Some ideas are too dumb to see the light of day - unless you're a state legislator here in Colorado. In that case anything goes. HB 1248 will be up for discussion at a committee meeting this Monday March 1st. The purpose of the thing is to regulate personal products containing "a chemical identified as causing cancer or reproductive toxicity."
As usual when looking at proposed legislation the devil is in the details. Who gets to decide which chemicals will be banned? From the bill:
(a) THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
OR ITS SUCCESSOR AGENCY;
(b) THE UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, OR ITS
SUCCESSOR ENTITY;
(c) THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND
HEALTH, OR ITS SUCCESSOR ENTITY;
(d) THE NATIONAL TOXICOLOGY PROGRAM, OR ITS SUCCESSOR
13 PROGRAM; AND
(e) THE INTERNATIONAL AGENCY FOR RESEARCH ON CANCER, OR
ITS SUCCESSOR AGENCY.
Let's note that these organizations aren't exactly equal in stature. The last group, the IARC, is part of the WHO, and is headquartered in France. Their science standards, to put it delicately, may not be the same as those in our country. As I read the bill, the IARC pronouncements would carry the weight of law here in Colorado.
It get's better-
ANY PERSON ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF SECTION 25-5-1204 MAY
BRING AN ACTION AGAINST THE MANUFACTURER IN A COURT OF
COMPETENT JURISDICTION IN THE COUNTY WHERE THE VIOLATION
OCCURRED. UPON FINDING A VIOLATION, IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER
RELIEF AUTHORIZED BY LAW, THE COURT SHALL ORDER THE
MANUFACTURER TO CEASE AND DESIST CONDUCT VIOLATING SECTION
25-5-1204 AND SHALL ORDER THE MANUFACTURER TO PAY THE
PREVAILING PARTY REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS
So one group of people will surely benefit from this - lawyers!
Here's what one manufacturer from Maine has to say:
The bill would create the most onerous regulations in the nation here in Colorado. Thousands of small business owners, especially women, might be put out of business. The only good thing I can say about it is the bill's Senate sponsor herself talks like it won't pass:
[revisited here]
As usual when looking at proposed legislation the devil is in the details. Who gets to decide which chemicals will be banned? From the bill:
(a) THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
OR ITS SUCCESSOR AGENCY;
(b) THE UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, OR ITS
SUCCESSOR ENTITY;
(c) THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND
HEALTH, OR ITS SUCCESSOR ENTITY;
(d) THE NATIONAL TOXICOLOGY PROGRAM, OR ITS SUCCESSOR
13 PROGRAM; AND
(e) THE INTERNATIONAL AGENCY FOR RESEARCH ON CANCER, OR
ITS SUCCESSOR AGENCY.
Let's note that these organizations aren't exactly equal in stature. The last group, the IARC, is part of the WHO, and is headquartered in France. Their science standards, to put it delicately, may not be the same as those in our country. As I read the bill, the IARC pronouncements would carry the weight of law here in Colorado.
It get's better-
ANY PERSON ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF SECTION 25-5-1204 MAY
BRING AN ACTION AGAINST THE MANUFACTURER IN A COURT OF
COMPETENT JURISDICTION IN THE COUNTY WHERE THE VIOLATION
OCCURRED. UPON FINDING A VIOLATION, IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER
RELIEF AUTHORIZED BY LAW, THE COURT SHALL ORDER THE
MANUFACTURER TO CEASE AND DESIST CONDUCT VIOLATING SECTION
25-5-1204 AND SHALL ORDER THE MANUFACTURER TO PAY THE
PREVAILING PARTY REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS
So one group of people will surely benefit from this - lawyers!
Here's what one manufacturer from Maine has to say:
Why this bill at this time? The bill is the effort of the Women's Lobby of Colorado, sponsored in the CO State Legislature by Rep. Dianne Primavera. The Women's Lobby of Colorado is an endorsing organization of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, founded in part by The Environmental Working Group (did you get all that?!) The EWG has been collecting "evidence" to support its belief that cosmetics are unsafe (see the Campaign's database at Skin Deep for more details). While the campaign's goals were initially aligned with many small personal care products manufacturers, more recently their tactics have included misrepresenting overall risks and singling out manufacturers whose ingredient lists they didn't approve of--pressure akin to blackmail. Some of the companies who had signed with the group early on requested to be removed--and were initially ignored. (Read about Bella Lucce's experience.) The EWG's misinformation has spread to the general public, who are understandably nervous after recent public health scares involving contaminants in food, toys, and other products. The EWG is promoting the perception that personal care products are unregulated and are encouraging consumers to demand legislation to "rein in" the cosmetics companies. Though the EWG's work is pressuring legislators into taking action, they are tilting at windmills.
I guess I can add The Women's Lobby of Colorado to the list of suspect lobbying organizations.
The bill would create the most onerous regulations in the nation here in Colorado. Thousands of small business owners, especially women, might be put out of business. The only good thing I can say about it is the bill's Senate sponsor herself talks like it won't pass:
This bill was just introduced to the House, and Senator Boyd says even if it doesn't pass this year, it's a good step to get the word out about these harmful ingredients.But writing a bill like this is plenty of reason to get voted out of office.
[revisited here]
This bill is unsubstantiated, and is for all intents and purposes, a witch hunt to the small business owners here in Colorado. In today's trying economy, this bill would put women out of a job, and obliterate their lively hood.
Seriously, these women who are trying to better themselves by taking the initiative to find work and help other women, and the state of Colorado is going to reward them by taking away their business and putting them in line for food stamps?
I speak as one of these women, and after moving here from Illinois, all I can say is I am definately NOT impressed.
This has nothing to do with small business. it has to do with large companies using petrochemical based products that permeate the skin. The giant beauty businesses that are publicly traded deathly fear this bill. Many local businesses would benifit and larger companies that are based on wall street would lose.
Devin, you are confused if you think small independent manufacturers will be exempted. Go to the link above from the woman from Maine. Look around the internet. They will no longer be able to do business in Colorado. In fact, they will be less able to handle the lawsuits than the larger companies.
Confused. The companies that are most up in arm are the largest manufacturers of the chemicals (Sulfates etc) that are put into soaps. I have spoken with local manufacturers and most of them don't use the chemicals listed or would be willing to reformulate. This is big business! Ales Group, Estee Lauder, Southern Soap and profits. Just like tobacco. Yes they may not send you in the emergency room with first exposure but they will impact your immune system and must be moved through the body and through the organs to be removed. Along the way the "free Radicals" grab onto and bind with organic molecules interacting with RNA that leads to a reduction of Telomeres and higher likely hood of cancer. This is fact. If your products kill people and you aren't truthful about the contents then you are like big tobacco. You can buy a sodium hydroxide perm at Walmart that will dissolve aluminum. The FDA doesn't regulate nor does it test products to verify contents. The individual contents have been "allowed" to be used. The legislation was designed years before when there weren't seatbelts and smoking was allowed on airplanes. Also eating bacon and eggs was good for the heart and corn syrup was recommended as a dietary supplement. The EU as a regulatory body wasn't twiddling their thumbs for the past decade like the FDA and are ahead of the US regarding cosmetic safety. We should follow their lead!
Lawsuits are also big business. If there are chemicals in soaps or cosmetics which are harmful it is a straightforward process to ban those chemicals. Just prove the chemicals are harmful.
This bill is about bullying companies into removing harmless products because of junk science. Like the 'science' behind sulfate scares.
Hey, I remember the French Revolution. After they executed all the aristocrats, they began simply executing anyone who didn't agree with them or who they simply didn't agree with. It turned into a murdering free for all. I see no difference with this bill.
Devin, I agree that many large companies do use ingredients which have proven to be harmful, however, you cannot outlaw these ingredients because as long as they are used within the FDA standards, they can be used. Often when tests are done, they are used on lab rats and other animals and used as severely high levels to the point where they do show it may cause cancer or other problems. However, rarely are tests done on the actual amount included in the product.
Also, about sulfates, what sulfates are you talking about? There are different types of sulfates, some naturally occurring in nature. I use magnesium sulfate which is nothing more than Epsom Salts. With the chemical sulfates you're speaking of, I guarantee that there are probably nowhere near the levels of even being harmful humans. What evidence do you have that they are harmful? What research do you have? There is no evidence that sulfates are harmful other than to people who suffer allergies to them. In fact, it occurs naturally in the body.
So Devin, I run a small beauty care business. I spend more time educating the public against myths, hearsay and just flat out WRONG information on all the "well you know what they say." "No, what do they say?" And no one yet has produced any knowledge that shows they've done any kind of real research. So I have to give the people the real deal on the subject such as parabens, sulfates and so on. Sulfates are in wine. You're drinking them if you drink. Are you ladies going to go after the wine makers next?
Walter, I'm with you, the only people who will win are the lawyers. As sue happy as the United States is. What's hilarious is because of the vagueness, bad science, lack of research, if some chick sues a company for a skin cream stating it gave her cancer, do you realize how long that lawsuit will drag on?
Still, I don't want Colorado making choices for me about what I choose to use on my skin. I think this should be about personal choice. Slowly, I see the bills starting to take personal choice away from the American people.
Comparing a bill to remove certain chemicals from beauty products is nothing like the French Revolution so you lost your arguement there. You must be in the beauty industry and have been for some time. They have probably told you that everything you work with is "All Natural". You probably have had or will have some sort of cancer soon that will be attributed to something else but not the products that permeate your skin. You will experience fatigue beyond understanding because your immune system can't keep up. If you are a beauty professional
with a cosmetology license nothing you work with would be affected. just the retail products on your shelf. That I hope changes and we will be able to change the whole industry. But with the old wigs around waiting for those last baby boomer dollars before retirement, you will not only have hurt yourself but also the ones your love. Thanks for your passion but I wish it was for your own health and not your pocket.
Some people think that they are in charge of the entire world. If she chooses not to use any of the products that is her choic. We as Cosmetologists/Estheticians have a long list of contraindications and persons who should not use some of the chemicals that may not be good for them and I know that we stand up and let each and everyone of them know if it is not appropriate for them. The last thing we need is soomeone who thinks she knows more than everyone else setting our laws and regulating what everyone else should use or not use. It seems a waste of the government Officials time to regulate something that is already regulated and has been working fairly well up until now. I know I would like to have the freedon to study and make up my own mind on the subject. She should back off and allow me and the general public to live the way we want to. I am all for safety but why not go for the auto industry, the Medical and medicines, and how to protect our students in school.