Since the release of the recent video The Story of Cosmetics, you can watch it here ~ http://storyofstuff.org/cosmetics and the recent introduction of the Safe Cosmetics Act (Read it here ~Safe Cosmetics Act).
It is surprising that a seemingly good thing can cause so much debate and opposition between natural cosmetic businesses who more or less all want the same outcome ~ safe and natural cosmetics for consumers. You can view a crtique video here (HowtheWorldWorks) So lets take a look at some of the main points of interest:
Negative Effect on Small Cosmetic Manufacturers:
For SCA – There is a lot of misinformation circulating about the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010 that it will “kill small businesses.” This couldn’t be further from the truth and is an unfortunate misrepresentation of the facts. The Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010 contains specific provisions to protect and help small businesses, including:
- Fee exemptions for small businesses with less than $1 million in annual sales.
- Data sharing and transparency: small businesses will benefit by having access to safety assessments conducted by other cosmetics companies and suppliers that are currently kept private, and it will open up the information flow so all companies have easier access to the information that will help them make the best decisions about product safety.
- “Producer right-to-know” provisions that will enable cosmetics companies to get full information from suppliers about toxicological data and safety information for cosmetic ingredients, including the chemicals in fragrance and preservatives.
Opposing SCA – There is little to no distinction between small and large businesses on this act. So, the act would treat Mom & Pop Soap Shop on Main Street the same as Proctor & Gamble. So now every time Mom & Pop Soap Shop changes an ingredient or supplier they have to notify “The Secretary”, while this may not be a big deal for P&G since it takes years to code and approve new ingredients, Mom & Pop may change their ingredients frequently. Additionally, this begs the question how will “The Secretary” handle all of this information?
The increase in paperwork as a result of this act could result in too much extra work and costs for a 1 or 2 person business to handle.
Detectable trace elements must be listed on the label:
For SCA – I have not been able to find a comment from Safe Cosmetics about this issue of detectability, but I can imagine the goal is to increase consumer awareness.
Oppose SCA – We can detect almost anything these days, labeling will be even more confusing to consumers. So, something simple like “Water” on a label could look like “Aqua, Arsenic, Cadmium, Copper, Lead, Nickel, Silver, Zinc” (and this list could get three or four times as long as we can trace elements at parts per billion!).
The Bill is Unnecessary or Cosmetics are Already Safe:
For SCA – According to our [SafeCosmetics.org] understanding of the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010, provisions of the legislation will:
- Phase out ingredients linked to cancer, birth defects and developmental harm;
- Create a health-based safety standard that includes protections for children, the elderly, workers and other vulnerable populations;
- Close labeling loopholes by requiring full ingredient disclosure on product labels and company web sites, including the constituent ingredients of fragrance and salon products;
- Give workers access to information about unsafe chemicals in personal care products;
- Require data-sharing to avoid duplicative testing and encourage the development of alternatives to animal testing;
- Provide adequate funding to the FDA Office of Cosmetics and Colors so it has the resources it needs to provide effective oversight of the cosmetics industry; and
- Level the playing field so small businesses can compete fairly.
And watch the Story of Cosmetics to get an idea of how they really feel!
Oppose SCA – The cosmetics industry is already regulated by the FDA and it is already illegal to not fully label ingredients or contact information on products.
Based on what I have read it is clear to see that:
- The Story of Cosmetics video is not scientifically based and uses scare tactics
- The Safe Cosmetics Act needs some editing, especially with small businesses in mind.
- The Safe Cosmetics Act’s intentions are good and the cosmetic industry (especially large companies) do need to be regulated.
But I would love to hear what your thoughts are. Even though the act isn’t perfect and needs to be edited, isn’t the cause that it stands for still worthwhile? It’s a fact that there are unsafe products legally out there on the market… is it the governments job to regulate that or the consumers responsibility to be aware?
For those who want to read more about the subject, I suggest these sites:
- A small business that’s pro SCA – chicandgreendaily.com
- Oppose the SCA – See the Blog here.
- notjustaprettyface.org – Stacy’s, the communication director for Safe Cosmetics, Blog
- 5 Ways the SCA will harm consumeres ~ Blog Entry
Desert Whale Jojoba Co. 
We all want less toxins in our environment, but unfortunately this legislation is going about it in a completely punitive way. I have my own small skin care company making natural skin care products for children using locally grown organic Calendula and honey. All of the ingredients we use are considered food safe by the FDA. I read the SCA and was horrified by just how disastrous the testing requirements for all of us small manufacturers. You could buy organic olive oil in the supermarket and put it on your salad, but we must subject that olive oil to $5000 of testing before you can out it on your skin?
In my mind over regulation is far worse than under regulation. We have already seen the result of this kind of legislation that puts the burden of testing on each individual manufacturer when CPSIA put hundreds of handmade toy manufacturers out of business. This legislation is very dangerous to hundreds of small business making natural products. It is better to support TCSA, which would have much of the desired controls on toxic chemicals, but shift the testing burden to the creators of those chemicals.