I think it would be great if you could post those comments here so those that care to, can at least see what you were trying to convey, instead of allowing Stacy to control the data as much as it scares her. Based on this fact alone, CFSC should lose all credibility with those who for one moment thought they had all the answers to solving this supposed crisis with the personal care industry.

Hope you have a wonderful weekend, I know I'm smilin' today!

To answer your question – I don't think that the Act would materially improve the safety of cosmetics, but it would massively improve the perception of safety (plus, as I have said several times before, spike the guns of the EWG etc.).

Having just seen Kristen's e-mail message about the difficulty of getting removed from the CFSC and their apparant refusal to contribute to a radio discussion (plus us getting heavily censored by Stacy “I Can't Really String An Argument Together” Malkan), it seems to me that maybe the CFSC are getting a little nervous. To go to such lengths to keep signatories from being removed smacks of real desperation and, despite the typical EWG bluster, there has been quite a backlash to the Annie Leonard video, I think the tide may be close to turning. I hope so.

But rest assured it is noted and being taken very seriously. This clause alone could kill this bill and it is what we are counting on…but while this portion is being handled more discreetly, the other areas of the bill which go in direct opposition to CFSC and EWG are the issues at hand.

And yes safety is a must and we can get there, but not through invasion of government into our businesses or revealing trade secrets such as our vendors, our income, our employees, etc.

In what way does this make a cosmetic product safer? These are in the bill also Dene. There are so many ways this bill is over reaching and I won't bore you with details, but all I know is I am glad you are here and that you do handle both sides of the issue.

One thing PCT and their experts whom contribute don't want to be accused of is lopsided science or theory or censoring comments short of abusive in nature…showing all sides of any debate is the way to go….I think it is unfortunate that Stacy Malkin at Not Just A Pretty Face is censoring you, as well as me, since I can no longer place any links to scientific studies at her blog…so much for being truthful…as it is clear that real science on these issues is a threat to their agenda and must be quashed…Free thinking individuals is a scary thing for her as it goes in direct opposition to her convoluted statements.

You make valid points as the devil's advocate. While the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) could use tweaking in some areas, this is not the legislation to do that.

My hopes are the legislators will meet with small cosmetic manufacturer advocates to hear why we believe this is not the bill to make changes to present cosmetic regulations and openly receive our suggestions.

I have not, and I probably never will, read through the document in its entirity as I have no personal or professional need to do this. However, on the first scan-through, I noticed a sinister clause – and I truly mean sinister – that I have not yet seen anyone else pick up on. I am referring to the clause that requires notification of a minimum of 300 chemicals to the FDA for assessment. That in itself is not too scary, although I question why there HAS to be a minimum as the actual number is irrelevant; what is more relevant are the actual numbers of ingredients with GENUINE cause for concern. The sinister part is this:

The requirement for the FDA to have performed the safety assessment within a period of 18 months from notification, OTHERWISE THE INGREDIENT MUST BE BANNED FROM USE!!!!!!! And this, not based on any science, just on the principle that 18 months suits the person who drafted this document. It may as well be 6 months!

If this clause gets passed, then the entire cosmetics industry in the USA will be doomed! A hysterical response? I don't think so. Consider the possibility of the EWG demanding the assessment of 10,000 different synthetic ingredients on Day 1 of the Act (remember, no maximum number is stated, only a minimum). 18 months later, somewhere around 9,900 of these ingredients will be banned, simply because no-one in the world, not just the FDA, has the capacity to perform proper safety evaluations on that number of substances. I hope no-one tries to tell me that the EWG wouldn't do this – I would stake everything I own on them doing just that (the number may be slightly different, but you get the point, I hope).

Even a brief moment of consideration of this clause is a waste of time – I suggest that those who are able to do so, concentrate very hard on getting that part changed, even if the rest stays the same! The consequences of that clause getting passed are truly dire!

I apologise if I have misunderstood this clause, due to the brief nature of my scan-through, but I suspect that my interpretation is correct.

However, with that stated, though some of this frustration we are feeling is coming out with a strong contention against what CFSC promulgates, what does get lost in the argument is the complete safety on natural ingredients. I think you already know where I stand on this issue based on our past conversations at Linked In.

I use natural and I use synthetic chemicals also and I don't feel these are mutually exclusive, this is what has made me nuts about what the campaign stands for. By how they are proposing this bill, my main issue with the bill is the redundant testing on ingredients that already have a long history of safety, but when it comes to organics, not so much so…and it is based on the constituents of these ingredients the naturalists are going to find problems with this legislation. Trace elements of what CFSC and EWG consider toxins can be found in just about all natural substances.

We ultimately can be shooting ourselves in the foot, because with all the claims of safer because it is organic, these could be the very ingredients that are removed from market and only synthetics will remain since through chemistry, synthetics can be created free of constituents.

But what we must remember, is EWG also enjoys dissecting a synthetic chemical based on its origin of creation instead of the finished ingredient. Bottom line we are definitely in a conundrum right now, and if we really want to get down to the reality of making this a fair playing field for the entire industry, we must remove the premise of taking sides.

Bottom line, the entire bill should be scrapped and one be created which is drafted with peer studies of those in the industry as we were not consulted at all when this poor excuse of government control was presented. Personal Care Products Council was moving in that direction, but not necessarily at trying to gain control over our government as EWG is since they are mentioned as one of the governing bodies and most of this bill is left up to the discretion of the Secretary….the language is too ambiguous and dangerous for the industry as a whole, not just small manufacturers.

Just my take on the matter!

I don't understand how anyone can use the claim that the industry always produces safe products as a reason to avoid legislation. Any one can easily claim to be producing safe products, but on what basis can anyone claim this for every manufacturer? This involves an enormous amount of faith and trust – unjustifiably, IMO. The entire industry is only as safe as the least scrupulous manufacturer! How can you be so sure that the products you are producing ARE safe? On what basis are you so certain? It is certainly not sufficient proof to be using only natural ingredients, as has been hinted at in other posts in other discussions, because there is no guarantee that natural is safe. I believe that you play into the hands of the EWG when using this safety argument. Even when using “safe” ingredients, there is always a possibility that there may be some interaction between two or more ingredients that may produce an adverse effect. How many small business owners have that depth of technical knowledge to be able to detect this before a product is launched? This is why, in the EU, an important factor in the regulations requires the assessment of every product by a qualified person. There is, I have to admit, some fairly onerous documentaion also required, but nothing like on the scale proposed in the US – much of which is totally superflous to the intention of the Act, ie to ensure safe cosmetics.

Neither do I believe that any perceived threat to small businesses is a reason in itself to stop the Act, although I fully appreciate the concerns expressed about the possible impact of the Act. you cannot claim the mere fact that you are a small business as a reason for exemption. If I was on the side of the EWG, I would argue that I don't believe that small businesses should be free to place unsafe products in the market, which, in effect, your claimed exemption would permit.

I have said previously in discussions that I believe the division of the industry into large and small businesses is a false divide. There is no clear distinction between what small cosmetics companies do and what the large/massive ones do. Not all small cosmetics businesses are “natural” or “innovative”, and not all large ones only use (synthetic) “chemicals”. No black or white, only shades of grey.

I am playing Devil's Advocate here, because I would like to see the people who are fighting against this Act get the required changes to the detail of the legislation, because I think that the legislation is badly written, overbearing and much of it unneccesary, but I DO think that some form of legislation would be good for the industry, if only to give a better perception and to spike the guns of the chemophobic EWG and similar organisations. I am sure that changes can and will be made, but the arguments need to be the right ones in order to achieve this.

Is anyone still talking to me?