’m directing you to check out these posts that summarize and highlight just some of the many issues with the Safe Cosmetic Act of 2010 draft. I urge you to read the bill as well.

Comments & Concerns Regarding The Safe Cosmetics Act 2010

Safe Cosmetics Act 2010

Interestingly enough, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (CFSC) released The Story Of Cosmetics, a “shockumentary” on cosmetic safety on the very same day this proposed new legislation was released…

This was no coincidence.

It’s time to tell my own personal story, something I have been a bit hesitant to do publicly up until this point. An important note to all those who support CFSC and the new bill, the signers of the Campaign For Safe Cosmetics Compact were not notified in any way shape or form as to the lobbying and orchestrated release of the CFSC video with the proposed legislation draft.

I know this first hand because The Grapeseed Company is still listed as a Compact Signer… even though I have asked multiple times to be removed due to the detrimental direction the Campaign was heading in squashing small businesses, along with the lack of science behind their agenda. I last attended an annual compact meeting at Expo West in March 2009 where I was threatened if I did not update my products in the Skin Deep system, my company would be removed as a Compact Signer. That was 17 months ago. I have not updated my products in their system, and have not been removed from the Compact. I have chosen to register with the FDA Voluntary Cosmetic Registration Program (VCRP) and have always listed our complete ingredient decks on my company’s website. I have sent multiple emails asking to be removed from CFSC completely, the latest sent just last week asking for confirmation that my company is removed.

I still have not been removed as a Campaign For Safe Cosmetics Compact Signer.

Lisa Rodgers, my co-founding partner at PersonalCareTruth.com and I have directly tried to work with the CFSC. After the proposed Colorado Cosmetic Bill failed, the co-founder of CFSC left multiple comments at Green Skincare Blog. Following our online interaction, Lisa and I had a conference call with Stacy Malkan, co-founder of the CFSC, about our concerns with the Campaign and lobbying for legislation that would hurt the small, innovative, natural companies. Stacy commented during our conversation, and in writing on my blog that her “view on Skin Deep is that it is not a perfect system and never can be, because of what it is trying to do — analyze an entire industry based on available data, which is very limited due to the historic lack of safety regulations for chemicals.”
I am still perplexed by the fact that co-founder of CFSC herself is pointing out flaws with the Skin Deep rating system CFSC Compact Signers are required to register their formulas in! I do not want my business associated with an organization lobbying to put me out of business based on fear mongering and lack of science. I support safe cosmetics based on scientific research. CFSC has not shown the science to back their rating system in Skin Deep.  The way this bill is written would impose huge fees on companies big and small which we will all end up seeing when we purchase our daily essentials, from soap to mascara.

So while CFSC is touting support for this bill from their Compact Signers, I must ask:

  • How many other companies are there out there like me who have asked to be removed and the CFSC has not complied?
  • Why haven’t they complied? (I think I know the answer to this one… but what do you think?)
  • How many of the companies on their signer list have gone out of business and are still listed as compact signers?
  • How many are just plain scared to be removed due to the obvious power this “nonprofit” currently has over our government and pending legislation? (if you’re wondering why “nonprofit” is in quotes, read The Revealing Truth of the Money Trail of EWG)

We all want to make sure the personal care products we use are safe, but do we want our government to create a paperwork nightmare that regulates down to nanoparticles when we don’t have the science (ironically from the words of Susan Roll, a founding member of CFSC) to back it? You can listen to Ms. Roll’s live statement from the Colorado hearing by clicking the link above. There may be room for improvement in FDA regulations concerning cosmetics, but The Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010 in it’s current form is is not the solution.

I urge you all to voice your opinion, write your representatives, sign the petition and oppose The Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010 in it’s current draft. If you’re interested in learning more about the science behind what’s in your skin care products, check out more articles under ingredients and science here at Personal Care Truth.

This bill will not ensure your body is safer.

It will make the price tag on your personal care and cosmetic products much higher.

It will squash small businesses paving the way in innovation and green cosmetics right out of the industry.

  • We need to be vocal, not scared. We need to tell our stories. We need to stand up to the CFSC and make sure they are not using our businesses as “numbers” to show support of this bill. You may feel the impact in your wallets if you don’t. No matter how green you consider yourself, we all use personal care products daily. This bill will impact everyone.

Perhaps this post will finally get me removed from the CFSC Compact Signers list?

As I step off my soap box, I have one last thought that has been lingering in the back of my mind for months… why is the government targeting the cosmetic industry? We have a proven track record of safety. What you apply to your body doesn’t affect your system in the same way as what you put into your body… if we’re concerned about health issues, cancer and safety, shouldn’t we be scrutinizing diet, fitness and lifestyle choices first? Things that are actually scientifically proven to affect health? We have no legislation in place to cover what we eat or our lifestyle choices… why is the target pointed at the cosmetics industry?

Be Sociable, Share!

More about the author:  Kristin is the founder & CEO of The Grapeseed Company ~ botanical beauty from the byproduct of wine. She creates handmade skincare with organic and local ingredients in Santa Barbara, CA. Kristin blogs at GreenSkinCareBlog.com Read more from this author


Related posts:

  1. Why I Oppose H.R. 5786 Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010
  2. ICMAD – Update: Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010
  3. Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010
  • Pingback: Tweets that mention The Safe Cosmetic Act of 2010 is Not the Solution | Personal Care Truth or Scare -- Topsy.com

  • http://twitter.com/flowerpeddler Michele

    Great post Kristin! I too was an early compact signer. After months of requesting my company's name be removed from the list, I finally received notification yesterday that it had been taken off. I hope they do the same for you.

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

    Great post Kristin. August 7th will be my 2 year anniversary of not being a signer. It took me numerous email attempts to finally be removed as a compact signer

    As for the database, in my experience, it is the signers responsibility to remove their products from the Skin Deep database. Once you remove your products, the website will reflect the changes in 24 hours.

  • soapbartender

    After numerous requests over many many months (and even an assurance that I would be this past spring) A Wild Soap Bar is still waiting to be removed from the compact! This is reprehensible behavior and there is absolutely no other reason for it other than they want to falsely bolster the numbers of those who appear to back their agendas. Sure, the idea of making cosmetics safer is a noble one, and I agree that the FDA (or any other governmental agency for that matter) and the big cosmetic corporations do not have the consumer's best interests at heart…but… the fact that the CFSC has continued to display so many “compact signers” against their will, is in and of itself enough reason to totally discredit their efforts in my eyes. This is not an honest way to run a campaign. What else are they manipulating behind the scenes? And what other tactics are they willing to stoop to?

  • soapbartender

    And you can't just remove your products from the Skin Deep database either, I tried. You have to ask the EWG.

  • http://greenskincareblog.com/ Kristin Fraser Cotte

    That's great Michele. For some reason I have not received any notification from them yet. A college suggested threatening legal action. That's what she had to do to be removed as a signer. Hoping I do not have to go that route… and wondering why it's been so hard for those of us to sever the ties.

  • http://greenskincareblog.com/ Kristin Fraser Cotte

    I've received many tweets, fb, and emails since the podcast yesterday with small companies like ours singing the same tune. I agree and well said, this is not an honest way to run a campaign.

  • soapbartender

    Then the EWG tells you they can't remove your products because you're a compact signer! ♪♪♫ Welcome to the Hotel California! ♪♫

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

    Wow! They must have changed the way they do things. When I contacted EWG about removing my company, I was told since I had already deleted my products that the website would update within 24 hours.

  • soapbartender

    BREAKING NEWS: A Wild Soap Bar has FINALLY been removed from the compact! (musta been the Hotel California comment below….hehehe)

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

    Well alright then…bringing this issue out in the open like this will make them rethink their position on hoarding signatures when signers want off the list…perhaps their astroturfing is finally getting exposed…

  • http://twitter.com/LaurEss LaurEss

    I was told LaurEss would be removed, yet we still are listed. I am also considering legal action. I knew in my gut when I signed that compact it was a bad idea, I should have trusted my instincts.

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

    In an exchange with Stacy Malkin at her blog, she seems to have blocked my name in regard to placing links to the science I could offer since I could no longer add them…It appears that it is only their debunked science which matters and all else should be ignored.

    So much for stating truth and research with actual data to substantiate claims…Boy are they the best astroturfers I have come across.

  • http://greenskincareblog.com/ Kristin Fraser Cotte

    I just sent my 4th request to be removed directly to Lisa Archer, forwarding the 3rd request I made 7/13/10. If anyone needs her email, feel free to contact me through the contact form above. I have been told by others who have struggled with this issue that Lisa actually will get you off the signer list. It's disturbing how many of you have struggled with this. Thank you for helping to bring this issue out in the open and for your emails, tweets, FB, and comments here about it.

  • http://greenskincareblog.com/ Kristin Fraser Cotte

    we've finally been removed as a CFSC signer! No one bothered to respond and let me know even though I asked for email confirmation when this was completed. I did a search in their database this morning and am no longer there. Glad I'm finally off, and not surprised they did not bother to respond to my 4 written requests for email confirmation when removed.

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

    It's about time and it's nice to see you aren't listed in the Skin Deep database other than to say you are not a compact signer.

  • http://twitter.com/flowerpeddler Michele

    So glad to hear Kristin!

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention The Safe Cosmetic Act of 2010 is Not the Solution | Personal Care Truth or Scare -- Topsy.com

  • http://twitter.com/4mundollc sevi kay

    We have asked to be removed last year and are still waiting! Actually, we were in the first 30-40 people who signed with CFSC when they first started their “non-profit”. After seeing the direction they took, including turning a deaf ear to all the feedback indies (that built them) were giving, I knew it was time to ask for our removal. Still waiting….

  • http://greenskincareblog.com/ Kristin Fraser Cotte

    a rather upsetting update: The Grapeseed Company is STILL LISTED as CFSC signer! I really cannot believe this- not only is it not honest to run a campaign this way, it's downright offensive that I've asked to be removed 4 times and they have not complied. When I searched this morning in their database, I searched under “The Grapeseed Company” my company name… someone just brought to my attention that I'm still listed here http://bit.ly/aa5xlg under “Grapeseed Company, The”. I guess I'm calling my lawyer in the morning… how horrible to have to go to these lengths to be removed, and pathetic on the part of The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics for not complying with our requests. That alone should speak volumes to the public and our government about how this campaign is run.

  • http://greenskincareblog.com/ Kristin Fraser Cotte

    Sevi, there are so many of us in this situation. I hear more and more each day since I wrote this post… the only thing I can conclude is they are in desperate need to show support from small, green companies like ours. It's sad really….

  • http://twitter.com/LaurEss LaurEss

    We were finally removed from the signers list after I e-mailed Allison Veen and then wrote a comment on their Twitter feed about waiting to be removed. However we are still in the skindeep database. Try Allison and leave a statement of their refusal to remove you on the safecosmetics twitter feed and you will probably be off in a matter of minutes. I just wish I could figure out how to get my products off the database since my originally all green 0 products are all creeping up into the yellows despite no changes to the formulas.

    You may have already read my post about this on facebook, but if you didn't or anyone else is struggling to be removed, this may help.

  • http://twitter.com/LaurEss LaurEss

    In a quick breeze through the “B”s in their alphabetical listing of signers, I stumbled across 5 ***update make that 8*** links to business webpages that are gone or closed. I can only assume they went out of business. Although I did find one that is listed twice as if it is two signers. One there is a typo in the web link and the second leads to the standard empty url advertising. I bet if they removed all the companies that asked and all the companies that are no longer in existence, their supporter list would be back to the one page listing it was when I joined.

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention The Safe Cosmetic Act of 2010 is Not the Solution | Personal Care Truth or Scare -- Topsy.com

  • http://greenskincareblog.com/ Kristin Fraser Cotte

    I sent an email to Allison Veen on 7/13/10. I sent another to Lisa Archer this week. I've left comments in @safecosmetics twitter feed and wrote this post which was published on GreenSkincareBlog.com and here. I've left multiple comments in their twitter feed. The only thing I have been removed from is the email list, since I did not receive the email sent a few days ago about how we were saying the bill was against small businesses. Someone else who is trying to be removed as a CFSC signer forwarded it to me. I'm still listed as a signer on their site here http://bit.ly/aa5xlg

    It's so pathetic and unfair they are holding on to us against our will. I'm calling my lawyer as soon as it's 9AM California time. This is taking priority today over my 1 time per year of visiting with 20 family members on vacation. I want to see removal today. Thanks for the info LaurEss and I'm so glad you were removed.

  • Melissa_R

    It is sad that they haven't complied with your wishes to be removed from their list. I agree with what LaurEss said in regards to if they edited their list, they may have only themselves standing!It also scares me as a new indie that I am fearful of signing my name to anything that seems like a good thing. I am grateful for Kristen, Lisa, Kayla, Donna Marie and many others who keep me informed, educated, and confident in the work that I do. Thanks ladies!

  • http://greenskincareblog.com/ Kristin Fraser Cotte

    For all of you trying to get off the CFSC signer list, apparently Allison Veen is in charge of removals from the compact signers list. Stacy Malkan actually responded to my 5th email (sent to any and every email address I could get my hands on affiliated with CFSC) asking for removal last night, saying “Allie, please remove Kristin when you can.” I last emailed Allison directly for removal on 7/13/10. I'm happy to provide her email address and encourage those of you who have commented you've had the same experience to be vigilant in making sure you are removed and that your company is not being used as a number to support this pending bill.

  • Pingback: Recent News : H.R. 5786, Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010 |www.ThereseMartin.net

  • Pingback: Government Nannies to Save Us From Mascara! :: The Lonely Conservative

  • Stratat

    Where can I read the science about the proven track record of safety? I would very much like to know more about that.

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

      Hey Stratat -

      You can read about ‘The Science of Safety’ at http://www.cosmeticsinfo.org/scienceofsafety.php

      As taken from the above website, “The careful selection of safe and well-researched ingredients is a primary consideration in ensuring the safety of finished cosmetic and personal care products. The first step in the evaluation of the safety of a finished product is to review the complete safety information on all of the ingredients it contains”.

      You may also check out this Quick Reference Table, which provides safety information on hundreds of cosmetic ingredients http://www.cir-safety.org/staff_files/PublicationsListDec2009.pdf

      Thank so much for your comments! Have a great day!

      Lisa

  • Sj

    As a consumer it is very sad to read that so many companies are against this act. I don’t see this act as perfect, but it is needed. I don’t understand what would make the cosmetic industry happy. It is evident that the industry does need to be regulated. Fact is there are toxic chemicals in personal care products. Fact is most of those chemicals have not been tested for safety. Fact is many of them are linked to cancer and birth defects (I know because I have done the research). As someone who has become increasingly sensitive to products and nearly had my face destroyed by acne medicated cosmetics, I am all in favor for regulation and proper labeling of products. If this isn’t the solution than what is? Consumers cannot make an educated decision about products if the ingredients are not available. It’s ridiculous to believe that a product would not have adverse affects. Many of the products on the market deeply penetrate the skin and enter the blood. They also can cause hormonal disruption. Many of these chemicals are found in the umbilical cord of fetuses. I entrust scientiest, not Cosmetic companies to give me accurate information. There are thousands of studies that link chemicals found in personal care products to cancer, birth defects, etc.

    • Sarah

      Hi SJ,

      I am just a consumer and a commenter here like you, not affiliated with the site or with industry. But I thought I would point you to another article that might help you see what makes the act too ambiguous, and untenable from the standpoint of the science as well as feasibility. Did you take a look at this one?

      http://personalcaretruth.com/2010/08/the-safe-cosmetics-act-2010/

      In the box, the author shows what–according to the proposed legislation–the product label would have to look like for a product that only contains the five ingredients olive oil, blue chamomile extract, and essential oils of orange, rose, and vetiver.

      I hope one of the experts will chime in and help clarify what the concerns are from the standpoint of industry and scientists.

      • Colinsanders

        Sarah,

        It is very noble of you to try and enlighten sj, and who knows maybe it will do some good. But can I just make a few observations about their post.

        First of all, it could be slotted into any discussion of this subject anywhere on the web. Also is it not curious that someone would come on a site that makes such a big deal of featuring scientists from the cosmetic industry, mention trusting scientists and not trusting cosmetic companies without commenting about not trusting scientists employed by cosmetic companies?

        And look at the subjects brought up – all the main ones from the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. They have a little bit of a story about themselves which makes them seem like a real person but nothing that identifies their age, gender or geographical location. You see a lot of posts like this around the internet and I get one or two most months on my blog. The precise style and details vary a bit, but the format sticks out like Bootsie Collins at an accountants’ conference. I assume they are written by staffers at the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. I will be surprised if we hear from sj again.

        • Sarah

          I agree with you colin. I was curious about the person’s claim to have “done the research.” Does that mean being a principal investigator on a toxicity study? Or does it mean having looked it all up on cosmeticsdatabase.com? Or does it mean, “I don’t have any scientific background myself, but I can read scientific abstracts and try my best to find some that show an ingredient may have estrogenic effects or cause cancer in rats?” But if nothing else, maybe some reply would enlighten other readers out there, who (were there no response from anyone) would assume PCT was “caught” speechless with this comment.

        • Sarah

          P.S. My guess–only a guess–as to the meaning of “I entrust scientists, not cosmetic companies… ” is that the commenter trusts individual scientific abstracts that can be found on pubmed–which is very different from trusting the weight of the scientific data or the concensus of independent scientific experts (like toxicologists, expert panels). Anyone with a scientific background knows that a single study is not sufficient to determine toxicity, and even the author of such a study would be dismayed at findings of their study being taken out of context and relied upon to be used as the final word on the risks associated with a chemical.

    • Sarah

      You might also note that members of this group are highly supportive of newer legislation that would improve safety. http://personalcaretruth.com/2011/04/safe-chemicals-act-of-2011/ In contrast to what it may seem to you, Personal Care Truth is not a group that opposes safety regulation, only safety regulation that does not make sense scientifically or practically. It may also help to read up on the differences between risk and hazard models of toxicity http://personalcaretruth.com/2010/05/risk/ because this would help you understand why risk-based legislation (rather than the hazard-based legislation proposed by the SCA of 2010) is more sensible scientifically, more in keeping with principles of toxicology.

      • MyDayDreams

        How is an Act requiring 84,000 chemicals be tested before they are allowed to continue to be in consumer products “risk based”? The chemicals won’t even be assigned to a risk category until they manufacturers submit their test results.

        • Dene62

          Are you seriously suggesting that the act will result in all 84,000 substances being withdrawn from the market and not used again until the data have been assessed. Do you have any idea how impossible that is? No decision can be made until the risk has been assessed – hence the bill is risk-based. If I have misinterpreted the intention of the bill, then it will either fail or, if it is passed in the manner in which you suggest, the USA will become the laughing stock of the world (which I doubt will happen).

        • Dene62

          Are you seriously suggesting that the act will result in all 84,000 substances being withdrawn from the market and not used again until the data have been assessed. Do you have any idea how impossible that is? No decision can be made until the risk has been assessed – hence the bill is risk-based. If I have misinterpreted the intention of the bill, then it will either fail or, if it is passed in the manner in which you suggest, the USA will become the laughing stock of the world (which I doubt will happen).

          • MyDayDreams

            I’m not suggesting anything Dene – I am reading the Act and that is EXACTLY what is says. That is one of the reasons I am opposed to it, and why I am surprised the experts of PCT seem to be in favor of it. It will be impossible and so the Act will never be passed. And so nothing will be done to create safer cosmetics. And all this time, energy and money will be wasted. One thing just having it submitted by the Senator will do however…pave the way for the EWG to launch their Safe Cosmetics Act for 2011 on a Federal level. They are already doing it on a state level. As I am sure you experts are monitoring!

          • Dene62

            Then the Act will fail – it has to. All it needs is for someone to explain the problems involved in suddenly withdrawing every cosmetic and every household product, and many food products (and I am sure many other things besides). The Safe Cosmetics Act will fail again until it is changed into a truly risk-based piece of legislation. The SCA 2010 failed in Colorado and it will fail everywhere else for precisely the same reasons.

    • Dene62

      Sorry, Sj, but your argument is not logical. You state as a “fact” that toxic chemicals are present in cosmetics (there ARE some substances present in cosmetics that, at much higher concentrations MAY cause a toxic effect, but not at the concentrations used in cosmetics), but that it is also a “fact” that these chemicals have not been tested for safety. If this was the case, how do you know that they are toxic? They must have been tested and, therefore, your “fact” is not a fact – they HAVE been tested. It is disingenuous (or just plain wrong) to claim that “many of them are linked to cancer and birth defects (again, they MUST have been tested in order to have the data to support your claim). A FEW of them (mostly contaminants present at miniscule concentrations) may have been linked to these effects but, as these are the same substances that are used within the EU, and they have been rigorously assessed by the independent SCCS panel, they may be taked to be safe under current conditions of use and in the light of existing knowledge.

      Please check out academic studies before making claims such as “many of the products on the market deeply penetrate the skin”, because there is no scientific evidence that “many” actually do. The ability to penetrate the skin does not automatically mean that it is dangerous in any case. Your claim is wrong.

      When you say “they can also cause hormonal disruption”, which ones do you mean? You make several extremely vague statements and also very contentious ones, such as “it is ridiculous to believe that a product would not have adverse effects”. Why is it ridiculous? What product are you talking about?

      There have been no studies that have demonstrated any actual harm from the presence of the chemicals in the umbilical cord – I am not saying that their presence is neccesarily a good thing, but the concentrations detected were extremely low, and this needs to be placed in context. This is typical EWG propaganda – just playing with numbers, and numbers alone are meaningless.

      There are NOT “thousands of studies that link chemicals found in personal care products to cancer, birth defects, etc” – there may be a few hundred, but you massively overstate the situation, without any substance in support of this outrageous claim. Let’s focus on your birth defects claim. If this was even a millionth part true, then every child born to every mother who has used cosmetic products containing your mysterious chemicals would have suffered a defect. The most well-publicised case of birth defects was thalidomide, and estimates of the number of unfortunate victims varies between 10,000 an 20,000. If your claim that cosmetics cause birth defects were true, the number of victms would be in the millions, and WE WOULD KNOW ABOUT IT!

      • Dene62

        (and by the way, Sj, – we are ALL consumers – you are no more special than the rest of us!)

        • Sarah

          I know, Dene, but as I’ve pointed out to you, you cosmetic chemists are suicidal and homicidal and you apparently just don’t care that you and your family and friends are going to be killed by the products you help formulate:D

  • http://personalcaretruth.com Lisa M. Rodgers

    MyDayDreams -

    Thanks for your comments. The Safe Chemicals Act of 2011 is not the same as The Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010, which will be coming out soon with revisions, and that is why we have not addressed it further. We are waiting to see what the revisions will be before commenting since we know there will be changes to the bill.

    Have a great day!

    Lisa

    • MyDayDreams

      Correct — HR 5786 The Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010 is not the same as the the “Safe Chemicals Act of 2011″.

      That is why I specifically said I am opposed to the “Safe Chemicals Act of 2011″ and probably will oppose EWG’s “Safe Cosmetics Act 2011″.

      So you tell me…why were so many leaders in the Indie cosmetics industry up in arms when there were Safe Cosmetics bills proposed on State levels in 2010, but are silent about the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011 was sent to the NY State Senate on February 11th?

      Don’t you think (not assume…one should never assume) the State bill by the same name is a possible indication of the revision for the federal bill to come? I do.

  • AJ

    I am a Certified Medical Esthetician and certified to treat clients with chemo and radiated skin. I love cosmetics Date Base skin and EWG. If I don’t see a product line listed, I will not use or recommend it to my clients, especially clients with cancer. I want to know exactly what ingredients in the products have toxicity.

    As a consumer as well, I agree with SJ.

    • Sarah

      As long as you know that the information is not scientifically-based and is out of keeping with established principles of toxicology, it is your choice to put your faith in the EWG database. Why is it that my mother has had breast cancer and never once thought everyday products were to blame–could it be that it’s because she has a background in science and medicine? Hmm… And as someone potentially at genetic risk of breast cancer, I choose to focus on the known risk factors identified by the American Cancer Society: obesity, inactivity, smoking (never done it), alcohol use (very low), and preventive screenings.

    • Sarah

      As long as you know that the information is not scientifically-based and is out of keeping with established principles of toxicology, it is your choice to put your faith in the EWG database. Why is it that my mother has had breast cancer and never once thought everyday products were to blame–could it be that it’s because she has a background in science and medicine? Hmm… And as someone potentially at genetic risk of breast cancer, I choose to focus on the known risk factors identified by the American Cancer Society: obesity, inactivity, smoking (never done it), alcohol use (very low), and preventive screenings.

      • Sarah

        FYI, I mis-spoke. Smoking is not specifically associated with breast cancer. That’s what happens when you think you know something… (tried to post a link to the American Cancer Society but random words started rapidly cycling through before I could copy them)

  • Perry Romanowski

    @AJ – I appreciate your perspective and know that it is a common one among people who think about these things. But it seems you are missing a significant fact, organic farming uses pesticides and insecticides that are not healthy for the human body.

    http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/organictext.html

    FTA – “Contrary to what most people believe, “organic” does not automatically mean “pesticide-free” or “chemical-free”. In fact, under the laws of most states, organic farmers are allowed to use a wide variety of chemical sprays and powders on their crops.”

    FTA – “Until recently, nobody bothered to look at natural chemicals (such as organic pesticides), because it was assumed that they posed little risk. But when the studies were done, the results were somewhat shocking: you find that about half of the natural chemicals studied are carcinogenic as well.”

    So, while you might think you are avoiding carcinogens by going organic, you aren’t.

    If carcinogen avoidance is how you want to live your life, you should stop using all cosmetics. They are not necessary to live a healthy life.

    • Sarah

      You will not avoid carcinogens by avoiding cosmetics. At least not if we consider the definition of “carcinogen” to be “causing cancer in rodents in massive doses.” If we use that definition, then you are exposed to carcinogens by eating fruits, vegetables and grains, all of which contain constituents that have been shown (in massive doses) to cause cancer in rodents.

      • Sarah

        Personally, I like the following article. http://www.acsh.org/publications/pubid.103/pub_detail.asp

        • Dene62

          Thanks – that is a fantastic link, Sarah. I think that everyone who is concerned about “toxic substances” in cosmetics should read it. There was a comment regarding cosmetics on another site the other day that stated “a carcinogen is a carcinogen is a carcinogen”! I guess they will have to stop eating! :-)

          • Sarah

            Right, many things are classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as “not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity in humans.” The reason for that is in recognition of the fact that experimental animal studies often fail to predict findings from real-world exposures in human beings. If the data in humans is at all limited or inconsistent, the best answer is “we’re not sure if this causes cancer or not.” A lay person would conclude that if it causes cancer in animals, it causes cancer in humans–but that may or may not be true for reasons we’ve discussed here and on other threads. As you say, if we automatically called all of those things that caused cancer in rats “carcinogens,” we’d have very little left–natural or synthetic–to eat, drink, or use in personal care products.

  • Dene62

    Hi AJ – you state that “Parabens are known to be found in breast tumours”.

    1) Even if you believe that parabens WERE found in breast tumours (and this is actually quite contentious – http://personalcaretruth.com/2010/11/parabens-in-perspective-part-ii/) – there is no evidence to connect parabens with breast cancer. Check out any cancer research organisation web site and see their statement on parabens.

    2) Simply because something is present doesn’t mean that it is responsible. Water is present in in breast tumours – a silly example, I know, but it does further illustrate the point.

  • AJ

    Thank you Dene62, Sara, and Perry for your education on these topics. I am always open for learning new information.

    In regards to the parabens found in breast tumors, I am basing this on information from individuals I have talked to in the medical field and cosmetic industry that believe that to be true. I did mention that parabens may or may not cause cancer. I’m not a doctor, so I sincerely don’t know. I haven’t found information that says they are the cause of cancer. However, it does concern me as a woman that parabens are said to be found in breast tumors. So just to be safe I avoid them. There are so many things that may cause cancer. All we can do for ourselves, our families, our loving pets and our planet is try to make healthier choices.

    Thank you again for all of your great information!!

    • Dene62

      I completely understand why many people think this about parabens, but not many have studied the evidence as closely as I have (sorry if that sounds arrogant) and I would urge you to forward the link I gave earlier to those you have already spoken to in the medical field and cosmetic industry, and see what they think after reading it. :-)

      • Sarah

        Dene,

        I got the 404 not found error with your link. Could you re-post? I think I know where to find your article on parabens, but others may not.

        Thanks, Sarah

        • Dene62

          Thanks for letting me know, Sarah. This is the link again,

          http://personalcaretruth.com/2010/11/parabens-in-perspective-part-ii/

          but if it still doesn’t work, it is Parabens In Perspective, Part ii :-)

          • Sarah

            I just found it! Sorry to have asked you and then looked it up myself, which I could have done in the first place. But at any rate, thanks:)

          • Sarah

            And the link is working now.

    • Sarah

      Hi AJ,

      I am glad you found the information useful. I wrote you a longer reply that is lost in moderation because there’s a link in it. It will probably appear at some point. I apologize if my first response to you was too sarcastic (a hazard of online posts I’m afraid, even for those of us who know better than to behave that way).

      Sarah

  • AJ

    Hi Sarah!

    Thank you for post, I appreciate it. I didn’t think you were sarcastic: ) I will check out your link.

    Again, thank you guys for all of your awesome information, it is very helpful and thought provoking.

    Kind Regards

    • Sarah

      Glad it didn’t strike you that way–I just meant the part about my mother’s diagnosis and her medical background. I could have simply stuck to your concerns about the safety issues without making all of that part of it.

      Best, Sarah

      • AJ

        Sarah,

        Thank you for your kind message. Honestly, it didn’t strike me that way. I truly wish you and your mom the best!!

        Peace and Blessings,

        AJ

  • http://greenskincareblog.com/ Kristin Fraser Cotte

    I’m not sure why so many people have chosen to comment recently on things unrelated to this post. This is about The Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010, not the recent draft of the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011. It is about the way the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics treats their signers, the very same people who supported them over 6 years ago when the appeared on the scene. I encourage you to scroll down and read the comments from last summer with the similar experiences that many small cosmetic companies had…

    Diverging the topic does not cover up the truth. Let’s not take this post out of context please.

    • Sarah

      Hi Kristin,

      I believe I started the sidetrack by pointing out in response to another comment that members of PCT are supportive of safety legislation, just not safety legislation that doesn’t make sense.

      Sarah

      • http://greenskincareblog.com/ Kristin Fraser Cotte

        Sarah,
        No worries- it was not any one specific person, please do not take my comment personally. I felt the need to post the comment today since obviously this was a very difficult experience for me (I’m talking about my post, not the comments, btw). The fact that so many other cosmetic companies came out publicly in the comment section on this post and shared that it happened to them too is now not what you see in the comments! I want to make sure if anyone stumbles on this post they see all the other companies who shared similar difficulties being removed as a signer on the the campaign for safe cosmetics. Thanks.

        • Sarah

          Yes, I see what you are saying about your experiences and those other comments about similar experiences getting buried underneath a pile of other comments. I didn’t take it personally (except briefly when I saw a banner that indicated I was blocked from posting, which was a site glitch that disappeared). I always seem to like to confess wrongdoing, though–maybe I could turn into one of those compulsive confessers lol…

          • Dene62

            I am also guilty as charged, and I apologise! It is very difficult when comments are made on side issues, because to ignore them could be taken to be concession.

        • http://greenskincareblog.com/ Kristin Fraser Cotte

          I also want to thank you for your keen observation Sarah. You are right. Everyone involved with Personal Care Truth cares deeply both about safe cosmetics and legislation that makes sense surrounding safe cosmetics. Thank you for being aware of that. Would we actually all invest our time in PCT free of charge if we did not stand for and believe strongly in safe cosmetics and legislation that makes sense around the safety of cosmetics? Especially with the harsh comments some have thrown back?

  • Pingback: Pericolele din produsele cosmetice | viataverdeviu.ro

  • Pingback: The 10 worst chemicals in cosmetics and personal care products - The Personal Journey

  • Pingback: The 10 worst chemicals in cosmetics and personal care products : Dr. Leonard Coldwell

  • Pingback: The 10 worst chemicals in cosmetics and personal care products | Wichita Observer

  • Pingback: Consciousness TV | 10 Worst Chemicals In Cosmetics and Personal Care Products