[ARCHIVED THREAD] - FIREMISSION Another infringement of our freedoms and rights

Posted: 7/21/2010 12:58:29 PM EDT

So, if this passes, soap makers and folks that like to make their own cosmetics will be breaking the law unless they submit their product for ridiculous testing and onerous fees. I know this is an odd one for this forum, but it is an attack on everyone's freedoms. Many of us here like to make our own products, and this is one anyone can do at home. Please contact your congressmen and senators to fight this act.

http://www.indiebusinessblog.com/2010/07/21/the-safe-cosmetics-act-of-2010-has-been-introduced/

The Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010 Has Been Introduced

by DONNA MARIA on

Yesterday, I told you in this post to brace yourself for the Campaign For Safe Cosmetics’s (CFSC) latest effort to scare everyone into thinking that cosmetics are contaminating them with cancer causing chemicals. As I suspected, the video they are circulating today is filled with misinformation and generalities designed to imprint your brain with the impression that you cannot trust cosmetics companies to produce safe personal care products.

One thing not mentioned in the video posted here yesterday, or in the one released today, is that CFSC and Congressional representatives worked together to time the release of the new video with a star-backed (that’s whereFran Drescher comes in) Capitol Hill briefing slated to take place tomorrow (see below), and with the introduction just moments ago of the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010 by Reps. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisc.

As you probably know, CFSC is backed by a variety of powerful tax-exempt organizations, including the Environmental Working Group (EWG). These organizations are using scare tactics to collect money to fund their efforts to put you and companies in your local community out of business. (For a good summary of the money trail, including the fact that the top 8 EWG executives earned $1,185,775.00 in 2008.annually, click here to read all about it atEssential Wholesale’s blog.) Of course I could engage in a point-by-point blog debate about each misleading point raised in this video, but I think a better use of my time is to share these important things:

Sources tell me that the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010 seeks to charge cosmetics manufacturers an annual fee[/span]. We addressed a proposed user fee of up to $12,000 a year in the draft of the FDA Globalization Act of 2008. The fee was dropped from the FDA Globalization Act of 2009, which was introduced last year.

The non-profit organizations that sponsored this video will seek to revive that fee, forcing thousand of small companies to go out of business, and thousands more not to ever start.

Sources tell me that the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010 seeks to require cosmetics companies to test for specific ingredients and trace elements in cosmetics before they can be sold. Can you say C-P-S-I-A?

CFSC’s proposed legislation is apparently poised to ensure that every company in your community is closed — yes, maybe even the ones making a few thousand dollars a year making quarter-ounce tubes of lip balm with olive oil, vegetable wax and lavender essential oil. Companies making products will high proportions of ingredients sourced in your own local area will be forced to close down. You won’t see them at farmer’s markets anymore, and you won’t see them at your favorite boutiques. You won’t see them on the FaceBook or on their blogs.

You just may be limited to cosmetics made by big companies that can afford to test for everything imaginable. They may hire a few full-time employees to manage the newly required testing (one silver lining I suppose …). They will likely have to raise their prices to pay them. At the end of the day, you may not be able to buy the amazing Indie and artisan crafted products you love.

Celebrity star power and lots of money mean less opportunities for you and your neighbors to create any kind of business wealth to support their families and your community. Tomorrow, CFSC along with celebrity TV star and cosmetics company owner Fran Drescher, will host a briefing on Capitol Hill to discuss the new legislation. (Fran recently tweeted that "the jig is up” for the cosmetics industry.)

Such briefings must be planned weeks in advance, so it is no coincidence that the new Act is being introduced today, the day before the scheduled briefing.

I find it revealing that CFSC claims to be interested in acknowledging small business in its overall efforts, yet it works to introduce legislation that could decimate them (even the ones who signed CFSC’s Compact For Safe Cosmetics) without allowing anyone to see a draft of their proposals first.

Of course I don’t know exactly what the legislation says, so this post will be supplemented once I had a copy and have a chance to read it. I hope that our nation’s lawmakers will deliver on their promises to support the men and women who are leading small business in this country — who work hard every day to support their families and rebuild their communities in the midst of this country’s worst economic recession in generations.

I want to work with them to make sure that happens. Don’t you?

I have calls and emails into the offices of Reps. Schakowsky, Markey, and Baldwin to request a copy of the newly introduced Act. I will post it here as soon as I get a copy. I will keep you posted.

Question: What are you willing to do to make sure your representatives live up to their promises to support small business owners?

Posted: 7/21/2010 1:20:14 PM EDT

[#1]

No one cares that a whole other industry is about to be essentially taken over by the government, forcing us to buy from companies THEY decide is good enough?

Posted: 7/21/2010 1:24:00 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:

No one cares that a whole other industry is about to be essentially taken over by the government, forcing us to buy from companies THEY decide is good enough?

More important industries have already been taken over...

you know, the automotive industry, the healthcare industry, the banking industry...
Yeah I don't think the cosmetic industry rates in the grand scheme.

Posted: 7/21/2010 1:27:28 PM EDT

[#3]

Haven't we come a long way since the days of Snake Oil and Wonder Liniments? I for one am quite glad that those products are highly regulated.

And for those of you who make your own soap...carry on! What, are they going to outlaw lye?

Posted: 7/21/2010 1:33:02 PM EDT

[#4]

It's possible! Yeah they can do anything they want as long as we let them!

Posted: 7/21/2010 4:40:23 PM EDT

[#5]

Wow, don't get the consequences do you? Continue using your Ivory soap. It'll do for you. We don't need small business anyway. Everyone should just be happy to work for large corporations. Small businesses don't contribute much to the economy, do they...

Quoted:

Haven't we come a long way since the days of Snake Oil and Wonder Liniments? I for one am quite glad that those products are highly regulated.

And for those of you who make your own soap...carry on! What, are they going to outlaw lye?

Posted: 7/21/2010 5:00:36 PM EDT

[#6]

Allison B. Kontur

Just want to point out that Proctor & Gamble is a member of the
Personal Care Products Council who happens to be lobbying FOR the
passage of a one size fits all law like this one. This legislation is
only being introduced to pacify consumers who have been told rather
forcibly by the CFSC and EWG that they are being "poisoned" by
"irresponsible" businesses. This legislation is not about chemicals at
all. This legislation is about regulating BUSINESSES.

Perhaps
if you read the actual bill you would notice that it is requesting
cosmetic manufacturers be held to the same standards they have ALWAYS
been held to with one major difference...now we will be required to PAY
to PROVE it. This will eliminate all small indie cosmetic businesses
since we just cannot afford to pay thousands of dollars to register and
test for trace chemicals. You can rest assured that you'll still be
able to buy your bottle of Burt's Bees Cleanser (owned by Clorox, by
the way) because Clorox can afford to pay the fees.

Posted: 7/21/2010 5:04:16 PM EDT

[#7]

Julie Hammond

I hope that our nation’s lawmakers will deliver on their promises to
support the men and women who are leading small business in this
country — who work hard every day to support their families and rebuild
their communities in the midst of this country’s worst economic
recession in generations.

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––-

Donna,
I do not think the above will happen. There is an underlying movement
within our government. This pattern you are seeing is the same pattern
that cheese makers are going through at this time in Texas.

The
new regulations for cheese makers in Texas note many new expensive
requirements including a $10,000.00 - $17,000.00 pastuerizer. It was
noted in the pre-amble of these new regulations the hardship to small
businesses - yet the regulations passed. It has also been proven to the
state that pastuerization can be easily accomplished via a double
boiler method on a simple stove. It has also been brought to the
State's attention that the required chart recorder that they are
wanting that charts the temperatures on the pastuerizer (not charted on
the double boiler method) can be faked with a simple pencil drawing. So
this does nothing for Food Safety.

In addition to this new
pastuerizer (price varies depending on who you purchase it from) there
are upgrades to all of the small farms to their facilities putting many
out of business. Yet, the legislators continued forward and pass
regulations they knew would put many small cheese makers out of
business. In addition to upgrades for the cheese makers, there are also
Grade A requirement upgrades to the many small farms who are supplying
the milk for the cheese makers.

So, legislators will push this through even when they know it will put the small business out of business.

In
addition to testing I have heard that you will have to manufacture in a
commercial kitchen. Please note - Cosmetic products can not be
manufactured in a commercial kitchen that is used for food
manufacturing. So, for those who live in subdivisions who think they
can just go out and rent a commercial kitchen - think again.

Best Regards,

Julie Hammond

It cost me: $1260.00 for 2 years for my Cheese License in Texas. Why is
it going to cost me $12,000.00 to manufacturer my Goat Milk Lotion?

Posted: 7/21/2010 5:52:33 PM EDT

[#8]

Divide and conquer/death of a thousand cuts.

We are up against a very smart,determined enemy.They keep isolating small parts of the population and winning.

First they came for the smokers,but I wasn't a smoker,so I did nothing.
Then they came for the raw milk drinkers/farm fresh egg eaters/home grown food eaters....................................and the story ends for me.

Posted: 7/22/2010 3:33:09 PM EDT

[#9]

I'm sure many here think this won't affect them. It will, especially in the form of higher prices for things like soap, cosmetics, lotions, etc. Even if you are NOT buying these things, your wife, or future wife, will be. Also, it will prevent or limit the start-up of many small businesses. Someone earlier made a post talking about snake oil. There are regulations already in place for that which any soapmaker or supplier follows. This is more government control and regulation for the sake of bigger government. Here is a breakdown of what this means to any business that makes cosmetics and soaps, like my wife's business:

http://www.soapguild.org/blog/

From The President – Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010

22 July 2010, 10:53 am

On
July 20th, a new bill was introduced, H.R. 5786, The Safe Cosmetics Act
of 2010 by representatives Schakowsky (D-IL), Markey (D-MA) and Baldwin
(D-WI).

Read the entire bill here. (47 pages)

This bill is intended to amend the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic
Act to ensure the safe use of cosmetics, and for other purposes.

IF the bill passed in this format, this is what if would mean for your business:

Who does this bill affect?

Any establishment located in any state that manufactures, packages or distributes cosmetics.

Any foreign establishment that exports cosmetics to the United
States without further processing or packaging outside the United
States.

How will it affect your business?

Mandatory Registration

Any establishment as defined above will have to register with the Secretary (the FDA) by providing the following information:

Name

Address

Trade Names

Description of Activities

Number of Workers Employed

Gross receipt of Sales

Names and Addresses of any suppliers of ingredients

Any changes to the registration will be made within 60 days.

Once the registration is completed the establishment will be assigned a registration number.

The FDA will maintain a list of establishments that are registered and this list will become public information.

Any establishment that fails to provide complete information of fails to register will be removed or suspended.

(Currently the FDA has a Voluntary Cosmetic Registration Program (VCRP) this bill would make registration mandatory and require further information).

Registration Fees

A fee schedule will be determined by the FDA. All companies with
annual gross receipts of less than $1M will not be assessed a fee.

(Although the fees will not
directly affect you, it may affect your suppliers or their suppliers
and will have a trickle down affect to the end user).

Product Labeling

All products will be labeled with the name of each ingredient in
descending order of predominance. A contaminant or trace element is
not required to be listed if the contaminant is present at levels below
technically feasible detection limits.

All products sold in e-Commerce will now be required to have an
ingredient list on the website as well as the product label. This
includes the establishment’s website as well as the websites of their
distributors.

List of Ingredients

The FDA will keep a list of ingredients that are prohibited or
restricted for use in cosmetics and continually update that list. The
list will be ingredients that are known to be carcinogenic, mutagenic,
or have reproductive and developmental toxicity, based on information
from the following:

The Environmental Protection Agency

The International Agency for Research on Cancer

The National Toxicity Program through the National Institutes of Health

The California Environmental Protection Agency

Other authoritative international, Federal, and State entities (as determined by the Secretary)

(It will be the responsibility
of the manufacturer to keep up with what is on the list and what is
added to the list, at this time it is not clear how this list will be
maintained and in what format).

Safety Statements

Eighteen months after the date of enactment of the Act, each
manufacturer shall submit a statement signed by the CEO, based on
available information after a good faith inquiry, that -

The cosmetic and its ingredients meet the safety standard; or

There is insufficient data to determine whether the cosmetic and its ingredients meet the safety standard.

(This will be done for each
product that you sell, it is not clear what is done in the case of a
product that has insufficient data).

Registration of Products

Each manufacturer shall submit electronically each cosmetic
manufactured in the establishment that is intended to be marketed in
the United States a statement containing:

The registration number of the manufacturing establishment.

The registration number of the establishment responsible for distributing the cosmetic.

The brand name and the product name for the cosmetic.

The applicable use for the cosmetic.

The ingredient list as it appears on the cosmetic label of insert,
including the particle size of any nanoscale cosmetic ingredients.

Any warnings and directions for use from the cosmetic label or insert; and

The title and full contact information for the individual responsible for submitting and maintaining such statements.

Any changes will be made in a timely manner and notification will be made to the Secretary.

Each statement will be assigned a cosmetic statement number by the Secretary upon submission.

(This means EVERY product that
you manufacture and market to the public which will limit your ability
to change and try new products on short notice).

Reporting of Adverse Health Effects

All reports of adverse health effects shall be made within 15 business days of the event.

The content of the report shall include:

An identifiable patient.

An identifiable report.

A suspect cosmetic.

A serious and unexpected adverse event.

Confidential Information

All information submitted to the Secretary shall be deemed public
information and nonconfidential with the exception of the concentration
of cosmetic ingredients used in a finished cosmetic.

At the 2010 Annual Meeting in Denver, Colorado, the membership passed a legislative advocacy statement:

"The position of The Handcrafted Soapmakers Guild is to act as
an advocate in all areas that affect the manufacture, sale and
distribution of handcrafted soap as defined by HSMG Policy 2005-04-28 Position Statement. Handcrafted soap under these definitions can be either a soap or a cosmetic depending upon how it’s formulated and labeled.”

The FDA’s website has a page with a very good definition of whether
your soap is a soap or a cosmetic. To re-educate yourself click here.

It is the position of the HSMG that H.R. 5786, The Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010

Is poorly written and confusing.

Places too much of a financial burden on small business.

Over regulates an already safe industry.

Destroys the creativity and flexibility of small handcrafted soap manufacturers.

Creates further job loss and loss of local revenue in already tough economic times.

Therefore, the HSMG is against H.R. 5786 The Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010 as written.

Leigh O’Donnell

HSMG President

[email protected]

Posted: 7/22/2010 3:43:36 PM EDT

[#10]

Those of you who are gracious enough to buy my shave soap better stock up. If this passes I'm out of business. I've been hearing about this for the last year. It will cost a minimum of 10 grand to get my soap tested and through the FDA process. This is about the big corporation running everyone else out of business.

Posted: 7/22/2010 3:51:11 PM EDT

[#11]

Nope, I don't like it. It's amazing that environmental/consumer protection organizations are now supporting big business. I have no problem with big business, I have a problem with using legislation to eliminate small business competition. This law is bad stuff, and perhaps because I am so angry about other news read today, I am absolutely angered by this law.

Posted: 7/22/2010 3:56:16 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
Those of you who are gracious enough to buy my shave soap better stock up. If this passes I'm out of business. I've been hearing about this for the last year. It will cost a minimum of 10 grand to get my soap tested and through the FDA process. This is about the big corporation running everyone else out of business.

I was just thinking the same thing. I picked up 5 or so cakes on my last order. Looks like I'll have to buy some more if it goes through.