Spotlight on Sun Protection in the USA from In-Cosmetics Barcelona

When it comes to sunscreen, standards and regulation around the globe, there is no global harmonization. However, sunscreen is highly regulated in each country. Sunscreens are considered cosmetics, but fall under their own regulation categories. Each country has their own approved methods for testing efficacy; this includes approved UV filters, SPF ratings, and any label claims or warnings. Part 1 will provide an overview of the US regulations, presented by Anne-Gael Glaevic, a group leader in Global Regulatory Affairs in Personal Care. I'll review the differences in EU and Asia regulations in posts to come...

Bringing a Sunscreen to Market in the United States
In the US, sunscreens are considered OTC (over the counter) drugs that are regulated by the FDA. Any products with a sunscreen claim must be registered prior to use to be in compliance.

 There are 2 ways to bring a new sunscreen to the market in the US:

1. Ingredients must be in compliance with the OTC sunscreen monograph which was released in 1999. This includes following the regulatory standards set up by the FDA; active ingredients, labeling and marketing claims must comply. Only registered UV filters are allowed through this method. There are 16 approved filters at a given maximum concentration listed in the 1999 OTC monograph. Companies may use a combination of these approved filters in their products, but the combos must be registered as well. There are also specific regulations on how these filters can be combined, and in what percentage the various combinations are allowed.

2. New Drug Application (NDA) is for finished products with new UV filters, or a new combination of filters that are outside of the already approved percentages in the OTC monograph. NDA is a year and a half process to get reviewed and approved for the finished product. There is one other option, TEA (time and extended application) that falls under NDA for sunscreens that already have 5 years of safe sales in another country. This is a slightly longer process to get approved by the FDA with a 2 year registration process with no pending issues.

Anne pointed out that both processes are very time consuming and expensive. It's important to also acknowledge that when compared to other areas of the world, the USA is not as strict in the area of bringing new sunscreens to market.

In 2011, the US initiated new sunscreen labeling claim guidelines that companies must abide with this year in order to be in compliance. Here are the major changes:

1. The verbiage used in claims "waterproof" "100% protection" "sweatproof" "sunblock" are no longer allowed on product packaging or marketing claims. "Water Resistant" must be used instead, and specifically designated as 40 or 80 minutes in the water. 
2. Limit SPF to 50+
3. Broad spectrum claims for SPF 15+: The US is the only country that has approved this verbiage for broad spectrum claims on UVA and UVB protection that must be listed under the "drug facts" on the back of the label "If used as directed with other sun protection measures this product reduces the risk of skin cancer and early skin aging as well as helps prevent sunburn"
   
4. Any sunscreen under SPF 15 may only make this claim "This product has been shown only to prevent sunburn, not skin cancer and early skin aging

Apparently there will be a future publication of the US Final Sunscreen Monograph to come...

References:
Anne-Gael Glaevic - presentation on EU and US regulatory status for sunscreen at In-Cosmetics 2012 Barcelona


Final Ruling on Labeling and Testing: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-06-17/pdf/2011-14766.pdf

Understanding Over-the-Counter Medicines > Sunscreen: http://1.usa.gov/IJmFUK
Labeling and Effectiveness Testing http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentdetail;D=FDA-1978-N-0018-0698

Rulemaking History for OTC Sunscreen Drug Products http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/DevelopmentResources/Over-the-counterOTCDrugs/StatusofOTCRulemakings/ucm072134.htm

logic, lead, lipstick and legislation

In December 2011, the FDA published an updated report on lead levels in over 400 brands of lipstick and found the average concentration to be 1.11ppm (parts per million), just a mere .04ppm higher than the study conducted in 2009 where the average was reported at 1.07ppm. These results weren't exactly newsworthy, given they are essentially the same. Right before Valentine's Day, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (CSC) and Environmental Working Group (EWG) started riling up the media with scary headlines about the danger of lead levels in lipstick. I must give props to the CSC PR team, who resurfaced and twisted the FDA report on a timely date when people may be focusing a bit more on their pucker, but where's the logic here?

who's dodging a bullet?

I'm taking a moment to step away from the science behind what's going on lately in the cosmetics industry and the media to examine the logical side of it. While earning my Master of Science degree, I learned the process of collecting, examining, interpreting data and drawing conclusions in both qualitative and quantitative methods. It was my single best take away from my previous profession because it has endless applications. Logically, I do not understand how the CSC has twisted the new data on lead in lipstick so drastically and the media has jumped right in and turned it into a fear-mongering frenzy.

The data does not show anything new...
Yes, there are trace amounts of lead in lipstick.
And your drinking water.
And the soil we grow food in.
And the air we breathe.

I've been thinking a lot about the multiple previous attempts to pass safe cosmetics legislation and how this ties in to product labeling, and the latest media scare around lead. One of the main provisions the CSC and EWG are pushing for is stricter guidelines around labeling to show trace amounts of substances that make up an ingredient. We do not even have this type of labeling scrutiny in place for the food we eat, which we all know (both scientifically and logically) is entering our bodies by ingestion. Forget skin absorption from cosmetics, folks! Why is our government being tied up with scrutinizing lipstick in the name of "health" and "safety"? Bottom line, life is full of choices, and wearing lipstick is a choice, not a necessity.

Eating, drinking, and breathing on the other hand are not choices. We must fuel and hydrate our bodies and breathe to continue to be alive. Let's gain some logic, perspective and focus as we move forward with what is legally considered safe and healthy in personal care and cosmetics. If there is so much concern about what you are choosing to apply externally to your body, shouldn't we be examining the sources we need to ingest internally to sustain life first?

These folks have covered both the scientific and the rational sides of the "lead in lipstick issue" if you're interested in reading more:
Dene Godfrey, Trever Butterworth, Robert Tisserand, John Hurson, PCPC via Skin Inc and there are more I'm missing so please add your links. As always, I recommend www.PersonalCareTruth.com as a great balanced, science based resource on legislative issues too.

Support Small Innovative Green Cosmetics by Opposing the Safe Cosmetics Act 2011

Please support your favorite small, eco friendly cosmetics businesses and sign the petition to oppose SCA 2011 HR#2359. Do not be fooled by the name of this proposed bill. We all want our cosmetics to be safe, but the unfortunate way this bill was drafted will only make it impossible for the small, eco friendly companies who paved the way and innovated natural and organic personal products to survive under the new proposed regulations.

I invite you to read more at PersonalCareTruth.com from a wide variety of well known experts in the industry about the specific implications of this unnecessary bill.
The Impact of The Safe Cosmetics Act 2011 on Small Businesses by Kayla Fioravanti, formulator, aromatherpaist and owner of Essential Wholesale
Ten Reasons Why You Should Not Support SCA 2011 by Robert Tisserand, world renowned aromatherapist and author of numerous books on aromatherapy
Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011 by Cindy Jones, microbiologist, farmer and small cosmetics manufacturer who grows herbs she uses in her formulations
Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011: cover-table-of-contents-and-sec-611-definitions by Kayla Fioravanti

We all want safe cosmetics, but this bill (as worded) is only based on propaganda. Do not make everyone from consumers to innovative natural companies pay for the fear mongering generalizations the highly funded special interest group, The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics & the EWG, have backed.

Thanks for your support in keeping your favorite small eco friendly brands around!

The Organic View: The Grapes of Wrath A Quest For Truth In The Safe Cosmetics Act

I was June Stoyer's guest this morning on The Organic View on Blog Talk Radio. We discussed how The Grapeseed Co. came to be, the proposed Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010, and how it will harm small, eco-friendly businesses like The Grapeseed Co. If you are wondering why green companies are AGAINST The Safe Cosmetics Act, I urge you to tune in to the recorded podcast below...

The Grapes of Wrath A Quest For Truth In The Safe Cosmetics Act 8/20/2010 - The Organic View | Blog Talk Radio

You can always visit our informational portal, Personal Care Truth, for science backed info on cosmetics and personal care products from industry experts. Please keep small green companies like mine alive. Sign the petition to Oppose the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010

The Safe Cosmetic Act of 2010 is Not the Solution

I'm taking a moment to update you all on new proposed cosmetic legislation that will ultimately impact everyone, from large cosmetic companies, to small, green indie manufacturers (like me), to anyone who sells personal care products and cosmetics, to you, the consumer. 

H.R 5786 the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010 was released yesterday. I've had a chance to read through the document multiple times and have huge concerns and questions with the bill as drafted. The entire bill can be downloaded by clicking the link above. In attempt to share my personal experience and not turn this post into a novel, I'm directing you to check out these posts that summarize and highlight just some of the many issues with the Safe Cosmetic Act of 2010 draft. I urge you to read the bill as well.

Safe Cosmetics Act 2010

Comments & Concerns Regarding The Safe Cosmetics Act 2010

Interestingly enough, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (CFSC) released The Story Of Cosmetics, a “shockumentary” on cosmetic safety on the very same day this proposed new legislation was released...

This was no coincidence.  

It's time to tell my own personal story, something I have been a bit hesitant to do on Green Skincare Blog up until this point. An important note to all those who support CFSC and the new bill, the signers of the Campaign For Safe Cosmetics Compact were not notified in any way shape or form as to the lobbying and orchestrated release of the CFSC video with the proposed legislation draft.

I know this first hand because my company is still listed as a Compact Signer... even though I have asked multiple times to be removed due to the detrimental direction the Campaign was heading in squashing small businesses, along with the lack of science behind their agenda. I last attended an annual compact meeting at Expo West in March 2009 where I was threatened if I did not update my products in the Skin Deep system, my company would be removed as a Compact Signer. That was 17 months ago. I have not updated my products in their system, and have not been removed from the Compact. I have chosen to register with the FDA Voluntary Cosmetic Registration Program (VCRP) and have always listed our complete ingredient decks on TheGrapeseedCompany.com. I have sent multiple emails asking to be removed from CFSC completely, the latest sent just last week.

I still have not been removed as a Campaign For Safe Cosmetics Compact Signer. 

Lisa Rodgers, my co-founding partner at PersonalCareTruth.com and I have directly tried to work with the CFSC. After the proposed Colorado Cosmetic Bill failed, the co-founder of CFSC left multiple comments right here at Green Skincare Blog. Following our online interaction, Lisa and I had a conference call with Stacy Malkan, co-founder of the CFSC, about our concerns with the Campaign and lobbying for legislation that would hurt the small, innovative, natural companies. Stacy commented during our conversation, and in writing on my blog that her "view on Skin Deep is that it is not a perfect system and never can be, because of what it is trying to do -- analyze an entire industry based on available data, which is very limited due to the historic lack of safety regulations for chemicals."

I am still perplexed by the fact that co-founder of CFSC herself is pointing out flaws with the Skin Deep rating system CFSC Compact Signers are required to register their formulas in! I do not want my business associated with an organization lobbying to put me out of business based on fear mongering and lack of science. I support safe cosmetics based on scientific research. CFSC has not shown the science to back their rating system in Skin Deep.  The way this bill is written would impose huge fees on companies big and small which we will all end up seeing when we purchase our daily essentials, from soap to mascara.

So while CFSC is touting support for this bill from their Compact Signers, I must ask:

• How many other companies are there out there like me who have asked to be removed and the CFSC has not complied? 
• Why haven't they complied? (I think I know the answer to this one... but what do you think?)
•  How many of the companies on their signer list have gone out of business and are still listed as compact signers? 
•  How many are just plain scared to be removed due to the obvious power this “nonprofit” currently has over our government and pending legislation? (if you’re wondering why that’s in quotes, read The Revealing Truth of the Money Trail of EWG)

We all want to make sure the personal care products we use are safe, but do we want our government to create a paperwork nightmare that regulates down to nanoparticles when we don't have the science (ironically from the words of Susan Roll, a founding member of CFSC) to back it? You can listen to Ms. Roll's live statement from the Colorado hearing by clicking the link above. There may be room for improvement in FDA regulations concerning cosmetics, but The Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010 in it's current form is is not the solution. 

I urge you all to voice your opinion and oppose The Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010 in it's current draft. If you're interested in learning more about the science behind what's in your skin care products, visit Personal Care Truth.

This bill will not ensure your body is safer. 

It will make the price tag on your personal care and cosmetic products much higher. 

It will squash small businesses paving the way in innovation and green cosmetics right out of the industry.

We need to be vocal, not scared. We need to tell our stories. We need to stand up to the CFSC and make sure they are not using our businesses as "numbers" to show support of this bill. You may feel the impact in your wallets if you don't. No matter how green you consider yourself, we all use personal care products daily. This bill will impact everyone.

Perhaps this post will finally get me removed from the CFSC Compact Signers list?

As I step off my soap box, I have one last thought that has been lingering in the back of my mind for months... why is the government targeting the cosmetic industry? We have a proven track record of safety. What you apply to your body doesn't affect your system in the same way as what you put into your body... if we're concerned about health issues, cancer and safety, shouldn't we be scrutinizing diet, fitness and lifestyle choices... things that are actually scientifically proven to affect health? We have no legislation in place to cover what we eat or our lifestyle choices... why is the target pointed at the cosmetics industry?

Thank You! Personal Care Truth or Scare

I'm thrilled to share the formal release of my new site in collaboration with my co-founder, Lisa Rodgers. We graciously thank you all for the amazing feedback and support and are psyched that PersonalCareTruth.com is making the rounds in cosmetic and beauty industry news! Thank you to all my wonderful readers for confirming the need for truth in the cosmetic industry; for consumers to understand what's in their cosmetics and discuss their questions with industry insiders.

I'd like to thank the following fabulous folks for supporting us and writing about us:
Cosmetic Design: New website offers consumers product information based on scientific research
Inside Cosmeceudicals: PersonalCareTruth.com Launched
Handcrafted Soap Makers Guild: Personal Care Truth or Scare, Information Based on Scientific Facts
Chemists Corner: New Source For Personal Care Science Information
Essential U: Personal Care Truth
Indie Business Blog: Personal Care Truth Launches!

Support Truth based on Scientific Research in Cosmetics. 

Visit Personal Care Truth and grab the badge!

phthalates: are they safe?

Phthalates are a hot topic in personal care and many other industries. 60 Minutes ran a great segment last Sunday on the phthalates. Phthalates are found all around us in food, tap water, the air we breathe, plastics, household goods and many other products. The concern in personal care products centers around fragrance oils. They make fragrances linger longer and are found in many cosmetics and personal care products. It's a common misconception that all synthetic fragrances contain phthalates. In the past few years, many fragrance suppliers have moved to supplying only phthalate free fragrance oils. As the video will show you, the science on the safety of phthalates is still inconclusive. 60 Minutes did a great job reporting on both sides of the story, interviewing doctors, researchers and business. The clip below is definitely worth a watch, or you can check out the full segment and commentary here.



You won't find phthalates in any of our products. The Grapeseed Co. uses only essential oils, which are naturally steam distilled and extracted from fruits, plants and flowers to scent our products. We also have worked with many custom formulation and private label clients who do want to go the fragrance oil route, and we've created some fabulous (synthetic) fragrance oil custom scent blends using phthalate free fragrance oils.

PersonalCareTruth.com is here!

Good Morning,

I  just launched a new website! My latest venture has been a labor of love and ultimately frustration with the crazy misinformation out there about what is safe in cosmetics and personal care products.

My good friend Lisa Rodgers, creator extraordinaire of Cactus and Ivy, and I have been collaborating for months on this massive project. Lisa contacted me one morning with an idea based on a dream. I could not have asked for a more solid partner to cofound the site with! Lisa shares my work ethic, passion, and need to spread the truth, based on scientific research when it comes to beauty products.

I invite you all to spend some time at Personal Care Truth. This site was founded by beauty industry insiders, but meant for YOU ~ everyone and anyone who is concerned about what they are putting on their skin. Personal Care Truth is not about scare tactics, generalizations, fear mongering, or hopping aboard what’s considered trendy at the moment. Personal Care Truth is about education, facts, questions, research, sharing knowledge, and empowering consumers to make the choice that’s right for their families. We believe it is more powerful to provide information to educate and empower YOU as opposed to scaring you with information that has not been backed by science.

Welcome to Personal Care Truth ; come meet and learn from our well researched contributors. World renowned experts share their knowledge and research in the industry.

One more person I must give a shout out to is Jennifer Smith of Eco Office Gals. Thank you so much for helping us build the site and being the wonderful, entertaining person you are. We could not have done this without you.

Have a fabulous Monday, and let us know what you think about PersonalCareTruth.com

cheers,


 BTW, You can also follow @PrsnalCareTruth on twitter.

Decoding the California Safe Cosmetics Act

California, my home state, is the only state in the USA that has currently enacted laws around safe cosmetics. Some view it as progressive, others think it's not up to the state to decide, and many don't understand what exactly is going on in the world of cosmetic regulations and science altogether! What can I say, we do things a little differently in CA... like legalize medical marijuana and make gay marriage legal, then decide it's not! Back to the important topic at hand- I completely support (and produce) safe cosmetics, but personally I believe this does not seem like something any state should be enacting into law at the state level. Never the less, education and understanding is key for everyone: consumers, formulators, manufacturers and policy makers! So here's the breakdown on the old law and the new online reporting system.

California Safe Cosmetics Act (pdf)

purpose
According to the California Department of Public Health, "The primary purpose of the California Safe Cosmetics Program is to collect information on hazardous and potentially hazardous ingredients in cosmetic products sold in California and to make it available to the public."

The CA Department of Public Health (CDPH) states the main reason for this law is to promote safety. Especially for "Barbers and hair stylists, nail salon workers, and others who work in cosmetics, skin and body care may be at increased risk for adverse health effects from using these products because they handle greater quantities of them, and with greater frequency."

The law is not new. As a matter of fact, it's been around since 2005. What's new is the updated chemical list and online reporting system, which we will look at next.

The List of Chemicals

Let's take a closer look at this Chemical List (pdf, 30 pages). This list contains only the chemicals deemed by scientific research to be "hazardous and potentially hazardous ingredients" as stated by the CA Department of Public Health. If you took the time to download the list, you'll also see that many of the ingredients certain sites like Skin Deep give harmful ratings to are nowhere to be seen on this list. Let me remind you again, this list (last updated 8 months ago: September 2009) is "a list of chemical agents known or suspected to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm." (CDPH)

I repeat, this list does not contain a slew of ingredients Skin Deep claims are harmful, and this is a list that contains the "potentially hazardous ingredients" updated annually, according to the latest scientific research. California even makes it easy for you by color coding. All new entries to the list since the last update are found in blue.

The Reporting System

The California Safe Cosmetics Reporting System was put into place to implement The California Safe Cosmetics Act of 2005. "The California Safe Cosmetics Act requires manufacturers, packers, and/or distributors of cosmetic products to report to the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) all products sold in California on or after January 1, 2007 which contain ingredients known or suspected to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm." (CDPH) 

The fact is, if you manufacture and sell products that do not contain any of the chemicals on the list (such as my company does) you do not have to worry about registering in the system. Hope this helps you all to understand California's system, and begin to think about some of the other databases out there.

CDHP resources in addition to links above:
Contact the Safe Cosmetics Program ~ Contact info & help

Cosmetics Companies Page ~ Links to the online reporting system, instructions for companies, and more

As always readers, I'd love to hear your thoughts on the matter. 

What do you think about state based cosmetic legislation?

what? you don't use soap?!

Take a close look at the packaging of your 
favorite commercial brand soap. 

 Do you see the word SOAP anywhere on it?

Or, is it called a beauty bar, cleansing bar, or body bar?

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but that's because you are not using soap! You are using a synthetically formulated detergent to clean your skin. If the manufacturer is following correct FDA labeling, these products cannot legally be called SOAP.

True soap is created through the saponification process which involves combining oils (fats) with alkali (salt) to create a binding chemical reaction that forms a humectant, glycerin. Glycerin is worth more pound for pound than actual soap, and prized for hydrating results in lotions, creams and moisturizing treatments. Many commercial manufacturers often remove the glycerin from their formulations and sell it. They replace it with synthetic lathering ingredients, call it something catchy like a "beauty bar" and there you go... technically, it's no longer soap, but you can pick up 3 bars for $1.99.

If you want a true quality soap, you need to learn to read the ingredients label, just like you do on your cereal box! 

The cold process method produces premium quality soaps, but takes the longest. This is the method we use at The Grapeseed Co. to create our wine bar organic soaps. All of the glycerin is retained in our formulations which is why many comment that their sensitive skin does not feel tight or dry after using Grapeseed Co. soaps. The best quality cold process soaps use organic vegetable oils and need to dry (or "cure" in soap terms) for up to 1 month before they can be sold for use. There are 2 other soap making processes: hot process, which is like a speedy version of cold process, by adding heat to the formulation to get things moving. And melt and pour which is popular with crafty types and kids; think of those soap making kits you see at Michael's. As my mom would say, it's like making a birthday cake with a mix rather than from scratch.

here's a peek at how our handmade cold process soap is formed

syrah wine bars curing in molds after being poured and swirled

syrah and chardonnay organic soaps after being cut

a little fish in the big sea

Yesterday's post, Colorado Turns Down Cosmetic Bill based on Bad Science, created some great dialogue. I hope The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics can work with small, indie business owners on improvements to the Skin Deep database. Thank you for all of your comments and tweets. We need to work together.

I am just one of many who voiced concern re: The Colorado Safe Personal Care Act. Here are others I recommend reading:

Essential U: Colorado House Committee is Told "We Don't Have the Science" & Votes No
Sarva Natural Artisan Soaps: Colorado Votes for Sound Research and Good Science
Robert Tisserand: Tunnel Vision
Sagescript Institute: Colorado Safe Cosmetics Bill
Soap Queen: You Can Die From Salt Too
The Winged Seed: Update: HB 10-1248 Colorado Safe Personal Care Products Bill Fails in Committee

Indie Business: Costly Confusion: The Colorado Bubble Bill
Handcrafted Soap Maker's Guild: From the President- Colorado Safe Personal Care Act
Essential U: Cosmetic Info Resource Using Objective Scientifically-based Information
I know there are many more out there. If you wrote about it, please leave a comment with the link to your post, I would love to check it out.

Colorado turns down cosmetic bill based on bad science

Yesterday, myself and many colleagues in the personal care industry listened live for 5+ hours as Colorado voted down The Colorado Safe Personal Care Act (pdf). The bill proposed banning any amount of toxin in ingredients, even naturally occurring trace amounts found in ingredients like olive oil to be used in skin care products. While the premise and name of the Act seem like something I'd support, upon research last week it became clearly evident that Colorado had not done their homework. Why ban something like olive oil or cocoa in cosmetics when we ingest much higher quantities in our food on a daily basis? The testimonies by scientists on both sides of the issue ended up making this point as well when questioned by Colorado Representatives. It became evidently clear through questioning during the testimonies that many who initially supported this bill did not fully understand the implications of trace amounts of substances. Thankfully, the bill was voted down 7-4 based on bad science.

I feel silly saying this given that I was raised eating from a natural food co-op, lived off the grid for 2 years, started a company based on a byproduct, and founded GreenSkincareBlog.com but for the record:

I am in 100% complete support of
safe personal care and cosmetics.

I am NOT, however, in support of the way The Campaign for
Safe Cosmetics rates toxins in the Skin Deep database

Why? It's simple. They are not telling the full story, based on scientific evidence. The Skin Deep database is The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics "rating system" for cosmetic formulations. Sounds like a good idea, right?
Wrong.
It rates your formulas negatively for certain natural, vitamin and antioxidant rich ingredients like olive oil or cocoa butter. Why? Because these botanical ingredients contain naturally occurring trace amounts of toxins... Just like our soil, salt, water or our bodies for that matter! Our bodies create small amounts of formaldehyde (which is a known toxin.) Trace amounts of toxins are all around us in the air we breathe, water we drink, ground we stand on and food we eat. During the hearing a well researched scientist, Dr. Richard Adamson, who testified on behalf of the Personal Care Products Council, stated "dose differentiates a toxicity from remedy." The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics has not taken into account the "dose" of toxins in ingredients. I for one am not going to eliminate these powerful ingredients from my natural skin care formulations just so The Grapeseed Company's products reflect the "best score" in the Skin Deep database. Which sounds crazy, but it's what certain companies are trying to do to look "better" than their competitors. I have even custom formulated a line for a company emerging on the natural scene that stated this as their agenda. For many difficult reasons, I chose to end that business relationship and no longer work with the company, and am taking a firm stance on where I stand with the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. I was an early signer of The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics before the current Skin Deep database was in place. I have attended Campaign for Safe Cosmetics annual meetings and heard first hand as leaders in the natural personal care industry have suggested revising the system to tell the whole truth and The Campaign has continued on with their own biased agenda. We cannot afford to let the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics lobby legislation in other states based on poor research and incomplete science. Hopefully Colorado bill HB1248 being turned down will set a precedent for other states with pending legislation.

Oppose the FDA Globalization Act

Keep small beauty businesses alive! Check out the link to the video below: