You are here: Home / Information / Safe Cosmetics and an Epiphany

Safe Cosmetics and an Epiphany

Posted by on January 17, 2012 · 3 Comments 

What do we know about the safety of cosmetics?  We know that the FDA regulates cosmetics.  We know the CIR assesses the safety of ingredients by studying all of the available science in order to make their determination. They labor over the data and then meet in a public, open meeting, to discuss their findings.  We know there are scientific studies to support the safety of cosmetics.  We know that the activists don’t have the science.

Personal Care Truth will be celebrating its 2nd Anniversary in May. Kristin and I, PCT co-founders, have worked very hard in creating a place where truthful information, that is backed by scientific facts, are shared with consumers and industry people alike. We are grateful for the knowledgeable experts, and guest authors, who share in our vision to provide truthful information backed by scientific facts.  Our numbers speak volumes.  Since launching on May 17, 2010, our numbers reflect the following:

Unique Visitors  -  169,359

Page Views   -  2,650,006

Number of Hits  -  10,858,327

Number of Visitors  -  454,608

It’s obvious we have an audience and are gaining momentum.  We have combated the “vested interest” claim many times in our posts and comments. I’m here today to say we no longer care about the “vested interest” claims. Why? Because we know who started Personal Care Truth. As cosmetic manufacturers, we were, and still are, tired of the misinformation, hype and fear mongering by organizations, that did not, nor do they presently, have the science to support their outlandish claims.  Personal Care Truth has been called negative because we call out the fear mongers.  I see it as keeping them in check.  Why on earth shouldn’t we highlight the organizations spreading fear?  Their actions are the reason Kristin and I co-founded Personal Care Truth.  To allow them to spread misinformation, on a daily basis, and not be held accountable, is not a reality I want any part of.

I had an epiphany over the weekend.  I realized that I was allowing the activists to dictate who supports Personal Care Truth.  I have never allowed anyone, other than my parents when I was growing up, to dictate my life, my thoughts or my beliefs.  It is safe to say I am the rebel of the PCT co-founders. I loathe bullies, both personal and professional.  I’m strong willed, hard headed and not afraid to speak my mind.  I call a spade a spade and I don’t compare apples to oranges.  The “vested interest” claims have prevented individuals, and small to big businesses, from supporting PCT through donations.  The activists have their financial supporters, so why shouldn’t PCT?

The money they receive helps them create more fear to spread like wildfire across the internet. Why aren’t they putting their donations to good use to fund scientific studies that are published in a peer reviewed journal?  Personal Care Truth has become a voice in the cosmetic industry. We will continue to fight the misinformation, hype and fear mongering, because we believe in the truth.  We believe in the safety of cosmetics. We believe in common sense.  We believe in science.  We believe in the cosmetic industry. We believe in consumer choice.  We believe in the American dream.

We will no longer allow the activists to dictate who supports Personal Care Truth. The organizations don’t have a problem taking donations from all walks of life, from individuals to companies, so they can continue preying on the anxiety of unsuspecting consumers. Trust that Personal Care Truth will continue to fight the misinformation, and bring to light the ludicrous claims of the activists.  Consumers deserve truthful and science backed information, so they can make an informed decision about the products they use on themselves and their family members.

If you believe in the efforts of Personal Care Truth, we would greatly appreciate your support through a donation.

 

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 Products Council {PCPC} and Safe Cosmetics
  2. The Cosmetic Ingredient Review and Safe Cosmetics
  3. Voluntary Cosmetic Registration Program (VCRP) and Safe Cosmetics

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

  • Dene62

    I don’t mean to be too critical here, but the way this is written makes it sound as though it is only the CIR that takes care of the safety of cosmetics and, whilst this may be true in the USA, it is certainly not a true global picture. The CIR also tend to oversell themselves (and by this I am referring to their claim to be a unique organisation). Whilst they may be unique in one sense, they are certainly not alone, as the SCCS (the EU’s totally independent scientific advisory committee) also take an in-depth look at many cosmetic ingredients. The difference is that the CIR is fully funded by the industry and has only recently changed its constitution to enable them to claim impartiality, whereas the SCCS (and its various earlier guises, SCCP etc) has always been totally impartial, being funded by the EU commission and using scientists from outside the cosmetics industry (from academia). The reason I make a point of this, is because the EWG only ever consider the activities of the CIR and ignore the massive contribution from the SCCS which, of course,skews their figures when they make their claims for the number/percentage of cosmetic ingredients that have been evaluated (although the EWG use the term “tested”) for safety. When any competant safety evaluator does their job, they will look at the work of both the CIR AND the SCCS. To only mention the CIR and ignore the SCCS helps the EWG maintain their myth. This concerns me!

    On a much more positive note, many, many congratulations to Lisa and Kristin for the fantastic success of this site. I am proud to have been involved from the start, and to have played a small part in writing some of the articles posted.

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

      You would be correct, Dene. Thanks for pointing out that I failed to include the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety {SCCS} http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/consumer_safety/index_en.htm

      I assure you it was not intentional. As always, I greatly appreciate you voicing your concern to my omission. I can always count on you to keep me in check :-)

      Thanks for the congrats. Kristin and I are very happy you serve as a PCT expert, and greatly appreciate all the truthful, scientific articles you’ve written for PCT.

      Here’s to another fabulous year of truthful information backed by scientific facts!

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

        This is why it is so awesome to get info from a variety of experts, with different areas of expertise within the same field. Thanks Dene for helping us to become more aware of the perspective across the pond, preservatives and so much more!