Statement by Kathleen Dezio, Spokeswoman On “The Story of Cosmetics”
July 21, 2010
“The content in this harsh and unscientific ‘shockumentary – genre’ video bears no relationship to the ‘real’ story of cosmetics. Our industry employs hundreds of men and women who have devoted their careers to substantiating the safety of cosmetic products. This video is an unfortunate attempt to generate fear about an alleged public health risk from cosmetics that is unwarranted. It is repugnant to suggest that cosmetic companies would manufacture, and the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) would allow them to market, products that are dangerous or contain toxins that cause cancer or any other disease. It is absurd to suggest that the men and women in our industry would market products that could cause harm to themselves and their families.
“Further, the cheap attack in the video on industry philanthropy and the efforts of companies to champion various women’s health-related causes is offensive. The personal care products industry gives more than $200 million in contributions to charitable causes each year, an amount almost twice that of any other industry in the manufacturing sector. In fact, through its Look Good…Feel Better program, the industry has helped 700,000 women in the U.S. overcome the appearance-related side effects of cancer treatment.
“Cosmetic companies are required by law to substantiate the safety of their products before they are marketed. Companies take this responsibility for safety substantiation very seriously.
“Safety substantiation of ingredients, either by manufacturers or raw material suppliers, is based on a rigorous scientific safety process that includes studies of closely related substances, utilizing computer modeling to predict potential toxicity, in-vitro testing, and human product safety experiences.
“Safety is determined on the basis of proven principles of risk assessment. There are four main components in science-based safety assessment that are well documented by the National Academy of Sciences, the Society of Toxicology and numerous government agencies around the world. Manufacturers consider these components — hazard identification, dose response, exposure assessment and risk characterization — in their safety assessments. During the safety assessment process, companies also consider exposure from other sources over the course of a person’s lifetime.
“Under the U.S. Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), it is a federal crime to market an unsafe cosmetic product in the United States. The marketing of an unsafe cosmetic product carries significant consequences. FDA has clear and abundant legal authority to regulate the safety of cosmetic products including authority to: ban or restrict ingredients for safety reasons, enter and inspect manufacturing facilities, issue warning letters, seize unsafe or misbranded products, prohibit unlawful activities, and prosecute and jail violators.
“To further enhance FDA’s regulatory oversight and take into account the growth of the industry, innovations in R&D, and scientific advancements, last week the Personal Care Products Council announced a groundbreaking initiative that would establish an additional layer of federal oversight and enhance existing regulatory safeguards.
“The ‘real’ story of cosmetics is that of an industry with a proven, lengthy track record of responsibility and safety and a strong commitment to making the lives of consumers better.”
________________________________________
For more information on cosmetic and personal care products and their ingredients, visit www.CosmeticsInfo.org.
Based in Washington, D.C., the Personal Care Products Council is the leading national trade association representing the $250 billion global cosmetic and personal care products industry. Founded in 1894, the Council’s more than 600 member companies manufacture, distribute, and supply the vast majority of finished personal care products marketed in the U.S. As the makers of a diverse range of products millions of consumers rely on every day, from sunscreens, toothpaste and shampoo to moisturizer, lipstick and fragrance, personal care products companies are global leaders committed to product safety, quality and innovation.
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:
I am so confused! I thought the Personnel Care Products industry just announced through a press release last week with headlines “Cosmetics trade association the Personal Care Products Council (PCPC) has asked the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to play a larger role in the regulation of cosmetics products in the country. ” The meat of THAT press release was acknowledging change is needed. There doesnt seem to be consistent message coming from PCPC.
Ms. Denzio, you hves a tough job – I hope you get paid well to be an apologist for an industry whose arrogance and male dominated messaging is finally being challenged as the truth of their contaminated products comes to light.
Ms. Denzio, have you or your family ever had thyroid disease? Cancer? Demititis? Learning disabilities? Do you ever wonder if the chemicals in these products, along with all the other chemical contamination we get from unregulated chemicals in our food, air and water, has something to do with illness and suffering of someone you know?
When you lie awake at night, do you ever wonder if what you are doing is helping to make the world a better place, really?
There are enough companies who are really trying to do the right thing, perhaps they would welcome your skills and knowledge of the disinformation campaigns of the larger corporations driving the Personal Care Products Council.
“This video is an unfortunate attempt to generate fear about an alleged public health risk from cosmetics that is unwarranted.” Oh there's fear alright; that the cosmetics industry is in bed with the FDA and that there is utter refusal to see the truth of more cancer, more birth defects, more diseases that are simultaneously rising with the introduction of chemicals whose health effects haven't been fully assessed for health and human safety. This video is your wakeup call, PCPC.
Hey greenismyvalley -
Thanks for your comments. Just out of curiosity, where are the scientific studies that prove cancer, birth defects and more diseases are simultaneously rising with the introduction of chemicals whose health effects haven't been fully assessed for health and human safety?
The video is a wake-up call that the minds of free thinking people can be changed based on the 'precautionary principle' and nothing else. The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and the Environmental Working Group does not have the science. It's a matter of record in Colorado and if you haven't listened, please take the time to do so – 'Straight From the Horse's Mouth' http://personalcaretruth.com/2010/06/straight-f...
Thanks again for your comments. Have a great day!
Lisa
Whilst it is good to see comments from “the other side of the fence”, it is sad to see such paranoia in, presumably, reasonably-educated people. I have no idea of the depth of knowledge of chemistry and toxicology of the people who have commented so far, but I suspect it is not very deep! I do mean to be insulting, but your comments are typical of the tired old mantra chanted by chemophobes who believe that everything that is a “chemical” (ie a synthetic chemical) is dangerous in some way, and usually causes cancer. If you take the time to check out all the major cancer research organisation's web sites, you will see that these learned people maintain that much of the increase in cancer rates is highly likely to be due to lifestyle (including alcohol and cigarettes). Can you please explain to me how it can possibly make sense for the cosmetics industry to be so cavalier in trying to slaughter their customers? In fact, the Wall Street Journal reported late last year that certain cancer rates are falling – this doesn't quite tie in with the wild claims made in these earlier comments.
It seems to me that the PCPC can't win – if they don't ask the FDA to strengthen regulations, they are damned and, seemingly, now they have done so – guess what – they are damned! May I suggest that the PCPC recognise that self-regulation is only as good as the least co-operative cosmetics company, and the PCPC cannot “rule” all their member companies, and certainly has no power over those who are not members. Perhaps the call for more FDA regulation is how the responsible section of the industry ensures that the entire industry behaves itself?
One further point – just over 100 years ago, the world population was around 1 billion (and the average lifespan was about 47 years – in the USA). It is now well over 6 billion, and the average lifespan (again, in the USA) is approximately 78 years. We somehow seem to be able to survive even longer whilst swimming in the toxic soup of cosmetics than we did 100 years ago. Strange!
Kristi, thanks for your comments. Yes, it is confusing! While I cannot speak for the PCPC, the press release last week stated the supported change in FDA regulations, where they highlighted 5 specific areas. This proposed legislation was just released yesterday, and the press release above is a response to the proposed bill.
Thanks for sharing your opinion. Just wanted to point out that the “companies who are really trying to do the right thing” may not be in business anymore if this legislation passes as written in the draft released yesterday. Have you read the bill? Do you understand what it means?
I'm a bit confused by your opening comment as well… what does “male dominated messaging” have anything to do with this issue or post?
My post SHOULD have read “I DON'T mean to be insulting. . . “! For some reason I was unable to edit this, and it was NOT a Freudian slip!
Wow Stephanie, if your family suffers from all of these problems, then “yes” it must be a tough road for you and your family.
The questions you pose are good ones, however that is the question. How can you blame cosmetics as the problem to the conditions you address? Much of this is genetic and much what may affect you or your family could very well be what you eat, drink or breathe, there is no disputing this fact.
These are very different from putting something topically on your skin. The majority of personal care products are not contaminated as EWG and CFSC would have you believe. Furthermore they do not penetrate into the blood brain barrier which would require nano particles and penetrating not only the epidermis, first line of defense, but the dermis and then into the subcutaneous layer, and finally into the blood brain barrier…even certain sized nanos have not unequivocally been proven to penetrate the blood brain barrier, let alone proven to cause DNA changes. So unless people are eating their cosmetics, these pose little to zero risk for the consumer.
It is unfortunate that the EWG and the CFSC are scaring the public, but then again, without fear driving the public, then they would be out of a job, because those that are fearful are buying into their koolaid propaganda and donating to their unworthy cause.
This is typical messaging that is the opposite of what is true – it is you and your obsolete “experts for hire” who do not have the science.
Why can't you get distinguished women and men such as those below to take your side?
You are the one who is fear mongering on behalf of the big boys, Shame on you for manipulating women who are trying to be successful business owners. This bill enables them to know what is in the ingredients they purchase from suppliers to make their products, it gives them a competitive position with the EU market which demands safer products. It makes the big boys have to comply with the same safety rules as everyone else, and this is really what this is all about, a corporate fight against doing what is best for the public good.
This denial about the product testing is astounding. Test these products yourself if you don't believe us and then bring the results back to us.
Here are the people you should be sitting down and listening to about the scientific studies linking toxic chemicals in cosmetics to cancer and other illness:
Dr. Birnbaum, National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences (federal government)
Dr. Shanna Swan, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology,and of Environmental Medicine.
Director, Center for Reproductive Epidemiology, University of Rochester School of Medicine (featured on 60 Minutes)
Megan R. Schwarzman, MD, MPH, Research Scientist UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
School of Public Health, Berkeley
Laura N Vandenberg, Ph.D, Biology Center for Developmental and Regenerative Biology, Tufts University
R. Thomas Zoeller, Professor, Biology Department, Morrill Science Center, University of Massachusetts (formerly lead researcher on endocrine disruptors at NIEHS)
Dr. Theo Colburn, The Endocrine Exchange
There are many, many more, but you get the idea.
For God's sake, no one is profiting from this environmental health work, they are just trying to keep you and other women and children (who are the most vulnerable, but men are at risk, too)
from getting sick. Don't be fooled. These professional communications people cut their teeth on the tobacco fight, arguing just like this that tobacco doesn't hurt you, and they lost that one too.
Stephanie, Dr. Swan was awarded a 5 million dollar grant from the EPA for her research on phthalates and pesticides, it was based on a single narrow study and one which is not supported by her colleagues within the medical community. It was in her best interests to provide negative aspects in order for her to continue receiving her government funding on the backs of taxpayers I might add, yet she could not state unequivocally that phthalates are the actual cause to the problems in pregnant women and their children, but based on precautionary principle.
Unfortunately, your running diatribe does nothing to add to this important piece of legislation and though you espouse weak resources as your argument for us manipulating the system, As Lisa referred to the colorado personal care products safety act where CFSC reps stated they did not have the science by their own admission, yet you feel that the names you put forth here are conclusive in their research…and I invite you to show us the studies by which you refer rather than putting names out there unrelated to this situation.
As far as women in business and a level playing field, by what you are stating, it is clear that you have not read the proposed legislation in its' entirety, because if you had, you would realize that the suppliers and the women who want to make these products will be “no more”. I would request that before you continue with this tact, you read the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010 and research further as to the data you refer and present it here, since we base our evidence on sound science not political statements since EWG and CFSC are clearly politically motivated and are financially motivated to continue with this tact based on the precautionary principle without actual conclusive studies
Dr. Richard Sharpe the leading phthalates expert in the world did exact testing to Dr. Swan and though the abnormalities were found in rats the study did not duplicate in the marmoset monkey therefore her study cannot remotely extrapolate to humans since we are far more closely related to simian beings.
I am also sure that if I took the time to research the other names you stated, I could find some mutual relationship with Swan on how they received their funding and what bias they may be leaning toward, those that fund them or the truth.
Oh just for clarification to gain a better perspective of your position and why you are taking such an angry stance on this issue…are you the same Stephanie Hendricks affiliated with the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics?
Dr. Swann is an internationally renowned scientist as are hundreds like just her all over the world who are raising concerns about these chemicals. Trying to discredit them will be a waste of time for you,
Dr. Sharpe's studies, as he himself admits, were not accurate comparisons due to biological dissimilarities in the marmosets' endocriine systems that do not translate to humans.
And here's a question you can't answer: why would anyone want to make products that contain toxic chemicals thata re harmful?
If the women who make products KNOW the components they use are harmful I am sure they won't use them.
The blame is on the chemical companies for allowing these chemicals on the marketplace in the first place, and I say THEY should shoulder the cost for smaller businesses needing to transition to find safer chemicals. The bill holds for a sliding scale for this reason.
And if the chemical companies took the money they spend on the communications firms to confuse the public about the truth in their products and spent it developing safer chemicals, then neither of us would have to be spending our time debating this.
The bills to reform TSCA and the legislation in the European Union and Canada will be forcing the same standards. The tide has turned on corporations controlling regulations, just as the banking industry and petrochemical industries have done, to the detriment of our well being and health.
Women in the cosmetics business who are savvy and who want to make the most money will want to know that their products are safe, that their customers can trust what they make, and won't depend on industry trade associations run by Procter & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson, and other huge corporations to lead them into making toxic products.
It is a shame that those who are the largest corporations in this sector have been so irresponsible and arrogant so as to set up a game that new business owners can't win. And now they are using women business owners as a shield to try and avoid being responsible for standards that protect our environmental health. As John Lennon said, “Maybe one day you will join us…” and we can work together to figure this out in reality.
I have great hopes that as the bills for safer cosmetics and all the other chemical reform legislation progress, that women business owners and environmental health advocates can work together to support one another in making products that won't contribute to the many illnesses we are facing from the overwhelming chemical exposure we have in our lives.
Stephanie, I say again are you affiliated with CFSC and you completely ignored the funding of Dr. Swan or the fact her studies were not on humans but rats….I can safely say we are not remotely associated with rats. Her suppositions on humans is based on her rat study.
So your argument bears no merit. Please provide the research here and state your affiliation please!
In answer to your question, yes I am a journalist who supports environmental health advocates, including those working with the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, as well as many others.
I had never intended to get involved in this type of work, but as an investigator, as a mother, as a person who cares deeply about women's health, I discovered that the more I found out about the health effects and chemical exposure, from more scientists at EPA and FDA who confided in me about industry influence and industry studies, shall we say, “customized” for industry profits and not our health, in combination with the increasing number of friends I have tried to help in their suffering with breast cancer and other illness linked to chemicals, the more committed I have become to holding corporations accountable for the harm they are doing.
I know that we can work to set regulations that support all business owners who want to do the right thing, which is to make products that are successful AND that protect our health. This needs to be our focus, not this posturing and “8th grade politics” culture.
I'd like to see women business owners who do want to do the right thing examine their products, the science about the chemicals they use, and honestly evaluate if they need to transition, and then we can all work together to get support for the transitions that have to happen sooner or later. The sooner the changes are made, the less people will suffer from health effects from exposure to these chemicals.
I can certainly appreciate your passion in what you do, however, the demagoguery you are spreading, and I have followed it before on CFSCs blog, is not sound science nor does it relate to the what is in this new piece of legislation being presented.
Without the science to prove that cosmetics are the problem, we are going to stand on science instead of ceremony and do what we can do to prevent this unfair piece of legislation that will literally destroy thousands of women owned small businesses.
Yes we should work together, but this video and other rhetoric which come out of the CFSC is strictly for the purposes of scare mongering…period! There is no proof of anything they espouse. I mean really…skull and crossbones on everything within the video…how childish and sophomoric….literally treating the American people as though they are mindless lemmings.
Furthermore, they continually purport that over 1200 chemicals have already been banned by the EU used in cosmetics and this is a complete fabrication. What this entity does not tell the public is that approximately 6 on this list of banned ingredients were every used in cosmetics and FDA has banned 8.
Perhaps you should review the banned ingredients list and learn further what these chemicals are since I don't believe I have ever seen metaldehyde (slug bait) or diesel fuel used in a cosmetic product. Just two examples of what is in this list.
So if anyone is lying to the public, it is not the cosmetic industry but CFSC in their campaigns of fear and I say shame on them.
Thank you for clarifying your position as I have noted your are one of the main contacts on CFSC's website, as you are on EWG affiliations.
Look, Katherine, there are no lies at CSC or EWG. The science is there, so I'd say it is clear that we are both wasting our time, along with the time of others to read this stuff.
It is clear that whoever is paying you wants your comments on top, so you'll no doubt be repeating your same old rhetoric after this message.
The women who read this site, those who know deep down inside what is right, will do the right thing and we will work together and you will need to find some other environmental health advocate to try and smear.
Best Wishes!
Present your science and quit spinning this to avoid the truth….this site is for those that seek the truth and as far as being on top with the last comment, ah yes, your true colors have just shined through brightly…as I volunteer my time and I am not paid anything let alone what employees of CFSC and EWG are.
And I did nothing to smear you, but simply asked you to present your facts instead of repeating the same old regurgitated statements put out by these entities….something you have refused to do…you have not once addressed my key points to your argument.
So yes this exchange has been a complete waste of time except to show those that visit the true colors of those that have no science to back up their claims except to say “the science is there”. I guess you missed the key issue on Susan Roll during the Colorado hearings… Direct Quotes as taken from the tape recording of her testimony…
“I'll tell you I'm not a scientist. I'm actually a social worker so I'm reading what you're reading and also trying to make some 'um' educated guesses about it, 'um' when we have chemicals that cause tumors in rats I think that it is okay to say we don't want those chemicals in consumer products. Do we have evidence that they are causing mammary tumors in humans?…… No, we just don't have that yet. We are not that far with the science….I wish I could say more. I wish I knew more of the science. I wish we had more science…I would just say that I think we have enough of the science that we need to make some steps towards safety.”
Have you done your own research or are you only posturing as CFSC's mouthpiece.
So much for the science!…
Stephenie, As one who I assume you include in your rather insulting “experts for hire” smear, can I point out that I get no payment for contributing to this site, nor am I supported by my employer in the sense that I do not post in my employer's time. If I can refer you to my various posts, especially those on parabens, you will see that I do “have the science”. Furthermore, if you read my post on Skin Deep – Scratching Below The Surface., you will see a logical discussion presented that proves conclusively that the database has no value in the assessment of the safety of cosmetics. I am NOT an apologist for chemical companies/big industry or any other stock phrases that are constantly churned out by chemophobes – I am an apologist for truth and accuracy – something that your comments fail to comply with. The EWG and associated groups have a HUGE vested interest in continuing to scare the average consumer. The extremely well-paid employees of EWG need the donations to keep them in a job. Every single EWG employee has a vested interest massively greater than the UNPAID experts (including Lisa and Kirstin) who contribute to this site. Your comments are so wide of the mark, and are insulting!
Stephanie, perhaps you should read this post rather than jumping to conclusions… http://personalcaretruth.com/2010/07/who-is-per...
You could also click on any of the bios above to see who we are, and what we represent.
BTW, your comments can jump to the top too if you just make them, there is no formula or people behind the site making comments jump to the top.
My question is: why isn't the EWG supporting cosmetics makers like myself who use food grade ingredients to make their products? Most of what I make is, in fact, edible using ingredients that are not only GRAS, but consumed for centuries. I use food grade oils, aloe vera juice, hydrosols, handmade tinctures from herbs I grow myself, honey, beeswax (no borax)/candellila wax, orange fiber as emulsifiers and leuconostoc (radish root ferment which is akin to kimchi) as a preservative. My creams are analogous to mayonnaise, but I don't see mayonnaise manufacturers jumping through hoops to register their formulae, perform third party testing for safety, pay huge registration fees for each product they manufacture, etc. and mine are not even ingested!!
On the subject of skin absorption, I have read that the skin can absorb 60% of that which is applied, especially through the follicles which is why dermal patches are effective. But as you pointed out, Katherine, the delivery system effects how well something is absorbed, which is why nanotechnology is being embraced by pharmaceutical companies. Large molecules, especially those comprising the oils that I use, cannot pass into the blood stream. There is a trend, however, to make skincare follow the pharmaceutical route (skinceuticals, nutraceuticals, etc), but that is where the EWG should focus their attention. Right now they are lumping all of us together and frankly that's what infuriates me about the Story of Cosmetics. I don't think the public is all that naive to think that every cosmetic product is made with toxic ingredients. If that were the case then why would natural products be the fastest growing sector?
Maggie Mahboubian
Lalun Naturals, Inc.
I've been making skincare for 15 years and selling here and there, but I just launched on Monday. Talk about timing. It looks as though the EWG's legislation will nip me in the bud. As soon as I am able I will join the Indie Business Network, and NOT the EWG because Donna Maria has proven herself to be the only advocate championing my cause to provide safe cosmetics to the public. And that is noteworthy.
It certainly seems as though the PCPC was trying to pre-empt the Safe Cosmetics Act and muscle into the legislative arena the EWG is trying to take over. Hey, these are huge lobby groups based in Washington who are now duking it out to see whose legislation is going to win. Either way it will result in fees for those of us who make cosmetics without making the public any safer.
Excellent points Maggie, especially in regard to food products. Why aren't they requiring food manufacturers to test all their ingredients as being totally safe? As a matter of scientific basis, ingestion of something will be either more beneficial or harmful versus slathering something on your skin. I mean really if I want to fight free radicals in my body, I am certainly not going to gain the protection by placing something on my skin, I will only get benefit by taking the vitamin internally or eating natural foods.
In reference to the skin absorption, this has been one of the internet myths perpetuated by CFSC and it is completely false. 60% is something they threw out there based on penetration enhancers and trans-dermal patches, as they equated to birth control and smoking patches. And there are some manufacturers that do use nano size particles such as in sunscreens. But these numbers does not 60% make….basically a huge exaggeration. All of us here are also tired of being lumped in with the destroyers of our environment as there are many and I am glad the EPA has kept an eye on this, however, this simply is not the case with cosmetic manufacturers. We are being assaulted for what? It is clearly a power grab as they wish to dictate our lives on how we should live, eat, breathe and slather our potions on our bodies.
I actually challenged Stacy Malkin on this as other IBN members did in relation to this occurring based on how skin patches work, and once we were able to show here this was a misnomer and educated her on nano particles, she rescinded the comparison via Twitter, but I have yet to see it removed from their propaganda materials or stopped by those that support them, since they are still recycling this disinformation.
We all look forward to you joining the IBN network…it is a great benefit to you and your company and you will always be kept in the loop and we are here to support one another in our endeavors…Welcome!
There aren't scientific studies, but there should be. I'm sure the industry would want that information too. There's plenty of science, in my eyes: http://www.safecosmetics.org/article.php?list=t....
Hey greenismyvalley -
Thanks for your comments. “There aren't scientific studies, but there should be”. Oh, but there are. They just don't happen to exist for the CFSC or EWG, again, as Susan Roll pointed out in Colorado – 'Straight From the Horse's Mouth' http://personalcaretruth.com/2010/06/straight-f...
As you direct me to the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics website 'Science' page, I can appreciate your position and support for CFSC, especially since your organization is one of the founding members.
There is plenty of science in my eyes as well and it appears on this site in the form of articles and links to other sites that believe in the science and not the precautionary principle.
Thanks and have a great night!
Lisa
Maggie, it is unfortunate, especially for the manufacturer of natural products like yours. Natural products are those that contain the most chemicals. Lavender has over 100 chemicals, parsley over 200. Even though these have been considered safe for ages, I don't know how many of those chemicals might be toxic in some dose and in some conditions. I do know that there are people allergic to both of those which would raise a red flag for EWG. I also know that it will be pretty difficult to list all those components on a label like they want too. This bill will make it so that only highly purified, synthetic ingredients can be used unfortunately.
Thanks for your response, Cindy. I'm aware of the chemical constituents of essential oils as I make natural perfumes and know which ones are restricted by IFRA (another regulatory organization basing its conclusions on bad science). I read a study about lavender (restricted by IFRA in terms of amounts that can be used in leave on products) and out of about 27,000 participants only about 20 had reactions. It was such a small number that it was statistically negligible. Unfortunately, there is incentive to ban naturals as that allows synthetic equivalents to be marketed more effectively. I'm all for complete disclosure of ingredients on labels indicating that an ingredient has been known to cause a reaction. That would allow the consumer the option to decide.
Maggie, if I understand it, the SafeCosmetics Bill says that if 1 in a million have an adverse effect then it is toxic!! Can you imagine?? I'm sure everything will cause a reaction in someone. I know I have a reaction to rose hip seed oil and orange wax. Therefor, no one could use these products!
With respect, Stephanie, gender is not relevant to this discussion – it does not add any extra credibility, and I am mystified as to why so many women use this statement, and the fact that you care deeply about women's health does not make you right. I actually care about men's AND women's health, so that must make me more right than you, because I care about men's health as well! I also care about people's time being wasted by worrying about concerns both invented and exaggerated by the EWG and its acolytes. May I refer you to my recent post on PCT – The Truth, The Whole Truth or Anything But the Truth. It exposes one of the EWGs most vociferous mouthpieces as not being able to sustain a logical argument in favour of one of the basic tenets of the Safe Cosmetics Act, amongst other issues.
I challenge you to break the confidence of the scientists at the EPA and FDA who confided in you. If you care so much about “women's health”, surely a broken confidence is a small price to pay? This This “customisation” of studies MUST be exposed, and you are clearly well-placed to do it. And it should be done now, rather than later, so that the issue is addressed immediately. Failure to do this would make me suspicious of your claim.
Dear Mr. Godfrey,
I see you work in Sales, and have commented that if parabens were dangerous and sales reflected that, that “manufacturers would have to remove them.” Bingo! With all due respect, you say you are a scientist, why don't you go back to the lab and make safer substitutions, rather than bicker on a website?
And shame on you for even suggesting that I breach the confidence of the brave men and women trying to work under the terrible culture at EPA and FDA that is struggling to now come out from under the industry controlled conditions (intimidation) under the Bush administration?
I must have struck a nerve for them to bring you in to this.
As I said those women AND men business owners who want to do the right thing will, and they will see the corporate reps who have no integrity for just what they are – trying to shore up an obsolete system that consumers no longer support.
The chemical manufacturers should have never been allowed to put their products in the marketplace to begin with, because as we see, the downstream users are paying the price. Focus your anger on the chemical companies, not the environmental health advocates!
The money being paid to folks such as yourself and others should be better spent developing safer substitutions with adequate scientific review. Energy might be better spent on making the chemical manufacturers accountable, giving resources to regulatory agencies for strong scientific review, and to the downstream users for being supported in the transition to safer chemicals.
What will you be selling, Mr. Godfrey, when parabens are no longer legal?
Modernize! Make safer products!
Stephanie,
Your first paragraph is a typical ill-tempered, ill-judged and illogical (and possibly a little hysterical) response. You accuse me of bickering on a web site – yet you are engaging with me. Therefore, you also bicker on web sites.
You level charges at me that are totally unfounded, and cannot have been based on any knowledge whatsoever. I am tired of the well-worn “who is paying you for this” rubbish. If that is your best defence, I suggest that you yourself stop bickering on web sites.
I try to be civil and polite when engaging in these types of discussion, but you make it very difficult folr the reasons cited in my first paragraph. You are your kind always seem to feel the need to resort to accusations and vague claims (“we have the science” fro, an ealrier) comment. If you have the science, you certainly don't understand it, otherwise you would not make such nonsensical statements.
For the last time I GET NO MONEY FOR ENGAGING IN THESE POSTS AND SUPPLYING ARTICLES.
If you cannot temper your comments and be significantly less rude, I don't intend to engage with you any further, as I willl not be brought down to this level again.
Further to my initial response to the comments above, now that I am more calm:
You have misquoted me regarding any link between the alleged dangers of parabens and the manufacturers ceasing to use them.
The fact that I am a scientist does not mean that my time would be better spent in a lab making safer substitutions for parabens – this does not constitute an argument and has no bearing on the point of the discussion.
Your attempt to pour shame on me for suggesting that you break the confidence of the “brave men and women etc” is a poor attempt at trying to escape from proving the claim you have made regarding the pressure they are put under to manipulate scientific findings. The Bush administration is no longer in power – your comments are irrelevant. I am sure that if the culture you describe were so terrible, that somone would leak this information more directly than whisper it to you so that can use it to bicker on web sites. I challenge you once more to prove this claim, because I for one, don't believe you.
Tell me more about this “obsolete system that consumers no longer support”. This is presumably the system in which P&G, Estee Lauder and L'Oreal et al are operating – you know – the big corporations who you seem to think are determined to kill all their customers with “toxics”. They must be quaking in their boots when they realise they they are obsolete and that their products are no longer selling.
You seem to be able to determine the motivation of people of whom you have no knowledge. How are you able to state with such certainty that I am being paid by “them” (whoever “them” may be)? Why does anyone who disagrees with you have to be paid to do so? There is an acute arrogance in your assumption, because you seem to suggest that no-one could possibly disagree with you without being paid to do so. A common arrogance amongst EWG/CFSC advocates, unfortunately, and a very irritating one, because it is entirely unfounded in my case. I cannot state that there is no-one engaging in these discussions that is being paid to do so, but would that make everything they say wrong? No, of course not! You cannot argue based on the science, so you try to undermine the credibility of the commentator. Not a good basis for a rational discussion.
I will refer you to my post concerning the discussion I had with Stacy Malkan recently. It is posted on this site and is called “The Truth, The Whole Truth, Or Nothing But The Truth”. Stacy also stated that she wanted adequate scientific review. More specifically, she wanted the manufacturers to disclose their data, and for it to be reviewed by independent scientists employed by the government. I pointed out that there are research studies generated independently of the industry (ie even better than she was demanding), and they have been reviewed and assessed by a committee of independent scientists at the behest of the European Commission, and that these experts recommended that methylparaben and ethylparaben are safe for use in cosmetics at concentrations up to a total of 0.8%. I then challenged Stacy, on the basis that her demands had not only been met, but exceeded, to accept that parabens are safe for use in cosmetics. Mysteriously, she failed to post my comments and, of course failed to answer them. I now offer you the same challenge. Will you ignore these comments, or have the courage to respond? Your demands for data review have also been met.
Just as an aside, my anger is NOT focussed on environmental health advocates – it is focussed on anyone (and I mean ANYONE) who uses misinformation about any cosmetic ingredient to push an agenda. I object to the misselling of synthetic ingredients on exactly the same principles. I also object to hysterical, unfounded accusations that attempt to undermine me.
And, finally, in answer to your somewhat sneering parting shot, if parabens become illegal (albeit unlikely, when you consider my previous comments), I will continue to offer the rest of the extensive range of alternative preservatives and preservation systems that I have been engaged in developing and selling for the past 18 years. So you won't get rid of me THAT easily!
I have another challenge for you – respond to this post in a calm, logical manner, and based on the actual points I have raised. Go one better than Stacy Malkan.
Ah, Mr, Godfrey, I thought you weren't wasting any time on me! But then having the readers of this website believe in your less than straight forward messaging might impact your paraben sales, then, mightn't it?
So, in an effort to not waste yours, mine, or the readers' time, let me once again, very calmly, repeat what I am communicating:
The system for regulating cosmetics is broken.
Chemicals have been allowed in the marketplace that should have never been allowed, and downstream users are paying the price.
You and your buddies are trying to blame the environmental health advocates and real scientists who are stating the true health hazards, instead of getting to work to figure out how to make safer chemicals, safer products, with a transition that is fair to the small and mid-sized business owners, in spite of the preceived profits you and the companies you mentioned will lose.
Anyone who makes toxic products deserves to lose their profits. The market is already determining this.
That is the obsolete system I am talking about. If you prefer to live there, then, God Bless You.
The rest of us are moving out of the stone age toward a world that is healthier with chemicals that small to mid-sized business owners can trust to put in their products.
As said before, Best Wishes! Perhaps when you come to your senses we can work together and celebrate a difficult transition!
Please spare me the false politeness and formality of addressing me as Mr. Godfrey, when everyone else addresses me as Dene and, instead, address the points I made in my second response, rather than just reiterating your earlier, unsubstantiated points in a show of triumphalism/smugness as though there is some basic, unassailable truth in all you write. Your patronising comment about me coming to my senses is not really helpful to this discussion. The fact that all you are able to do is repeat the same mantra that we keep hearing, without deviation, and without substantiation proves to me that you exist in some sort of bubble. The same bubble that houses Susan Roll – the only person associated with EWG/CFSC ect who had the decency to admit “we don't have the science . . .I wish we did”.
I bothered to take the time to respond a second time,, and this third time, not for your benefit (that IS a waste of time), but for the benefit of those who read these comments, so that they can see that there ARE counters to your outrageous claims (Stone Age – if that isn't ridiculous, I don't know what is. Check your history – cosmetics were originally a product of Egyptian culture, not the Stone Age).
Your rather odd insistence on persistantly referring to parabens sales demonstrates that you didn't read my last response very carefully, or is it simply that you don't choose to believe me. Do your research, Stephenie. I work for a company called S. Black. Check out the preservatives that we offer. Yes, you will find parabens listed, but you will also find most other commonly used preservatives, plus many of the alternative “non-preservatives” that people are moving toward using. So any drift away from parabens enables me to sell more of the alternatives that my company offers (and more profitably, I might add). I DON'T like using this site to advertise, but as you clearly are not willing to research your comments fully, I have been forced to do this for you.
The bottom line is that your sneering comments implying that I only want or need to sell parabens are more than wide of the mark – they are a complete miss. I guess an apology won't be forthcoming, though – I get the impression that this is not your style – or am I making an unfair assumption.
If you are going to reply once again, I will repeat my challenge to actually address the points I raised in my earlier posts, and spare me the attempts to undermine my credibility.
If you have any support from other readers of this site, this would be interesting to hear about.
I'm glad to see someone coming back against the video. The video was childish and didn't teach anything. It seemed more like propaganda to me rather than informative. And what's up with the journalist and the green fellow in the comments? I couldn't really follow what the point was of what the journalist was trying to say. She was all over the map. Bringing up women in business, then making money and being more competetive, then women making safer products. I'm not sure who she's been talking to but I've ordered from several women owned etailers who make their own lotions, perfumes and cosmetics who did their own research, know their suppliers and do ship outside the US. Oh yeah, men too! One of my fav perfume oil creators is, well, male.
Hey Tina -
Thanks so much for your comments. There are so many that feel the same as you. That's why it is so important that we continue to spread truthful information so consumers can make informed decisions, based on science and not fear.
Have you had the opportunity to watch the critique of the video? If not, it is really worth the time http://personalcaretruth.com/2010/07/story-of-c...
Thanks again for your comments and we hope you continue to contribute to the dialogue.
Have a great night -
Lisa