Comment

The Safe Cosmetics Act needs to be more in tune with science

By Lela Barker

- Last updated on GMT

Related tags: Cosmetics

The founder of independent cosmetic player Bella Luccè argues her point that the Safe Cosmetics Act 2010 needs to have more of a scientific basis if it is going to represent the interest of everyone in the industry.

Thanks to e.coli on your lettuce, salmonella contamination in your peanuts and a flood of fraudulent drug imports, the FDA has held a prime spot of scrutiny on the nightly news this past year. New calls for tighter controls have been launched and cosmetic manufacturers have unfortunately been snared in the nets of special interest groups lobbying in DC. The result? The Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010, also known as H.R. 5786, was presented to the House of Representatives on July 20th.

New Image
Lela Barker, founder of Bella Luccé

Championed by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (CFSC) and the Environmental Working Group (EWG), H.R. 5786 would radically transform the personal care industry by passing massive fees onto manufacturers, restricting ingredient availability, necessitating a taxing amount of burdensome paperwork and requiring expensive pre-market testing of every finished product before it hits the shelves.

Unfortunately, none those new responsibilities nor the billions spent on them would make cosmetics any “safer” for public consumption.

I’ve had the privilege of traveling to Washington DC three times over the past two years as part of a coalition representing the interests of small beauty manufacturers. The release of H.R. 5786 found us back in the hallowed halls of the US House of Representatives this month. Also in attendance were legislative aides from the offices of several of the bill’s co-sponsors, including: Jan Schakowsky, (D-IL), Ed Markey, (D-MA) and Tammy Baldwin, (D-WI), and Barney Frank (D-MA).

During our meeting, it became obvious that the staffers in the very offices of the original bill sponsors don’t understand the science behind the legislation itself. We know that CFSC has had their ears for a few years now, saturating legislators with misinformation promulgated by fear mongering. CFSC has proven that the only thing more dangerous than faulty science is faulty science in the hands of a special interest group with an agenda and a serious lack of perspective.

It’s abundantly clear that the bulk of the “junk science” behind H.R. 5786 is coming directly from CFSC. A prime example: one staffer asked me why cosmetic manufacturers wouldn’t voluntarily agree to stop adding lead to lipstick. That’s a line straight out of CFSC’s playbook, based on their 2007 study that found detectable levels of lead in 61 percent of lipsticks tested.

In fact, no one is adding lead to lipstick. I explained that manufacturers don’t maniacally toss in a 55-gallon barrel of lead into each batch of lipstick just to see what will happen. Lead is found in the mineral pigments used to make red lipstick. The pigments are mined from the earth, which contains lead as a natural mineral. Unfortunately, Mother Nature left us precious few options for creating that brilliant red lip that so many American women have taken a shining to. The only other viable option is crushed beetles.

The staffers, looking a bit shocked at the revelation, were also informed that the amount of lead detected in lipstick in that same study was less than the amount of lead permitted in American drinking water by the EPA. Yes, the same variety we’re advised by medical professionals to consume eight glasses of per day. To add insult to injury, the FDA already regulates the amount of lead inherent in personal care products, so today’s cosmetic landscape isn’t the “Wild, Wild West” that special interest groups have made it out to be.

EWG, as CFSC’s parent organization, has funneled tens of millions of dollars in grants to the campaign over the past ten years. These funds have been used to both wage a shockingly vicious PR battle against the American cosmetics industry (case in point: Annie Leonard’s video The Story of Cosmetics​) and to compile a publicly-accessible database of scientific data regarding cosmetic ingredients. Never mind that most of the studies are based on high-dose, repeated ingestion methodology, whose results don’t bear any meaningful similarity to topical application via personal care products. By all means, let’s not allow actual science to stand in the way of your PR campaign.

If passed, H.R. 5786 would make the regulations outlined in the EU’s Cosmetics Directive look like a virtual cakewalk. It would devastate small business and deal a potentially fatal blow to the natural product industry, as the “trace contaminants” clause in the legislation would eliminate the cosmetic use of many safe, natural raw materials. It would mean the elimination of thousands of manufacturing jobs and higher prices for consumers at a time when this economy is struggling to find its legs and sprint towards a recovery.

The entire personal care industry - from raw material suppliers to trade organizations and manufacturing companies to the consumers that purchase their products - must take a public stand against this ill-advised, poorly constructed legislation. I urge you to sign the petition currently circulating in opposition (http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/oppose-hr-5786-safe-cosmetics-act-of-2010/​), contact your representatives in Washington to urge them to vote against the bill, vote to personally oppose the bill at Open Congress (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h5786/show​), with industry trade organizations the urgency and importance of opposition and educate your consumer base.

I strongly believe that we’re in an uphill battle to preserve the American cosmetics industry as we know it. Unfortunately, H.R. 5786 won’t be the final word. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) has publicly supported the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010 and her DC office has confirmed that Feinstein is currently working on a Senate version of the bill, to be released in the coming weeks.

Lela Barker is the founder and creative director of Bella Luccè, an independent manufacturer of globally inspired spa products headquartered in South Carolina. Founded in 2003, Bella Luccè has found a home in more than 700 spas in the US, with additional distribution throughout the EU, Middle East and Oceania.

Related topics: Market Trends

Related news

Show more

15 comments

Show more

Correcting the "Correcting Misinformation" Posting

Posted by John Bailey,

This comment illustrates the problem very clearly. The comments states "The PCPC has testified to the Calif. legislature that allowable lead levels in drinking water are thousands of times higher than lead found in lipstick. That is just not true. EPA limits lead in drinking water to .015 ppm; lead levels found in lipstick are much higher. FDA's recent tests found lead levels up to 3 ppm in lipstick -- much higher than EPA limits for lead in drinking water."

As we have said repeatedly at every possible opportunity, it's the exposure that counts. The limit of lead in water is in fact 0.015 ppm and the levels found in lipstick are higher, up to 3.06 ppm according to the FDA study. But we drink (an estimated) 2000 mL of water a day and apply only (an average) of 0.024 grams of lipstick a day (that's 24 milligrams). The two exposures are no where near equal! Doing (the rather simple math) we will be exposed to 30 micrograms of lead from drinking water and 0.07 micrograms from lipstick assuming the highest level reported (3 ppm), that all of the applied lipstick is consumed (24 mg) and that all of the consumed lead from the lipstick is absorbed (all overestimations). This means that lipstick is more than 400 times lower than water. Also keep in mind that FDA has set limits for lead exposure from all sources and that lipstick is a very minor contributor even under the most conservative calculations.

I suggest not making comments when you don't have the facts straight.

Report abuse

It's the BIG Companies

Posted by Santiago La Rotta,

This bill is probably endorsed and probably written by large cosmetics manufacturers because they are the ones with deep pockets to fund whatever additional requirements are put in place by the government. Have you heard then complain about the bill yet?
Their goal is simply to put small businesses out of business since they are a threat to their bottom line. Have you notice the increase in independent manufacturers? They are the ones producing a better product to fill a niche abandoned by large manufacturers.
They should be leading the way in better, safe and ecologically sound principles to protect the consumer.
Until consious ethical efforts surpass the interests of greed, we will always have bills like this one.
We are killing oursekves and our planet.

Report abuse

Thank you, Marcia Elston

Posted by Todra Payne,

Marcia,
I went to the link you provided. THANK YOU so much. This was meat for thought, not nasty finger pointing disguised as journalistic writing. I still believe that the ingredients that are in discussion aren't safe. There are too many woman who've had health issues that their DOCTORS have linked to their cosmetics, but I'm seeing how this bill may not address those issues.

Report abuse

Follow us

Featured Events

View more

Products

View more

Webinars