This may shed some light on the situation: http://bit.ly/9VctTy

I would prefer safety over the loss of a job, what I was trying to state was that if indeed there are no serious threat- products that contain some of the same chemicals that we would find naturally in food, but that it is the quantity of the chemicals that could cause any significant damage than why try to fix something that is not broken, especially if it is going to cause many small family business’s to go under.

Like I said I am very new to this industry and will admit I do not have enough of the facts to really make a decision yet, which is why I am so glad I stumbled upon this site and got involved in this conversation. I look forward to taken the time and checking out all the links that were mentioned in the following comments.

I am all for transparency. We list every ingredient on our products and believe the customer should know what is in their product. From my understanding so far this bill would cause the small business like ourselves who barely break even, but are extremely passionate about making healthier products to have to pay lots of money to have their products tested before they are sold?

Hal

I look forward to your next blog on how this bill will effect the small business.

Thanks again for the venue.

I am glad we agree on having safety _and_ jobs.

1) One way this bill helps is by giving consumers all the information regarding what is in a soap/cosmetic. So consumers can be safer if they learn that some product contains substances that might harm them.

Second, it also will establish a database of substances that are toxic/cancer causing so that producers can avoid using them.

Both of those items add up to ‘safer’ to me.

2) I think one premise of this bill is that cosmetics _may_ be dangerous but that is impossible to determine if their ingredients are kept secret. Providing transparency to consumers by insisting on listing all ingredients does not seem like a drastic regulation to me – rather it seems like common sense and the right of a consumer to know what they are buying.

3) I am not carrying water for EWG but to accuse them, or anyone else, of having questionable motives and funding really requires some type serious evidence. Don’t forget that many industry funded studies are not peer-reviewed either, this is common practice in many fields and one learns to weigh such information accordingly.

…

The NIH article referenced above discusses a peer reviewed article [1] from the journal Environmental Health Perspectives [2], “a monthly journal of peer-reviewed research and news published by the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services.”

The interesting thing about Nitromusk is that while considered nontoxic itself it “may pose a hidden threat to human health by enhancing the effects of compounds that are toxic.” In order to be able to do such groundbreaking [3] work we must know what chemicals are in the products we use – without that information no testing can ever be done.

I look forward to your next post.

- John Jay Miller

[1] http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.7301
[2] ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/static/information.action
[3] Ground breaking in the sense that “ … our data expand the definition of toxicity and detrimental effects to indirect and unanticipated consequences of these chemicals, even if the chemical itself might be nontoxic” — What might be safe itself is really toxic when introduced into another biological process – this is amazing information.

Thanks for reading. You’ll see that all viewpoints are welcome here. Stay tuned, as I am currently working on another post that more clearly lays out the areas of this bill which are problematic to small business.

John,

I don’t think we have to make a choice between jobs and a safer cleaner environment. This bill does nothing to make cosmetics safer. I just don’t see any peer-reviewed studies show any real danger in current cosmetics. I understand there a few reports that suggest there may be some danger to certain cosmetic ingredients, and there are numerous studies conducted by the EWG but their funding and motives are both questionable, and they are not peer-reviewed. The society of toxicology does not agree with most of these studies and has even published studies that show contrary conclusions. I am all about making things safer. What I object to is accepting the premise that cosmetics are currently dangerous and need drastic regulations to make them safe.

As mentioned above, I’m currently working on another blog post that will more clearly lay out the specific areas of the bill that are problematic to small business.

Thanks for your post. It really brought one big question to my mind.

Why is it a choice between ‘loss of jobs’ and a safer and cleaner environment?

This ‘choice’ is often presented to protect the status quo from any attempts at real reform.

I just found this report that details some ‘secret’ ingredients contained in cosmetics. You can find it at:

closertheline.com/NotSoSexy_report_May2010.pdf

Feel free to share it with your customers, family and friends. I am curious what your wife [and/or those who use cosmetics on a regular basis] thinks about this. I don’t use many cosmetics but reading this [as well as another report on musk I found last night [1]] made me think about the musk fragrance used in my deodorant.

I have to let my wife read it and see what she thanks although sharing potentially depressing info is not fun. Reading NotsoSexy helped me realize the broader context of what is going on in this matter. This is really big business.

You are right that finding objective information is a challenge, as is taking all the time needed to contact your elected representatives and bill sponsors to get information from legislation writers. I am thankful to Hal for posting my thoughts and links on this blog even though we might not agree on some of the points.

But again, what I would really like to hear from you is – Why do have to choose between jobs and health?

It seems transparent to me that safe, non-toxic products are a win-win and a competitive advantage for the small producer – as long as consumers will be able to know the whole story about what they are buying and not have some ingredients hidden.

- John Jay Miller

[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1253742/
[1] http://www.sott.net/articles/show/211760-The-Danger-of-Toxic-Consumer-Products-Fragrances

I do admit I did find the video “The Story of Safe Cosmetics” to be very interesting and shared it with others, however reading your post and listening to your arguments has got my attention. I am all for natural products and of course safe ones, I guess I am a little frustrated being so new to this industry as to where to get my information. You seem to be very passionate and knowledgeable on the topic and have listed some great resources. I look forward to following your blog and going through the many links that were provided with many of the comments to this post. If you feel there are any addition resources that I may benefit from I am all ears.

This is definitely not the time to endanger the loss of more jobs. If everything you state is indeed true, then I too am opposed to more govt. regulation.

Again so glad I stumbled upon your site and will begin researching this some more.

You are correct, the fact is that as a soap maker you can make a soap and not list the ingredients. You say that you support this bill because it would require soap makers to list their ingredients. However the only thing that’s required to be done to make soap makers list their ingredients, is get rid of the law that exempts them. The fact is that this bill would absolutely require an outrageous amount of testing by small companies who simply can’t afford it. Regardless of what a politician tells you, literally dozens and dozens of people who have been in this industry for many years and have watched legislation pass in this country and other countries are very convinced about the consequences of this bill. I’d err on the side of caution with them than put my faith in what a politician tells me. Besides that, the proof is right in the bill itself, just read it! Kayla’s post does a very good job of laying out the reasons why this bill is going to put small manufacturers out of business.

Also, in your first reply you said that “The bill’s sponsors can find a way to rectify the labeling issues so that common ingredients can be listed as such. Water will be labeled as ‘water’; soybean oil as ‘soybean oil’ — just as it is now on food labels.”, yet now you sat “After looking at the Water / Aqua ingredient list you referenced from Kayla’s site – I think that is GREAT! ” What caused you to change your opinion?

I have no problem with new legislation, and I have made my voice clear to my representatives, but THIS legislation is a huge over-step by the government.

Thanks again.

First let me restate that I am specifically addressing how the bill would impact _soap makers_ ok? In each post I have tried to make this clear, sorry if I failed in that regard.

1) In particular, I support the bill if it will require ‘soap makers’ to include ingredients in their labeling. In the previous post I provided ample proof that, currently, soap makers can, if they choose, avoid such labeling. The non-quoted portions of FDA link are not relevant and do not contradict my claim that, as the site says, ““True” soaps are regulated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, not FDA, and do not require ingredient labeling.“ A soap maker can avoid ingredient labeling if they do not make certain claims.

2) As these soap makers are free to label – or not – they are self regulating. They decide. We need specific legislation to require that all ‘soap-makers’ are required to label their products. Consumers need the transparency of labeling so they can make informed decisions.

I do not know how else to say this. I can make and sell all the soap I like and _not_ put ingredient labels on the soap and it is currently legal – that should change.

Yesterday I talked with a staff member of the bill’s sponsor and was assured that testing would not be required by end-product producers but rather, as is the case now, material testing would only be required by ingredient manufacturers – just as is the case now. Now, when you buy material to make soap [and cosmetics I imagine] you are provided an MSDS – material data safety sheet, to prove to you and your workers what, if any precautions are needed to handle the ingredient. That would not change.

Although we did not have a lengthy discussion, as I understand it, if you procure some plant material and make your own batch of oil, fragrance, etc. you would be required to prove it is not contaminated, i.e. have it tested. That is only right and just as it is now I imagine but am not certain since I do not make soap ingredients.

The staffer sent me an electronic plain english version of the bill’s main points that you can download from:

Closertheline.com

under, ‘Safe Cosmetics Act One Pager.pdf‘

this is the link:
http://closertheline.com/Safe_Cosmetics_Act_One_Pager.pdf

3) As to the matter of constituent testing, lead, formaldehyde, etc. the plain english document I mention above states:

“Ingredient Labels on Cosmetics: The label on each package of cosmetics would be required to list the name of each ingredient. This includes the components of a fragrances and preservatives.”

I think that is the relevant part anyway. I do not have a problem with this requirement.

After looking at the Water / Aqua ingredient list you referenced from Kayla’s site – I think that is GREAT! Many of those items can accumulate in the body and people should learn about them and be able to avoid using them. Children and other vulnerable populations should definitely be able to avoid them. Check out the implications of having renal failure and you might get an idea of what I mean … the body simply can not tolerate toxins as well as a non-compromised person. Thats my opinion. The labeling issue can be handled … it will be a change but it is well worth it.

An additional LARGE benefit of this may well be that people become educated about environmental issues that will be have an increasing negative impact on their lives. I wonder how people know that in 2003, 44 states issued fish consumption advisories for mercury contamination for fish caught in their state? [1] I think that all 50 states now have rivers and fish contaminated with mercury, but can’t find the reference at the moment.

…

As you know this bill is in draft form and undergoing the ‘public comment/input’ phase. I would advise all concerned to contact the bill’s sponsors with questions and suggestions. That is what they are there for. Government is by and for the people – but only if citizens participate.

As this process continues I think/hope the questions and issues can be worked out if we all work together to solve the problems at hand.

Peace

- John Jay Miller

[1] http://www.usgs.gov/themes/factsheet/146-00/
&
http://www.nrdc.org/health/effects/mercury/sources.asp

Thanks for the reply. It’s pretty lengthy, so I’m going to attempt to break it down into your main concerns/points (let me know if I miss anything):

1: Labeling of ingredients on Soap is not required,
2: Self-reporting isn’t working
3: SCA 2010 can probably be satisfied very easily (e.g. pass along MSDS)
4: Human engineered Nano-particles present a significant risk and should be banned and/or labeled correctly.

Ok, so, lets start with item 1.

1: While it’s true that the labeling of ingredients on soap is not required, if you read the link that you provided [2], you’ll see this: “If a cosmetic claim is made on the label of a “true” soap or cleanser, such as moisturizing or deodorizing, the product must meet all FDA requirements for a cosmetic, and the label must list all ingredients.” So, while a “true” soap does not need to have the ingredients listed, the Dove bars that you mentioned are actually required to list the ingredients. Dove is at fault here for not complying with the current legal requirements, and the FDA (which is sorely understaffed) has not called them on it. The VAST majority of soaps (including ours) fall under the definition of cosmetics because of the way they are marketed. Additionally, the way to fix this is to remove the law exempting soap, not add any more laws.

2: The idea that the soap/cosmetic industry is under some kind of system of self-reporting is nonsense. The FDA lays out the rules and we as cosmetic manufacturers are required to follow them. The fact that they are understaffed and can not keep up with enforcement on current requirements should go to show that adding more requirements right now is a little bit crazy. The problem is not a lack of legislation, it’s a lack of enforcement.

3: The fact is that SCA 2010 would NOT be satisfied by a simple MSDS sheet, but in fact would require listing EVERY CONSTITUENT of every ingredient as an ingredient. Please see Subchapter B, Section 611, Paragraph E which defines an ingredient as (among other things) “contaminants present at levels above technically feasible detection limits;”. This definition is patently absurd, because unless you are going to classify arsenic, lead, formaldehyde, etc as NOT being contaminants, then we are going to be required to test for them and list them “above technically feasible limits”. As mentioned, these things occur naturally all around us. Formaldehyde is in many fruits (as well as your own body, right now), lead is in pretty much everything, etc. To have to test for and list these constituents is going to cost manufacturers (and ultimately consumers) a LOT of money. Please read the following two posts regarding SCA 2010. One is written by Kayla Fioravanti, who is a certified aromatherapist and is very active in the legislative realm pertaining to cosmetics, the other is by Robert Tisserand, who is regarded by many as the world’s foremost expert on essential oils. He also has many years of experience in the industry and has seen a lot of legislation come about (especially in europe) and has witnessed the effects of it. Here is Kayla’s post: http://bit.ly/d3ItCH Here is Robert’s post: http://bit.ly/bft9Ex

4: I am not well-informed about nano-particles. I do not know much about their safety, but I have no problem requiring them to be labeled appropriately when used in cosmetics.

In summary. Our position at Alabu is that current requirements are adequate (and many people do follow them), but the problem is that people who are not following them are either unaware of it, or they are not being called out by the FDA. The FDA needs to enforce current regulations, we don’t need new ones.

As I mentioned, soap products can contain substances that harm some people. Soap Naturally [1] has useful tables of essential oils to avoid or use with caution.

As for labeling of soap, its not required:

“True” soaps are regulated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, not FDA, and do not require ingredient labeling. [2]

Here are the labels of two ‘soap’ items I have at hand, neither have any ingredient list:

1) Package of 6 Dove bath bars; white, beauty bar for deep moisture, 1/4 moisturizing cream; 4.25 oz bath bars – No ingredient list on outside wrapping or individual boxes.

2) Honey Almond, Body Bar, net wt. 2.6 oz/75g
DO NOT APPLY AROUND EYES OR ON LIPS
Made in China
Marketed by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Bentonville, AR 72716
FH8247

Also, it would not be hard to identify a number of ‘handcrafted’ soap makers websites/products that do not have ingredient labels.

Again, its all really a matter of transparency – people deserve to know what they are using. Personally, I am more concerned about soap labeling but it should be required with everything we purchase.

…

I think that passing on the MSDS [material safety data sheets] from suppliers for documentation should suffice for this law. I have not seen any direct evidence to the contrary although there are a lot of undocumented claims on the web right now. It would be nice if someone that is really familiar with the legislative process [like yourself, perhaps?] could provide written documentation from one of the bill’s sponsors that, indeed soap makers will be required to submit water and items that have supplier MSDS info, for new laboratory testing.

“Self reporting isn’t working …” is the message I wanted to convey because that is what soap makers now have. It was just a win/win that Pamela also pointed out that legal regulation also don’t work sometimes [she makes both points].

I think non enforcement of legislation is largely a factor of some politicians, who do not believe in government regulation of corporations, being quite adroit at gutting funding for enforcement mechanisms. Think – tainted peanut butter, poisonous imported drywall, toys and dog food, SEC & Madoff, illegal immigration, the BP gulf oil spill… the list can go on and on forever.

We just have to fight the good fight and try to protect ourselves and others from predators who put money above all else.

…

The design issue can be important for those without the knowledge of good design practice. The offer was not directed to you in particular. This issue is related to packaging/labeling for pharmaceutical. The labels themselves can pose a danger themselves if they are not well designed. Perhaps soapmakers could have a designer referral service?

…

I will also mention that one other BIG reason that ingredient labeling is of increasingly vital importance. Human engineered NANOPARTICLES.

They have been linked to various deadly possibilites such as:

- cause change to DNA across a cellular barrier without having to cross it. [3]
- endocrine disruptors that alter hormonal activity [4]
- can penetrate the skin and could enter the bloodstream [5]
- can make their way into the brain by passing from the nose through the blood-brain barrier [5]

and will soon be used in soaps as well as cosmetics, which already make some use of them.

Hopefully they will be banned but given human nature it may well take a Thalidomide or Asbestos/Mesothelioma type occurrence for an outright ban. Barring that, we should know what items contain them so we do not willingly rub them on our bodies.

Thanks again for the forum, open discussion/government can solve problems that confront us.

- John Jay Miller

[1]Soap Naturally, Garzena and Tadiello, Programmer Publishing, 2004
[2]www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/ProductandIngredientSafety/ProductInformation/ucm115449.htm
[3]news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8344815.stm
[4]www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071207150713.htm
[5]spectrum.ieee.org/semiconductors/nanotechnology/nano-particles-without-macroproblems/0

It sounds like you don’t have a good understanding of the current legislative environment. It’s already the law for manufacterers to label their products with the ingredients in them. Consumers already don’t have to guess. Creating an exception for things like soybean oil and water would basically mean no change from current labeling requirement. The difference would be the amount of paperwork and testing costs involved. 

Also, I don’t follow your argument that regulation is not enforced, but the answer is more regulation. Perhaps you could explain that further.

Thanks for your offer for a designer, but we already have one and already comply with the current rules and regulations, Which require us to list our full deck of ingredients for each product. 

“Self reporting isn’t working, the honors system, and self regulating, or buying your auditor (Arthur Anderson Accounting and Enron) regulation is not enforced when it comes to corporate America.” Pamela on 8.2.2010

Exactly!

This is why we should support this bill.

Soap makers also have an ethical responsibility to disclose all ingredients so that consumers can make informed choices.

Just like labeling of food products that contain peanuts, soap products _can_ contain substances that can be very harmful/fatal to some people.

Transparency is the way. The bill’s sponsors can find a way to rectify the labeling issues so that common ingredients can be listed as such. Water will be labeled as ‘water’; soybean oil as ‘soybean oil’ — just as it is now on food labels.

No consumer should have to guess what is in a product.

Paperwork, labeling and accounting are just part of being a business, I know a designer if you need one.

Good work all, open discussion/government can solve problems that confront us.

- John Jay Miller

I’m not familiar with these documentaries. Could you please specify which ones you’ve watched? I’d like to review them. I’ve also not read Slow Death by Rubber Duck, but I’ll look into it. With regard to BPA and phthalates, I don’t doubt that there are some professors who are concerned. However this is not the viewpoint of the FDA and the toxicologist community as a whole (please see http://bit.ly/a2WpbB, http://bit.ly/a6Nsnw). Also, can you tell me what toxicologist(s) are abandoning the “traditional scientific thinking on small doses”? This principal has been demonstrated tens of thousands of times and has had many decades of confirmation. I’m just curious which toxicologist(s) are all of the sudden abandoning this principal.

Phthalates occur naturally in many other foods, including milk, fish, grapes and olive oil. Any traces detectable in human tissue are much more likely to come from this source than from sucking a plastic duck or receiving a blood transfusion (http://bit.ly/9RvNZY). Even highly-demonized parabens occurs naturally in many species (http://bit.ly/cQGoEh). You may also be interested in this (http://bit.ly/9oPx3M).

I can’t recommend that my readers support the version of SCA introduced into the senate because I haven’t read it yet. I will gladly read it, but I wasn’t able to find it (at least not on opencongress.org). Could you provide a link to it? Thanks!

Update: You my also be interested in this post regarding the unreliable nature of the Skin Deep Database: http://bit.ly/chaMmK

Also, I recently saw a documentary from Sweden, an advance DVD. The documentary by Stefan Jarl has been called “the film of the century” by the United Nations Environmental Officer. The director interviews 23 professors and the conclusions are pretty bleak. Endocrine-disruptors like BPA do effect reproduction. One of the important discoveries revealed is that traditional scientific thinking on small doses has been abandoned. Small doses may be even worse.

Thanks for your comment. It’s not just us taking a stand against this bill. Nearly our entire industry is. Everyone from Proctor & Gamble to Suzy Soap-maker. This bill is bad for everyone. Also, what are “toxic chemicals”? To use an example from Lee Doren, your doctor may prescribe you one iron pill a day, but taking 20 could be toxic, even deadly. Chemicals are not toxic by themselves, they are toxic at certain dosages. It’s a common saying in the toxicology filed that “it’s the dose that makes the poison”. The fact is that the whole idea of “contaminated” and “pure” are misnomers put out there by activist groups like EWG and CFSC. Like most things in life, it’s not black and white like that. As noted earlier, apples naturally contain formaldehyde as part of their growing process. Does this mean they are not pure? No it does not. The vast majority of “questionable” chemicals that are found in cosmetic products have not been added there by evil corporations, they’re just trace elements of these chemicals that have tagged along from the beginning, and are in no higher concentrations than than they would be in the vegetables you at last night.

EDIT: With regard to the differing product formulas. This is actually pretty rare. It doesn’t make financial sense for skin care companies to do this. If they have to make a special formula for the EU, most of the time they are just going to sell that same formula here instead of producing two different ones. Also, just because they have different laws in the EU does not mean their products are any safer. In fact there is ZERO evidence at all that skin care products in the EU are safer than the ones here.