The Latest Round Up & News: Don’t Put HR 2359 Aside

As more individuals and companies take their stance on HR 2359, more hogwash and lies come to light. I was appalled to find certain supporters of the SCA 2011 and question if they’ve read the bill themselves. For example, VegNews came out in support of the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011 – a magazine that serves as a voice for the vegan and vegetarian community. Do they not release that all the testing that HR 2359 pushes would require more animal testing because some of these tests do not have an alternative method as of yet? A vegan magazine is essentially supporting animal testing. Please explain this to me!

The most common claim from supporters for the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011 is that the regulations haven’t changed since 1938 and cosmetics are not safe because there are no regulations in the industry. I think these people fail to understand our current regulations here in the United States, and the resources available to the industry. To start with, there are regulations in the United States in regards to cosmetics as well as good manufacturing principles to follow, labeling procedures, and the use of INCI nomenclature for ingredient identification. The FDA has hundreds of pages of regulations and guidelines, including a few that are excellent brief articles for consumers. The Personal Care Products Council, among various other industry organizations, have been hard at work to keep cosmetics safe. The PCPC is the owner of a database of personal care ingredients, that is actually useful (in comparison to the EWG’s SkinDeep database that is based on scare tactics and their bottom line.) CosmeticsInfo.org is based on science and actually provides a valuable resource to consumers. The PCPC also founded the Cosmetics Ingredient Review Panel in 1976, with the support of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Consumer Federation of America. Although CIR is funded by PCPC, CIR and the review process are independent from the Council and the cosmetics industry, leading to unbiased information and responsible data. Personal Care Truth interviewed F. Alan Anderson Ph.D. from CIR recently, and the information presented is important for consumers to understand. And then there is the Voluntary Cosmetic Registration Program, an FDA post-market reporting system for use by manufacturers, packers, and distributors of cosmetic products. The VCRP opens lines of communication between various parts of the cosmetics industry, including the FDA, to keep consumers safe. Why haven’t you ever heard about it? It is prohibited by the FDA to use VCRP participation or an assigned registration or filing number for promotional purposes, meaning it’s illegal for cosmetic manufacturers to tout their participation with the VCRP as a promotional tool. Seems reasonable to me, it keeps fear mongering and underhanded tactics under control, removing the ability for VCRP participants to make those who are not seem like they are not as safe.

The latest news around the blogosphere from our side of the table all bring great insight and information to the table, too. The Buzz from Bella Lucce covers the history of the Safe Cosmetics Act, and everything they have done to fight the bill, as well as personal commentary and plea for action, and a detailed explanation as to the harm that could come from such a ridiculous bill passing. Avery Gilbert, a sensory psychologist who focuses on the world of scents and smells, voices his strong opinion against the bill. Cindy at Sagescript Institute wrote another great blog post about the SCA, providing the excellent title: Chickens & HR 2359; Neither is Related to Safe Cosmetics. And lastly, the crusaders in my eyes of the fight against the SCA 2011, evaluates all of the scare mongering tactics being used by supporters of the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011, like the lead in lipstick claims that have been driving me up the wall.

Since HR 2359 was introduced a month ago, there was a lot of buzz and information flying around. The initial angst has fizzed out, but I beg you not to put the fight aside. The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics is claiming the bill will pass early next year. We can’t let that become a reality. Write Congress. Tell your friends, family, customers, anyone who will listen. Join 1,384 other people who have signed the petition against HR 2359.

The SCA Looks Great to Me… I think.

The problem with legislation is that it always makes for a painful read, a lot of political jargon, interjected with wordy requirements and overly professional terminology that have little to no meaning to the average American. It’s what I call legal-speak, and it’s hard to understand.

A long time ago, when the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010 was introduced, I was floored. Finally, modernization of regulations that date back decades! I was a hobbyist then, so none of it would affect my livelihood, but it would affect the products I was buying for myself and my family. I am embarrassed to admit that my first reaction was equivalent to a round of applause. Then, out of curiosity, I read the bill. The more I researched, the more I read, the more I realized how terribly wrong I was.

I question now, how many consumers, hobbyists, and business owners are supporting the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011 (H.R. 2359) without actually reading the legislation? How many are making the same mistake I did the first time around? I fear that I do not actually want to know this answer, because I suspect it is a very high percentage.

So let’s fix that. Let’s get educated. I hope to post a thorough reading of the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011 here soon, but for the time being, I want to refer you to a couple insightful blog posts out there that put the SCA in plain English. Please, go read them before you take a stance, I beg you. And I promise, I won’t tell anyone if you go through the same revelation I did.

Kayla of Essential Wholesale (a supplier of raw ingredients and premade cosmetic bases) detailed the entire bill on their blog, Essential U, providing commentary in each Section in plain English. Read the blog post in it’s entirety or slowly digest HR 2359 section by section.

Or you can always read the bill for yourself, straight from the horse’s mouth via OpenCongress.Org, with no additional commentary or thoughts. Take it slow, keep notes, and digest each section.

Stop by when you have finished digesting. If you still aren’t convinced that the SCA is a bad idea, try these informative blog posts on for size:

• Cindy Jones, a microbiologist who offers microbiology testing for cosmetics through Sagescript Institute and formulator with her own personal care products company, offers her insight and explains why she opposes the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011. Last year, when the SCA 2010 was introduced (which ultimately failed), Cindy also shared interesting information in regards to how the bill would affect natural cosmetics and I think a lot of the article is still relevant to the SCA 2011.
• Robert Tisserand, a renowned aromatherapist, educator, and author, offers his opinion through an article titled Ten Reasons Why You Should Not Support the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011. A peek back in his previous blog posts also help to understand the SCA 2011′s potential negative impact, despite not being about the current bill directly, I encourage you to take a look around.

Latest News about the SCA via Google News

Below is an RSS feed through Google News on news stories than contain information relevant to the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011. It will always remain current, as it is self-updating.