Safe Cosmetics Act theatens small businesses including independent perfumers

[Mimosa]

The Safe Cosmetics Act began some time ago and proposed some unrealistic claims and demands on the industry. A message from a well-loved indie perfumer and some notice from the natural perfumers' Group put an even more alarming spin on this. Namely if this act passes, then the US indie perfumery is in grave danger of being bereft of the sourced ingredients it needed to rebelliously go against the perfumery restrictions posed by IFRA etc. It means that even if they want to, they will not be able to rebel against any big conglomerate decisions or regulatory body implementations, because growers will find producing essences will not be cost-effective anymore and the market for them will dry up!

In the words of Canadian perfumer Ayala Moriel: "The chances that you in the USA and as a result in all North America will be able to use any natural products, essential oils and natural perfumes included, is in danger. Not to mention the livelihood of many small businesses, due to the "Campaign for Safe Cosmetics" for passing the "Safe Cosmetics Act" (SCA for short).The main problem with this act is that it proposes that all components of all ingnredients in cosmetic products will be listed on the label. Considering that most natural products are very complex and contain many, many molecules (for example: rose essential oil contains over 200 identified molecules and still has many trace elements that are yet to be discovered), this will make labeling of natural cosmetics (perfume included) non-realistic. There will simply be no room to put all the ingredients on the label... So what this law will really do is ensure that mostly if not only synthetic materials (which are "purely" just one or two molecules) will be used in your skin care and body products! This will make it very difficult for the growers and distillers of natural raw materials for perfumes and cosmetics to survive, not to mention eliminate the small businesses who will not be able to catch up with such regulations, labeling-wise and sourcing-wise. This is similar (but even worse!) than the nightmare that has been going on in Europe for the past decade with IFRA regulations and RIFM (the EU regulatory body). "

The campaign begins from what seems like a good idea (safe cosmetics -and that includes perfumes- for all), yet it stumbles in practical pitfalls such as draconian over-regulation and eliminating products which are only suspected of bringing on sensitivities to isolated specimens in lab conditions. One would assume that the consumer is perhaps aware of certain ingredients irritating them (for instance bergamot oil) and at the same time might not be aware of the photosensitizing bergaptene molecule being the actual culprit as labelled on the packaging of anything, so what use would it be for the majority of people to be so specific on every single product and list hundreds of molecules? Anyone who knows they're sensitive would simply avoid any "bergamot" labelled product. Certainly food isn't as heavily regulated and ingestion poses a much greater risk than simple skin contact?

Luckily there is some way to act against this, it's not too late yet. One easy way for anyone in the US is to sign the online petition:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/oppose-hr-5786-safe-cosmetics-act-of-2010/

You can also write to your Senator, to Congress and vote Oppose in Open Congress (till Sep12th)

More information for educating yourself/links:
http://smellyblog.com/
http://naturalperfumersguild.blogspot.com/2010/08/natural-perfumers-guild-is-opposed-to.html
http://perfumeshrine.blogspot.com/2010/09/oppose-safe-cosmetics-act-in-usa.html

[ecstatic]

1. Sorry, I can't help

I'm worried about the crap I've been putting on my face/body and it's way past time for the cosmetics industry to be regulated.

[movonne]

4. I agree with you....

[greyl]

2. The smellylog link is the only one that works.

(Some missing characters in the others)

[flamingdem]

3. You're asking us to support more poisons in our products, no thanks nt

[Mimosa]

5. The Safe Cosmetics Act is misnamed.

The Safe Cosmetics Act has come about because big businesses want to insure no competition from independent companies which offer natural alternatives and time tested NATURAL ingredients. I'm talking about natural citrus, herbal and floral ingredients in perfumes.

Please try to read more about the issue. :)

I fixed the links. Thanks for telling me.

[greyl]

10. Petition link is still fouled up. ;) nt

[Mimosa]

12. Thanks. I fixed it. n/t

[GeorgeGist]

6. Poorly written. Unconvincing.

[Mimosa]

8. If you were hoping to insult me, I didn't write it

I think a lot of people don't realise how much legislation has come about to benefit the interests of big corporations.

[valerief]

7. God, I wish all synthetic fragrances with their toxins that make me choke all day in the office

would just dry up. I'm sick of getting sick from them.

[KT2000]

9. Can't help out

because these safety considerations should have been required from the get go. Chemicals enter the body through the skin and can cause health effects.
Many people are developing sensitivities to chemicals that makes their lives extremely difficult.

People become sensitive by being exposed to a large dose or by repeated exposures, such as wearing a perfume every day. When the person becomes sensitive, that sensitivity crosses into other chemicals that are similar structure. For that reason a sensitivity, such as to aldehydes which are used in many perfumes, will make that person ineligible for healthcare that uses that class of chemicals.
For example, Balsam Peru can be found in perfumes and it is an aldehyde.

[Mimosa]

11. More scientic info at link here

http://roberttisserand.com/2010/08/the-safe-cosmetics-act-2010/

Excerpt at beginning, facts in article:


« Toxic baby alert!
Is clary sage oil estrogenic? »
The Safe Cosmetics Act 2010

The Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010 (SCA 2010), now before the House of Representatives, is an inappropriate and seriously flawed attempt to make cosmetics safer. You can read the full text here. The thinking behind it is identical to a bill that was proposed (and defeated on March 1st this year) in Colorado (see Tunnel vision). Both are the brainchild of a group including the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (SFSC) and the Environmental Working Group (EWG) which are in turn linked to the Skin Deep database. SCA 2010 is being opposed by groups representing small businesses such as Opposesca.com, the Indie Beauty Network and Personal Care Truth which also reflects the views of many cosmetic chemists. A petition opposing SCA 2010 can be found here.

SCA 2010 is unscientific, unworkable, and if passed as is, would likely cause widespread job loss in the cosmetics industry. Far from being a step in the right direction, it would be a leap into regulatory chaos, as well as targeting small businesses and natural products.

Yes, cosmetics could and should be safer, and cosmetics labeling in the USA does need more transparency. Safety can always be improved in any field, especially in the light of new scientific data, but SCA 2010 over-reaches what is needed to such an extent that, with the possible exception of distilled water, I cannot think of any cosmetic ingredient that would be acceptable under its terms.

These require that there is “data demonstrating that exposure to all sources of the ingredient or cosmetic present not more than 1 in a million risk for any adverse effect in the population of concern”. Unfortunately, “population of concern” is not defined, but SCA 2010 further states that, in establishing a safety standard, “no harm will be caused by aggregate exposure for a member of a vulnerable population to that ingredient or cosmetic.” “Vulnerable populations” are defined, and include “pregnant women, infants, children, the elderly, and people with compromised immune systems.” Would “infants” include pre-term babies? Would “people with compromised immune systems” include those who do not get sufficient sleep, or who suffer from frequent colds? Much of the wording of the bill is vague and open to many possible interpretations.