You are here: Home / Information / Who is Personal Care Truth?

Who is Personal Care Truth?

Posted by on July 23, 2010 · 13 Comments 

It appears there is still some question as to who owns Personal Care Truth, where the money is coming from to fund this site and how our experts are paid.

While I don’t mind repeating myself a few times, this record is getting rather broken.  So hopefully, after this post, there will no longer be any unanswered questions.

Earlier this year, I approached Kristin Fraser Cotte about a dream I had.  We started to talk and realized we were both disappointed by all the misinformation floating around on the web in regards to the cosmetic industry.

Outside of tweeting, conference calls in regards to indie business matters and the occasional email, I did not know Kristin on a personal level.  She lives on the west coast and I’m on the east.  Because we both had a vested interest in the cosmetic industry, we decided to collaborate to form Personal Care Truth.

Up the road a piece, {that’s a southern form of direction}, is another twitter friend Jen @EcoOfficeGals, who I happened to donate products for a Green Giveaway. I contacted Jen to help with designing a wordpress site. Jen was in our price range so we jumped in feet first.

Throughout the entire process of creating Personal Care Truth, I was amazed how 2 independent women and business owners could come together so seamlessly. Every decision was a joint effort from the links on the sidebar to the content we wanted to include.  And for enquiring minds that still want to know, every dime was split down the middle. That’s right and it came from our personal pockets.

Contrary to what others may have commented on this site, our experts joined Personal Care Truth by offering their time to provide us with articles, answer ‘Ask the Experts’ questions from readers and to comment on their posts if someone has left a direct comment to them and they do not receive a dime from us.  Time is money, especially in this economic climate and we are very grateful to Anne-Marie Faiola, Dene Godfrey, Cindy Jones, Donna Maria Coles Johnson, Katherine Corkill, Kayal Fioravanti, Robert Tisserand and Paula Begoun for donating their time to Personal Care Truth.

I know it’s hard to believe there are people who are actually giving of their time.  I keep hearing my father say, “if it’s too good to be true then it usually is”.  If you want to know why our experts would donate their time for us and Personal Care Truth, then I suggest you ask them.

We encourage discussion, whether it is aligned with our thinking or not.  Posts create questions and comments which in turn promotes discussion.  While we promote an open dialogue, we do not allow the promotion of products or links to products.  That’s not what we’re about.  Kristin and I don’t promote our own products here.

If you notice a comment was edited by a moderator (one of us), then one of a two things have happened:

  • a link to a product was removed
  • a link to a website not related to the comment was removed

If you have something you would like to add to Personal Care Truth, please do not hesitate to contact us.  We greatly appreciate any and all feedback – good, bad or indifferent.  There are three areas of contact:

Contact
Submit Article
Submit Feedback

Personal Care Truth will continue to be a work in progress. We know that we will offend just as many as we please.  That’s the nature of the beast.  If everyone was a happy camper then what on earth would there be to talk about?

Many thanks for making Personal Care Truth everything we hoped for and so much more!

Print FriendlyPrint Friendly
Be Sociable, Share!

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:

  1. Personal Care Truth Mission Statement
  2. Colin Sanders Joins Personal Care Truth
  3. Personal Care Truth

Filed under Information · Tagged with , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention Who is Personal Care Truth? | Personal Care Truth or Scare -- Topsy.com

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

    Thank You,
    I think you are providing a great service as one of the many sources on the web for information of this type. The truth is subjective, and the more conflicting sources we have the better we all are to draw or own conclusions of what truth is for each of us. I will probably continue to question some of the findings and stances you take, and I hope you don't see these as attacks, but merely a pointing out the science that may disagree. I don't disagree with all you are saying, I do however find your bias to be a bit in favor of the traditional CPG companies that forced us to start a “green revolution” in this industry. I always have been suspicious of that, I tend not to trust that our government cares more about its people, than its corporations, that's my bias. Good luck, and keep up the good work

    -Bruce

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

    Hey Bruce -

    Thank you for your comments. I do not see it as an attack that you will continue to question our stance on some of our findings. I greatly appreciate your honesty. As with anything, there will be times where we'll have to agree to disagree. I hope the open dialogue continues and more people voice their opinion.

    Have a great weekend!

    Lisa

  • http://twitter.com/DuhBe Luci Ayyat

    I have only found your blog just recently, but maybe now is a good time for me to say “Thank You.” I truly appreciate the points of view you provide as counter-points to the other websites. I have just recently dipped my feet into cosmetic chemistry, and your blog has quickly become one of my favorites. In a country where the majority don't even understand 5th grade science, it is no wonder so many people are so easily swayed by cosmetic scare tactics.

    You are in for a bumpy ride with the recent cosmetics act. Just get yourself a padded seat and you will do just fine!

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

    Thanks for taking the time to comment Luci. You are right, we are in the midst of a rather bumpy ride with the draft legislation but I am confidant that science will prevail. It's easy to sway people when you start throwing around fear mongering words like “cancer” and “toxins”. Lisa and I promise to provide truth based on scientific research on this site, encouraging dialogue and examining both sides of the story.

  • http://eco-officegals.com/ Eco-Office Gals

    Thank you gals for the honorable mention above! I was a true pleasure working with the both of you!

  • ter456

    I don't understand what all of the fuss is about regarding who owns this site and how it is funded or what you pay or do not pay your experts. Maybe it's just me, but that thought would never have crossed my mind. Why is that anybody's business? Plus Lisa and Kirsten have written about how and why this site was developed if people had taken a moment to read about it. Having dissenting views on what is presented here is another story and provides a wonderful and open debate. But the other stuff just takes the focus off of the great work that Lisa and Kristin (and all of their contributors) are doing. I think the sincereity of their intentions shines through.

  • Dene Godfrey

    @ ter456 – I think it is to your credit that you don't care about how this site is funded etc. However, it is a common tactic used by the various groups/individuals that I will refer to as “chemophobes” to try to dismiss comments made by virtually everyone who disagrees with them as distorted by some “vested interest”; whatever form that interest may take. They imply that any sort of connection with the cosmetics industry, paid or otherwise, invalidates comments made – because of “vested interest”. The fact that industry insiders tend to know more about what they are talking about is totally irrelevant to these people. The irony is that the worst offenders for using this particular accusation are often connected to the EWG, most notably Alex Formulis, who is paid $120,000 each year to promote the scaremongering tactics employed by this organisation, and contributed to one of the earlier discussions on this site, albeit not too productively!

    This is the reason Lisa and Kristin needed to post this statement, and it is the reason I continually make the points that I have added here in other discussions! I totally support your comments about the obvious sincerity of these ladies, but even their sincerity doesn't prevent them from being attacked by organisations who don't like those of us who tell the truth about their scare tactics – let's not forget that their donations dry up if the consumers aren't scared!

  • ter456

    Hi Dene….I can totally appreciate where you are coming from and I just think it is unfortunate that you all need to defend yourself in such a way, but that is the reality. People who feel threatened by those courgeous enough to take a stand tend to have tunnel vision. I am a compact signer and like so many blindly believed so much of what they said. Before coming upon your site, I did have some issues with EWG/CPSFC (I am a signer), so much of what you presented already resonated with me, but at the same time I was still somewhat shocked.
    I wrote an article on my blog (which was also posted on a colleague's facebook page) questioning the dangers of parabens and was “attacked” for lack of a better word by the owner of a company in Australia that makes all natural products. I “respectfully” responded and she eventually softened a bit. What I think is interesting is that Lisa and others (myself included) support and manufacture natural products, but we are open minded enough to look at both sides of the story. Thanks!

  • Dene Godfrey

    Bruce – you make an excellent point about truth being subjective. Science, however, is not, or should not be subjective. From my own perspective, my contributions to this site are various combinations of science, logic and intuition, but I use science as much as it is possible to do, because this should be mostly inarguable. I say mostly, because the interpretation of scientific studies can sometimes be subjective. I welcome comments on my posts, especially if I have got “the science bit” wrong, because the whole point of my taking the time to contribute is because I want to see some truth and accuracy in discussions on cosmetics. If I don't get it right, then I have failed. I would rather get it right the second time, than not at all, though!

  • Dene Godfrey

    Hi ter (if I may be so familiar!), I appreciate your further comments, and I can empathise with your experience of being attacked. I have also been attacked by an Australian (is it a racial thing? lol), but this was a guy called Geoff Goldie, who was the first person to question my veracity due to “vested interest” – and he did it a very underhand way on his web site!

    I think that the problem with some manufacturers of “totally natural” products is twofold:

    1) They are convinced that natural is automatically safe, and can tend towards hysteria when this is questioned

    2) Many are insufferably smug that they have all the answers – they don't – and don't react well when this smugness is challenged..

    I am NOT against the use of natural ingredients per se – if they work and they are safe – great! But safety and effectiveness are more important IMO.

    I could go on, but I have wandered well away from the original post!

  • ter456

    Hi Dene…I am responding to your second response to my comment, but don't see it here…hey, you can call me “Ter” anytime:) It is short for Teri. I couldn't agree more with you on every single point. I have written on numerous occassions how natural ingredients are wonderful (but not all are) and how the most important criteria for me is whether they are safe and non-toxic. One of my articles was posted on your site which addressed whether or not all synthetic chemicals/ingredients were harmful. I think we already know the answer to that one:). And I actually don't think you wandered too far off because this distinction is at the crux of our other dicussions. It is the insistence by some that “all natural” is always better which I feel is causing so much misinformation and confusion which is then passed onto the consumer. Case in point: using safe and non-toxic synthetic preservatives which is essential for the safety of a given product. I would rather have that any day than a supposedly “100 all natural product” that could easily go bad because of a lack of preservatives. And yes, for some reason at least some Australian manufacturers think the word “chemical” is a four letter word. How many thousands of chemicals do our own bodies produce every day? I am also amused (for lack of a better word) when I see companies stating that there proudcts are “chemical free.” What does that even mean? Thanks again and keep up the good work!

  • Sagescript

    What? We are not getting paid?? I thought we'd at least get as much as the EWG executives do. OK, all joking aside, I do this as an educator and getting at the truth of any matter has always been important to me. As a scientist my nature is always to question things so scare tactics have never meant anything to me. I do have to say that I have a vested interest though. I make natural, botanical skin care products and I want to keep my right to do that without the CFSC trying to prevent that because they consider eugenol, phytoestrogens, etc. found in my natural ingredients to be toxic.