Oppose the Safe Cosmetics Act 2010 – Sign the Petition

Sign the petition and check out these resources as well to follow the bill and oppose it:

You can sign up to track the bill here and get live updates
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h…

You can also oppose the bill here… there is a link on the right to do so and another below it to write your reps
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h5786/show

I'd like to say I support the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010 – but how safe is Safe Cosmetic legislation? The Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010 was introduced on July 21, 2010. I want to say that I support this and think it’s an important step to providing safer personal care products to the public. Safe cosmetics have been my focus, practice and forum for over 20 years. I’ve been an advocate, and have even presented for, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. Safe cosmetics is, in one way, the very thing that defines who I am and what I represent in the beauty trade.

I want to say I support the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010. Instead, what comes to mind is, how effective has food and drug safety legislation been? How many people have cancer or other serious illness and/or die from diet related disease every year? How many people are harmed and/or die due to FDA regulated pharmaceutical use every year? Wouldn’t safety, according to FDA regulated legislation, mean less illness and death? Is there a definition to “safe” that I’m just not understanding?

I want to say I support the Safe Cosmetic Act of 2010. I have been educating and presenting to a medical audience, to professional esthetics and cosmetologists, and to the consumer for over 20 years with an emphasis on safe personal care, safe ingredient choices and safe formulation. I have been a developer and manufacturer of “safe” cosmetics. They are in the marketplace – not only being safe, but also being incredibly effective in the health and care of the skin and the human. I know the challenges that go with putting out safe and effective cosmetics. One is cost.

Consumers don’t necessarily like the higher cost. Legislation will likely add to the cost of producing these safe cosmetics. The fallout could be huge as the cost of doing “safe” business rises. Really, this could hurt the little guy that is well meaning and doing the right thing already. And will the consumer pay for safety – or buy the less expensive illusion of safety sold through the clever (and expensive) marketing and manipulation of legislation that big money can buy?

If the price of the product is raised to match an added cost of legislation, consumers may stop buying it. If the price is not raised, that means the cost of producing the product will have to be lowered. What would be removed to lower cost – quality? employees? efficient and eco-friendly sustainable packaging?

I would like to support the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010. Safety is based on research conducted through reductionistic scientific methodology that does not always tell an accurate story. I explain the limits of reductionistic science in one aspect by using “biology vs. chemistry.” If you haven’t read any of my writings on this – well, later. The EWG’s Skin Deep site lists limonene, a component of many essential oils, with a moderate hazard (#6 – not good for safe cosmetics) and a warning that includes cancer and immune toxicity. Limonene is documented for shrinking tumors and preventing cancer. I say this based on attending several scientific presentations by academics who conducted studies in the traditional scientific and peer-reviewed setting, as well as the many studies available that I have read. With this in mind, how do we define safety? Is it safe to use an ingredient that will cure the very disease that it causes?

The limonene example brings up another issue I talk about often – the whole extract vs the isolated or synthetic version of an “active” compound. If the isolated compound is found dangerous or unsafe, does that necessarily mean that the whole extract is also unsafe or potentially toxic (this is biology vs chemistry). EU regulations are siding with “if the compound is there, that must mean the whole extract must be questioned” philosophy. The EU Cosmetic Directive has suspected unsafe compounds or those with cautions listed and included separately within the ingredient list even though they are within the whole extract. I question this logic and think this is very confusing for the consumer.

I also feel that reductionistic science falls short in understanding the action of a synergistic whole as separate from the action of the isolsted single compound which has been separated from it’s natural synergy. As a result, many otherwise safe and extremely healthy and therapeutic extracts may be listed as toxic or in other ways unsafe.

I want to suport the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010. What are the studies that will define the outcome of safety? To open that question in a wider perspective let me emphasize my reference to food and drug regulation. Who’s really in charge? Who develops the studies and who translates/defines the outcome? Who is the legislation really legislating? How does big corporate money and lobbyists factor into this?

I want to support the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010. Well, in truth, what I want is to support Safe Cosmetics, and absolutely do through all my actions and words.

Hi Dene,

We went back and forth on other sites regarding this topic and my blog post (which the above was copy and pasted from). I took artistic license in the way it was written, almost purposefully confusing and somewhat disjointed. The feel I want to express is “who doesn't support safe cosmetics?” And as I conclude at the end, opposition to legislation is not opposition to safe cosmetics.
Not sure about the non-scientific response from you. There is abundance of science, though I did not propose to include it that would demonstrate the failure of the FDA to so-called “protect” the consumer from the hazards of foods and drugs, which I use as a reason to not support legislation. Science, again not included in my post, also can be used to demonstrate the limits of reductionistic scientific methodology, used in the evaluation of safety in foods and drugs. The conflicting results of studies, though many proven to be weak, is the point I'm trying to express in regards to whose study(ies) is the final word of safety or toxicity – and why I say that corporate money and lobbyists can manipulate results and acceptance of poor science. Again, a reason not to support legislation. This is the issue we all seem to have with the EWG and the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (as well as Monsanto, Dow, Pfizer, etc.) – bad or manipulated science sold as relevant for a proposed gain.

I think you are misguided in your statement that “Most people seem to be assuming that the Safe Cosmetics Act will give a boost to natural ingredients and be the death knell for synthetics. This is naive and misguided.” You will find on every social discussion group I read your comments on that it is the “natural” manufacturers who are adamantly opposed to this legislation. The EWG's Skin Deep database of nonsensical hazards and toxicity does not discriminate between natural and synthetic. Many of us who work with naturals (a term that I will not even begin to define here) do so by choices other than “misguided” concerns of safety. Quite simply, they’re just better for skin health than most human(man?)-made, ego-laden, monetarily driven synthetics and environmentally challenging petro-anything (can anyone say BP?). But, that's the not the debate we're having here. I use synthetics, like R-lipoic acid, decyl glucoside (not that I use them, but this would include any “saponified organic” olive, coconut oil or other oil), ascorbyl palmitate, and any form of “natural” vegetable emulsifying wax – all considered natural by many natural advocates and skin care companies. This is not about disillusionment or misguided intentions. Though there are companies who use the support of legislation, ill-defined toxicity and organic or natural safety as marketing for their products. Why not? Marketing is not necessarily guided by facts. As the marketing, including the cartoon “The Story of Cosmetics,” of the CFSC and EWG clearly demonstrate. And before you go there, I would agree that misinformation used by drug companies, consumer groups, and governments, especially those that promote fear, as all listed do as a means of fear based control, is not the best thing.

You say therapeutic is not an issue. It is. Just because the FDA does not allow statements of pharmacological action doesn't mean it isn't happening. The era of superficially masking damaged skin is long over. This is another concern I have with reductionistic methodology and Skin Deep. A zero rating, derived from good or bad reductionistic science, means zero actives. This deserves a more complete explanation, but not here.

Boy, this introduced legislation sure does bring up a lot of issues and differing perspectives.