I’m in the awkward position of needing to inform you about a recent development in my industry that has left me speechless.  So I’m going to let noted industry leaders speak instead.  I’ve assembled a collection of links and quotes on the topic, with a few thoughts of my own, so you can decide for yourself.  (Edit: I’m tremendously honored; Kayla Fioravanti at Essential Wholesale has listed my blog post as “Recommended Reading” on her most recent post. I consider all of her posts recommended reading!)

But it’s important you do, because if this passes on Monday, it sets a dangerous nationwide precedent for the entire cosmetics industry.

This coming Monday, March 1, the state of Colorado will attempt to enact a “zero-tolerance” bill regarding carcinogenic substances in cosmetics. Sounds wonderful, doesn’t it?

But wait.

The state of Colorado hopes to be able to give its citizens the right to directly sue any company that makes a product containing certain ingredients. What ingredients?  Not what the FDA or cancer researchers decide are carcinogens at normal usage levels… rather, what a group called the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics deems carcinogenic.  The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (CFSC) is a consumer group, not an association of cosmetic chemists or scientists. Is this a result of lobbying? You decide.

The CFSC has been alienating its own industry for a while now. Some manufacturers, even though they work incredibly hard to bring you safe products, have even revoked their CFSC membership.  Those of you who remember the FDA Globalization Act of 2008 may recall the CFSC’s role; they drafted a petition signature in favor of the Globalization Act–an Act which, had it passed, would have threatened the very survival of every company who had voluntarily signed on to the CFSC.

Kayla Fioravanti, certified aromatherapist and owner of raw materials supplier Essential Wholesale, summarizes the bill here. And here is the actual bill (PDF format).

The matter at hand is not a question of inaccurate data… rather, it’s a question of how the data are interpreted.

As Kayla astutely points out, there needs to be differentiation between carcinogenic at normal usage levels and carcinogenic at 100% concentration.   Consider: If an essential oil contains a trace of a chemical which is proven carcinogenic at 100% concentration, from what I understand, the essential oil itself may be banned.   If an essential oil comprises 0.05% of a product’s total formulation (a common level for soaps), how much, then, of that trace carcinogen is present in the product?

Every substance–even a toxin–has a No Observable Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL), a level of weak concentration at which the substance is no longer toxic.  Did you know that strawberries contain a carcinogen called acetaldehyde?  That’s a great example of a NOAEL… more on acetaldehyde below.

If I understand correctly, Colorado would allow its citizens to sue Sarva for selling our soaps in Colorado if we use ANY ingredient that shows ANY trace of a carcinogen, even if it is used at NOAEL.  Gosh, what if we add mashed strawberries to a soap?

So, what kinds of ingredients are on the list? A great example (though not a natural substance), and a great post well worth reading from Kayla Fioravanti:

“in Colorado you will not be allowed to buy green eye shadow, because the EPA has the main ingredient listed as “likely to be a carcinogenic to humans.”   Of course the EPA was talking about Chromic acid in a mist, but it is on the list so it is banned.  The ingredient is completely safe in cosmetics.  As a matter of fact, eye lid cancer is extremely rare and is more common in men (19.6 cases per every 100,000 men) than in women (13.3 cases per every 100,000 women) and is attributed to the sun and not green eye shadow.”

As Ms. Fioravanti points out in her above blog post, many manufacturers who signed on and remain with the CFSC are going to be very surprised to find that even their products are going to be banned in Colorado.  Explain that.

And let’s not forget essential oils! From aromatherapist and author Robert Tisserand:

“…goodbye to rose otto and rose absolute. It was nice knowing you. And so long to nutmeg oil, mace oil, myrtle oil, basil oil, holy basil oil, citronella oil, ho leaf oil (linalool ct), elemi oil, and many other less common essential oils. Not because they contain acetaldehyde, but because they contain methyleugenol (ME). ME is occasionally found in traces in rosemary oil, clove oil, hyssop oil, teatree oil, cananga oil, mastic oil, cassia oil, cinnamon leaf oil, savory oil, black pepper oil and, again, many others. Have you eaten any fresh basil or pesto lately? Then you have been consuming ME. But, neither fresh basil nor pesto is carcinogenic, because they also contain antimutagens and anticarcinogens that counteract any toxic effect of ME. I’m not just saying this, it has been demonstrated. The same goes for holy basil oil, to take one example – not only is it non-carcinogenic, but it is actually anticarcinogenic. The high content of geraniol in rose otto is almost certainly protective because of its anticarcinogenic action.”

I get it; I really do.  Colorado wants to give power to its citizens and protect their health at the same time.  But who’s the authority, and who should have the power to enforce consumer safety? A cosmetic chemist? A state government? A consumer coalition? Or the actual consumer, who may know nothing at all about cosmetic chemistry?

This Act will allow any citizen in the state of Colorado to sue any manufacturer–even if that citizen is unharmed by their products—simply because any of their products contains a substance that is believed to be a carcinogen at any concentration, even if that concentration is NOT present in the product (see NOAEL above).  Olive oil contains phytoestrogens.  Have we now eliminated olive oil from personal care products in Colorado?

We have to be careful with our raw materials, and this includes natural substances such as essential oils. They are concentrated chemicals.  Fresh basil herb and basil essential oil are two very different substances containing different balances of chemicals. It’s the reponsibility of companies like Sarva to know that difference, to do our homework, and follow safe usage guidelines. There are essential oils or other additives we would never use in soapmaking, and others that we use at low levels, so that we create a safe product for you. But we base our choices on science, research, and reason… not imprecise propaganda.

After all, you can die from salt, too.

Want to help stop this act from passing?  Call these people and tell them to stop the Colorado Safe Personal Care Products Act:

Dennis Apuan (El Paso County): 303-866-3069
Betty Boyd (Jefferson County): 303-866-4857
Dianne Primavera (House sponsor): 303-866-4667
Karen Middleton (Arapahoe County): 303-866-3911
Joe Miklosi (Arapahoe County): 303-866-2910

The email addresses for the above individuals may be found in this directory.

I don’t want to prevent legislation designed to create safe personal care products.   What I do want to prevent is misinformed legislation based on bad science.   It limits good choices for all of us.

_______________________________

UPDATE, Tuesday March 2:  The act has been voted down in committee 7-4.  Please read this blog post for a synopsis.

UPDATE, Friday February 26:  Donna Maria Coles Johnson, founder of the Indie Beauty Network, has made it easy to fight back.  She’s drafted a letter for you to send. All you have to do is fill in the blanks!  She’s even included email, phone, AND fax numbers of all representatives.   D-Day is Monday March 1… this coming Monday!  I’m drafting my letters NOW.  Won’t you join me?