Vested Interest, Truth and Safe Cosmetics

Over the weekend, I was made aware of “vested interest” comments about Personal Care Truth on the HSMG Facebook page. For the life of me, I can’t understand why this is still an issue.  Can you believe we are having to say this for the 4th time in a post?  I’ve been told that it is hard for people to believe that PCT was created by two women in the industry, myself and Kristin Fraser Cotte.  Creating a website is not rocket science.  As a matter of fact, the only science involved is the science we share about personal care products.

History of PCT

March 1, 2010, during the Colorado Safe Personal Care Products Act legislative session, we heard Susan Roll, co-founder of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, testify they don’t have the science, and the bill was voted 7 – 4 against, based on bad science .  This story has been told many times, so for those that aren’t familiar, you can read the post and listen to the audio here.

I found a link to the live audio of the legislative session, and soon Twitter was a buzz from everyone listening to testimonies from both sides of the bill.  Our very own Cindy Jones, Ph.D., testified at the session.  PCT couldn’t be happier to have such a knowledgeable and prominent mind, at the top of her field.  Cindy is one smart cookie, as are all the experts on PCT.

March 3, 2010, Kristin and I get a direct message on Twitter from Stacy Malkan, co-founder of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics:

* I did not make public the number and email Stacy provided in her direct message above since I do not know if they are private.

This was great news.  We were finally going to find a way to work together instead of against one another.  Kristin and I were both compact signers; however, we both asked to be removed at different times.  I asked to be removed after the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics asked compact signers to sign a petition supporting the FDA Globalization Act of 2008.  Last year, after numerous emails to the CFSC asking to be removed, it took Kristin sending a demanding email, if her company was not removed as a compact signer, she would be forced to turn the matter over to her attorney.  Kristin was removed that day.

Back to the common ground direct message.  Through back and forth emails, we finally decided on a conference call date of March 8, 2010 at 2PM.  The conversation was good; however, we never really worked on common ground.  The call consisted on learning the following from Stacy:

Stacy began telling us the background of CFSC, which is since 2000, researching particular chemicals.  A lot of attention and interest – grew to coalition of 8 groups, which after looking on the website, it’s 10.

CFSC focused on conventional, big brands.  Tried to keep an open mind and communication with compact signers, and between small business owners.  Stacy felt small business is critical to the cosmetic industry.

CFSC was focused to strengthen at the federal level, not each state.  To give the FDA more authority. Repeated the federal level is their focus.  When I asked about their petition and what they meant by empowering the FDA to regulate cosmetic ingredients and products before they reach store shelves to ensure their safety, Stacy said that the 8 groups (actually 10) would generally like to give FDA authority to:

  • review pre-market safety data to do recalls
  • some requirements for safety assessments
  • putting in place best practices guidelines for chemicals like lead and 1-4 Dioxane

Susan Roll was with the CFSC in the beginning, but not now.  Stacy indicated they (CFSC) were consulted with in regards to Colorado Safe Personal Care Products Act, but it wasn’t their bill.

Stacy believed for right policy with a level playing field for small business.  She wanted to have additional conversation with Indie Beauty Network and its members on any legislation.

Stacy felt the FDA has done such important things in the past, and agrees with changes at the federal level and has no interest at the state level.

I asked Stacy three separate times if she was interested in continuing our common ground conversation and she answered yes all times.  Stacy said she would be open to a face to face; however, she would need to get with Lisa Archer to see what kind of schedule could be worked out.

March 18, 2010 was the last time we heard from Stacy Malkan. Her email to us said:

Hi Kristin and Lisa,

Just wanted to let you know that my conversation with Donna Marie was delayed until end of next week, but I am still planning to pull together a larger conversation with our groups in the near future.

The night of our conference call with Stacy, I had a dream that I had written a book titled, ‘Truth or Dare Scare: Cosmetics and Personal Care Products Fact or Fiction’.  Since Kristin and I were on the conference call together, I thought she would make a great partner and co-author.

Since we had not heard from Stacy, and was still seeing all the fear mongering claims, and misinformation that was saturating the internet, it occurred to us that a book would take too long to make available to the general public, not to mention the money it would take to produce.  Kristin and I decided a website would be the fastest, and least expensive way to get our message across.

April 28, 2010, I contacted Jennifer Smith with Eco-Office Gals.  We received a quote from Jennifer to build the site, and after a short discussion, Kristin and I gave Jennifer our outline for what we wanted PCT to look like and what we would be providing for content.  Personal Care Truth is a partnership, solely owned by myself and Kristin.  We used personal money from OUR POCKETS to pay for the site creation, URL, gravity forms, etc.  Whatever was required to get PCT up and running, WE PAID FOR IT by splitting the costs right down the middle.

Personal Care Truth was not and is not financed by big business or a third party.  Every decision for PCT is made by us, 2 women in the cosmetic industry.  Yes, we have a donation button on our site because there are people who believe in truthful information backed by scientific facts, and want to support what we started on May 17, 2010, and continue to provide.  Do we send out annoying emails or newsletters asking for a donation, or impressing upon our readers that a donation is needed to reach our goal?  No, we don’t do that.

Personal Care Truth, its owners, and experts all believe in safe cosmetics.  The introduction of H.R. 2359: Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011 has created a division in the small business arena, and that’s sad.  We should be working together on legislation.  The fact that you have a “seat at the table” doesn’t mean you will get to break bread in the end.  We need a collective voice, not a sense of “divide and conquer”.

Personal Care Truth still opposes H.R. 2359: Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011 because it is unworkable, far reaching, and will do absolutely nothing to make cosmetics safer than they already are.  We support safe cosmetics and certainly believe the FDA could use more transparency; however, we should be focusing on improving current legislation instead of completely changing it to serve the goals of non-governmental organizations that have yet to present the science to support their claims.  If you agree and want to oppose H.R. 2359, you may sign the petition.

So, there ya have it, in a nutshell, for the fourth and final time.  For those that still believe two women couldn’t create and pay for a site like Personal Care Truth, I say I’m done explaining, and appreciate you insulting our intelligence. Think what you want.  Say what you want.  I know the truth, and I’m no longer going to waste time or energy on the subject of vested interest.

Have a great day!

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

    In the HSMG thread, the following comment was made:

    “Be aware that Personal Care Truth is a group of
    manufacturers, large and medium-sized, who represent the cosmetics
    industry. Their suggestion that cancer rates are falling is slightly
    disingenuous. We have a younger population overall and vastly improved
    treatment and those are just two factors impacting cancer rates and
    mortalities.”

    For the American Cancer Society:
    “While cancer remains a major public health problem in the United States,
    cancer death rates among both men and women are continuing to decline,
    according to the American Cancer Society’s (ACS) annual cancer
    statistics report, “Cancer Statistics, 2010,” published in the Society’s journal CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, and its companion piece Cancer Facts & Figures 2010.
    Researchers credit the steady decline mainly to falling smoking rates,
    improved cancer treatments, and earlier detection of cancer.”http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/news/News/annual-report-us-cancer-death-rates-still-decliningIt’s not OUR suggestion, it’s from the people who actually study and report on cancer.  That’s the truth, not fiction or a suggestion.

    • http://twitter.com/SayNo2HR2359 Say No 2 H.R.2359

      None of that made any sense to me – the members of the Soap Guild make soap and cosmetics; the owners of this website make soap and cosmetics.  That’s the one thing everyone pretty much has in common – a common interest!  You both are equally invested in having successful businesses, are you not?  Was this poster implying that no one without huge financial backing could ever afford a website so professional looking perhaps? (Newsflash — there may be some custom code here but it’s basically a customized WordPress site and WordPress is free with most hosting plans — which start at less than $4 a month! Even the smallest soap maker can afford a very professional looking website!)

      Sue Sawhill Apito — retired professional web designer

      • Dene62

        When I posted my first comment, I thought that the quote was taken by Lisa from an official of the HSMG. I have since read the entire thread and realise that it was just an ordinary member of the group. This doesn’t make it much less of an issue, but I wonder what you have to do to get people to understand how PCT works – or are they simply not interested, and would rather make stupid claims about PCT based on pure guesswork?

        Whilst I agree with your comments, Sue, the main point, for me, is that PCT consists of posts from experts and commentators who are totally independent of both Lisa and Kristin – and, even more importantly, they permit posts that do not always agree with their personal beliefs and business ethos (specifically, in my case, organic cosmetics).

        I fully agree with the comments on the HSMG thread that accuse them of making decisions without consultation – and the one that compared them to the CFSC is a beaut!

        • http://twitter.com/SayNo2HR2359 Say No 2 H.R.2359

          I can’t go into the details of my separation agreement with the Handcrafted Soap Makers Guild when I was fired, but let’s just say I was paid FAR less money than what people posted online, but I most definately received a financial settlement!!  So I can only say that the current administration might want to review what they are allowed to spend dues money on, and as far as advocating for the members best interests - their “personal” opinions have NO bearing on this.  A non-profit Member funded organization is required to ASK what the majority want, and act accordingly, not tell them what is best for them!  The management do not “get” to have an opinon, they need to be the voice of the majority.  The members might want to consider speaking with an attorney.

  • Dene62

    As I said in my (much) earlier article on PCT about “Vested Interest” – http://personalcaretruth.com/2011/01/vested-interest/ - it is a pathetic non-argument to try to refute claims solely on this basis. Vested interest in itself is not an issue if the facts are correct – it is a desperate attempt to undermine credibility without actually using any facts, and a sure sign of the absence of a real argument.

    • http://www.facebook.com/joseph.colas Joseph Colas

      is that what they call an ‘ad hominem’  fallacy?

    • Anonymous

      Dene, I would like to know the answer to Joseph’s question, too. There’s logical fallacy, ad hominem fallacy(ad hominem by itself, as well), economic fallacy (parable of the broken window?) as well as straw-man arguements and sock puppets. Book and website suggestions welcome to learn more. These arguements are still being used and it’s tough to see them for what they are. Thank goodness more people are calling this out. I know this is off topic but we could use a little help. :) Thanks

      • Dene62

        Sorry – I wasn’t intending to ignore Joseph’s question – I thought it was rhetorical. I am not entirely sure which of the ad hominem options is the correct one, but I AM sure that the comments on the FB in question are entirely wrong about PCT. (I had only previously ever seen and used the term “ad hominem attack” – and I had never even heard of that until I began to get involved in LinkedIn discussion groups – what does that tell you!)

        • Anonymous

          ha! I learn the most interesting things over on the Respectful Insolence” blog.

          • Perry Romanowski

            I like the Skeptics Guide to the Universe podcast.  They also have a list of the 20 most common logical fallacies on their website.

          • http://www.facebook.com/joseph.colas Joseph Colas

            that’s where i’m learning about logical fallacies, summertimebluesandgreens!  i don’t post over there, i’m a lurker, as i don’t feel i have much to contribute, but much to learn!   well, i did post today under jenny mccarthy’s ‘magic bullet’ article…actually i’m hoping ‘orac’ did the article because i emailed him two days ago telling him what i got to witness with my very own eyes…it would seem it piqued his interest!

          • http://www.facebook.com/joseph.colas Joseph Colas

            and by the way i do think it’s ad hominem as i’m understanding it.  because they can’t refute the scientific proof offered by the contributors here, they instead attempt to undermine their credibility by making statements that they have ‘vested interest’ or are in the thrall of ‘big cosmetica’ (sorry i know that last is not a word in english, but i like how it sounds like ‘big pharma’), thereby attacking their characters without actually disproving any claims..

  • http://www.neoscreations.net Ginger at Neos Creations

    Simple response here…AMEN!

  • http://www.facebook.com/joseph.colas Joseph Colas

    quite the discussion on that HSMG FB page!!

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

      Yeah it is Joseph, and it seems there are things that need to be clarified. It’s sad that in the midst of all the discussions, the relationships that once were, are no longer as strong as suspected.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Nathan-Rivas/100001195250784 Nathan Rivas

        I was stunned to see that it appears the HSMG is deleting posts and blocking members who are voicing a dissenting option (then blaming Facebook for the selective issues.)  It is mystifying to see so many quite literally support legislation in direct opposition to their self interests on the word of the EWG!  Do they really believe that the CFSC truly has their best interest in mind?

        • http://www.facebook.com/joseph.colas Joseph Colas

          i hate to be the voice of paranoia, but it would seem it would be in one’s self interest to make sure to do ‘screengrabs’ of pages if they think what is being said will be ‘lost’. like lisa did down further.  the magic of computers! :)

  • http://twitter.com/SimplyHomestead Elizabeth Hill

    Amen!

  • http://twitter.com/SimplyHomestead Elizabeth Hill

    Amen!

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

    What concerns me the most about the current discussion over at HSMG Facebook is out of the entire discussion, Debbie May made one very key point which rises to the top of all dissent for me:

    “In the end we will all go to our own congressman for follow up with our belief. To totally bash a work in progress is baffling. Why not wait to see if something can get changed by working through the process before forming such as strong stand?”

    Perhaps she doesn’t understand the process as this is no longer a proposal, but a constructed bill, and if it passes the way it is written then it moves on for further votes to become law.  This we cannot allow in it’s current form.  Unless we make our stand now, amendments to the bill will go by the way side.  We need to make our position known NOW, not a “wait to see”.   Because we saw a “wait to see” with the toy manufacturers when that bill was passed under the noses of the industry, forcing many small indie companies to close shop forever.  Can’t call that one back now can we? 

    Ask those that were effected by CPSIA in 2008. http://sites.google.com/site/handmadetoyalliance/
    They are still trying to get this appealed 3 and half years later.  It is rare that we ever see any law get repealed including the attempt on the light bulb, even though it reached majority to repeal it, they still did not have the 2/3rds vote to accomplish the repeal.

    No one represented the little guy and they were drawn up in the problem which primarily stemmed from imports form overseas.  But the local US companies were hit the hardest.  So in protecting consumers with a broad stroke, the small toy manufacturer was decimated, when it was the small toy manufacturer which cared about children safety, much like the INDIE cosmetic manufacturer wishing to make a better product for their customers.  Exemptions are ridiculous and pointless, and will do nothing to strengthen safety in the larger companies from all other aspects of this bill.

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

      I hate to even utter these words Katherine. This whole mess with the Facebook page makes me feel more and more like we are dealing with CFSC clones when it comes to talking about the science. It doesn’t feel like to me that the science is even being considered.

    • Anonymous

      It would be nice to ‘work through the process’.  Can some one tell me how to do this at this point? The only one’s that ever asked my opinion was PCT!

    • Anonymous

      It would be nice to ‘work through the process’.  Can some one tell me how to do this at this point? The only one’s that ever asked my opinion was PCT!

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

        and we value it tremendously Cindy :) Why those who’ve taken charge in writing this bill have not asked your opinion, or Robert Tisserand’s (considering the EO concerns) or many of the  other leading people in this industry with a specific science background baffles me. It is just not logical. Where are the cosmetic science experts included in drafting this bill? It’s obvious in the current draft (or previous ones) that they were not included at all…

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

          Ditto! We couldn’t be more pleased to have you on the PCT team, Cindy! You bring a wealth of scientific information to the table, and I’m sure there are many others that appreciate you sharing your knowledge on cancer research, cosmetic science, toxicology, natural products chemistry, aromatherapy and herbalism.

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

        They aren’t asking the hard questions of people like you Cindy because you would provide science that contradicts their personal ambitions of gaining power through fairy tales and grandeur of self promotion.

    • http://twitter.com/SayNo2HR2359 Say No 2 H.R.2359

      Debbie May of Wholesale Supplies Plus writes: “Many of you are traveling down a very dangerous road. (by questioning the effects of this bill) I know firsthand that the intent of this bill is to phase out hazardous ingredients from cosmetics. It is to require ingredient manufacturers to publically disclose any safety studies they have on ingredients.”
      Does Debbie not realize as an ingredient supplier she is exactly the person this bill is aimed and protecting us FROM?  She is bascially saying right now, today, she is selling unsafe, hazardous ingredients and we need this bill to protect manufacturers from buying FROM HER and risking our health.  She says she can’t obtain safety studies on ingredients but she STILL SELLS THEM!! That is why her position makes no sense to me…can anyone explain this logic?No one from the CFSC or the Soap Guild or any person or organization or business supporting this bill has ever said; “this bill will eliminate this cosmetic chemical and here is how.”  Why?  Because banning ANY cosmetic chemical or ingredient is wishful thinking and marketing and not based on fact.  They generalize but do not specifically say this bill will do anything as far as actually ban a chemical or ban an ingredient.  Sue Apito

      • Anonymous

        I’ve known indie businesses to discontinue even a top seller because of a lack of information given by the suppliers. I thought the industry itself could work it’s influence backwards to persuade suppliers to change behaviors.

        I read Debbie’s comment. She sounds scared, perhaps? “Traveling down a very dangerous road” how, please? Will the opposers be harmed somehow? Given death threats or blacklisted until they go out of business? Who with good moral values abuses their power in this way? Big Pharma or Big Oil?

        Toxic ingredients phased out…which ones would this be? If I have a reaction to a lotion that contains honey (which I have) and I believe honey is the reason why (a reaction is rare, if I remember right) then that ingredient becomes “toxic” to me. Does that mean that honey will be phased out?

        I did read a number of the comments. For whatever an outsider’s opnion is worth, it doesn’t sound like all cosmetic companies are represented at these meetings. I guess I can agree that it’s better to wok with them instead of against them but it seems that the reason why is more that the Guild thinks that’s the way the tide is turning and it’s better to give in now. Hopefully in two days the Guild will be better able to explain why they’ve taken this position and what is happening in the meetings.

        I got an email from CFSC and played (clicked) around a bit. I came across the words “true leaders” somewhere in there. Seems to me they are setting themselves up to be the gatekeeper of these “true leaders”, a one-stop resource for all things “green chemistry.” The existing cosmetic companies (CIR, etc) were notably absent from this list.

        I am very disappointed but it’s my own fault. I held environmentalism up as a noble goal and the environ groups in high esteem: that they were “better” than the bad oil and chemical companies who’ve held the reins in an iron grip all these years, that because this was noble they would never act the same way. I was very very wrong.

        Tina S 

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

          Tina -

          Don’t beat yourself up. Not all enviro organizations are the same. Many are doing great works, and deserve to be acknowledged.

          As you put it, from an “outsiders opinion”, you would be correct. Not all companies are being represented.  The HSMG failed to poll their members for their position on H.R. 2359.

          The CFSC/EWG combo would love to be the gate keepers of the industry, saving us all from the manufacturers, except the ones that are on their compact.

          There’s no way I will sit back and watch as things unfold. It’s not in my nature, and if it’s one thing I loathe with a passion, it’s a bully. Your comments of being “black listed” if you speak out is not out of the realm of possibility, and something I’ve thought about many times. I will not stand by and allow the good names of people and their companies be pressured or bullied if they voice their opposition.

          In school, I stood up for kids that were bullied. I’m no different now. I believe in the American dream, and will stand up for the businesses, both small and big. Both serve the industry, and are needed to offer consumers a choice.

          Bottom line, if I’m pushed, I’ll push back.

          • Anonymous

            heh,been beating myself up since 197??? My mother has been getting on my case for that for years!!!

            I feel helpless is all. And I don’t like it. For the first time I’m standing up for something. I’m on the unpopular side of an issue and not making friends, playing nice (or thinking nice) or letting it go (wait and see.) Growing pains> Get me through the first time, figure out who to trust and talk to, how to say things, how to listen, critical thinking, keep the emotions out, listen listen listen, research…ha, I’ll be a pro!

            Funny thing I’ve figured out in the past year and a half: once I’ve made up my mind to learn about something or do something, I won’t let anyone stop me, not their attitudes, verbal abuse or inconsistency. I don’t judge all environ groups or people by one or two examples. I just look harder and work harder. You know, having my illusions shattered really isn’t all that bad. Reality and truth are easier to work with.

        • http://twitter.com/SayNo2HR2359 Say No 2 H.R.2359

          In addition to “you are going down a dangerous road” by objecting to this bill, another thing Debbie said was very insightful if you read between the lines (which I tend to do).  Someone mentioned the EWG (Environmental Working Group, the primary founder and funder of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics.)  Debbie seemed confused, not knowing “why EWG was being mentioned” during these discussions.  She seemed completely unaware of how they are positioned in all of this!  Was someone asleep at the table during all of this hard work they did for the “members” and the “soap industry”??

          I also suspect that the HSMG might be a little embarassed that they have been patting themselved on the back for being, basically, insiders in all of this – having a “seat at the table” they are so proud of.  Yet the only substantial change, the only claim of success…is that smaller businesses don’t have to pay a registration fee?  The MOST minor part of the bill. 

          Was their entire lobbying effort about finances (and not safety) — our soapmakers can’t afford a fee — a fee would shut them down, etc.  Because if instead of asking for money to send their representatives to Washington time and time again, if they asked for donations to set up a scholarship fund to help pay such fees for those businesses who truly could not afford them…that would have been a far more worthwhile use of members and donors money, in my opinion! Sue Apito

          • Anonymous

            You’re nicer than me, Sue. I saw Debbie’s comment as more disingenuous than confused. How long has this been going on? Three? Four? Ten years? CFSC isn’t confused about the science and at this point no one is fooled by “EWG/Skin Deep/CFSC isn’t part of this.”

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=568239313 Lela Barker

      Just a thought…and not aimed at any specific supplier, but….

      I can envision a scenario where a large supplier who currently supplies the handmade industry would support this bill.  Why wouldn’t they? This bill saddles suppliers with a mind-numbing set of new challenges, but none of them are insurmountable if the supplier has enough resources. They could theoretically tell legislators how responsible a company they are, how they want to comply, they want to help “clean up the industry”, then lobby for a few small business exemptions, obtain them, and sell the bill to the handmade industry as a “victory”…knowing all the while that LOTS of medium and small suppliers will be unable to comply and disappear from the marketplace. And then they are poised to pick up the “slack” as one of the few suppliers working with the handmade industry that CAN fulfill needs under the new laws. Has their customer base shrunk? Certainly. But the few manufacturers left standing will have fewer places to turn for supplies. And the few manufacturers left standing will have less competition in the marketplace. So those “big” suppliers to the handmade industry will have fewer individual heads to sell to, but they’ll be selling in larger quantities to those serious enough to survive the implementation of the legislation. Bigger dividends on fewer heads is a winning revenue combination.

      That’s what came to my mind anyway…but what do I know.

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

        “Divide and Conquer” is the only thing that comes to mind, and I can totally see this scenario playing out as we speak.

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

        This of course is a scary concept and is what is at work here, no doubt.  Similar to Dr. Bronner suing the larger companies for the use Organic in their marketing.  The attacks from within our own industry are serving one purpose, which has been the purpose of CFSC and EWG, US against THEM!  When we should all be working together against the NGO’s which are as outdated and irrelevant as the EPA!  Just my 2 cents.

      • Anonymous

        Many small crafters and soapmakers do not realize that they are actually ingredient manufacturers themselves. If you cut herbs from your garden and put them in your soap, doesn’t that make you an ingredient manufacturer? How is that person to get safety information on ingredients that they make/grow themselves? It means we will have to buy bulk herbs from huge suppliers/farms who can afford the toxicology studies????? So confusing.

  • Anonymous

    I just read a few of the comments. They are painful to read, sharp and sad. I didn’t realize whose facebook page it was. You’re cosmetic makers, the same industry: you may disagree on some points but you’re still the same industry. Is this “divide and conquer”?

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

      “Divide and Conquer”…….that’s exactly what it feels like!

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

    True to form, we are all about transparency, truth and science at PCT. Lisa, thanks for (yet again) setting it straight for those who’ve come up with their own “ideas” about what Personal Care Truth is all about and who is behind it…

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

      Yep….yet again…..most welcome ;-)

      I’m sure it will come up again for the shear fact PCT is being recognized in the industry for truthful information based on scientific facts. It will definitely come up again, and I’m done explaining. Is it 3 or 4 times the charm?

  • http://www.facebook.com/marcia.elston Marcia Elston

    I have only one thing to say about ‘vested interest’.  We all have vested interest(s).  Of the 7 listed current board members of HSMG, 5 have their own soap or personal care products business.

  • http://www.facebook.com/marcia.elston Marcia Elston

    I apologize, that was actually two things . . .:-)

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

    Wow, HSMG thread has been deleted. It’s a good thing I took a screen shot of the entire thread.

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

      deja vu to CFSC’s way of handling people speaking up, huh?

      • Dene62

        You may recall, from an earlier PCT article of mine, that Stacy also “filters” comments on her blog. I wouldn’t draw too many comparisons between HSMG and CFSC, however. This type of censorship is an insult to all contributors – on both sides of the discussion, but the set up of CFSC and HSMG is very different, imo. ALL elected bodies have a responsibility to take decisions on behalf of their electorate, be they governmental, industry-based, or the local fishing club. There is a point, however, when the decision required is so important and fundamental to the operation of the body that the entire membership should be consulted (eg a national referendum, or an extraordinary general meeting). I believe that the HSMG governing body exceeded their authority on this ocassion, and they are embarrassed at the response of the membership. They should surely post something by way of explanation for the removal of that thread, and amend their position (and CERTAINLY POLL THE MEMBERS!). The difference with the CFSC is that they are not set up by the members, and there is no clear requirement for them to truly represent their members. Stacy et al set the rules – those who are naive enough to join the CFSC and stay with them have no say in the running of the organisation – they are not being represented, but are simply pawns in the CFSC/EWG game. Having said that, the inexcusable censorship practised by both organisation is equally sinister and equally unacceptable to anyone who supports freedom of expression.

        If I were a member of HSMG (which, of course, I am not and never will be) I would be calling for the resignation of the entire ruling body, or resign myself if those resignations were not forthcoming. They have shown themselves to be not only incapable of leading the organisation, but incapable of critical analysis of the SCA.

        I am sooo glad none of this affects me!

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

          Interesting perspective Dene. To clarify, I was really just referring to the way that the thread was deleted… and trying to cover up that any of the members were against their position, nothing more.

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

        Yeah, was thinking the same thing last night, Kristin.

    • http://www.facebook.com/joseph.colas Joseph Colas

      how sickeningly sneaky of them…

    • Anonymous

      Oh, you’re kidding.

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

      Well it shows they have no backbone to stand up to the ridicule of their humungous mistake of pitting those in the industry against one another.  They should openly acknowledge their mistake and now work toward mending a bridge that they obviously have destroyed with many of it’s members and others in the industry.  However, my experience with people over the years has been, it is easier to remove the comment thread altogether and simply hope it will go away….eventually!

  • Anonymous

    Lisa, people just don’t understand that you and Kristin are ‘Super Women’ and have alot of passion.

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

    An example of government intervention failing and costing the taxpayers dearly. 

    http://blogs.forbes.com/jamestaylor/2011/07/20/the-new-green-economy-is-bleeding-a-great-deal-of-green/

    Green marketing control is a way to gain government support and subsidies for pretending to be providing a service that will help with protection of the environment.  Companies are getting rich off the backs of the taxpayer. This cosmetics act in my opinion, is nothing but a smoke screen for limiting capitalism through over regulation and pushing a green agenda to those that have “a vested interest”.  mo’ money….$$$$$$   Nothing less!