Build a solid foundation in science, formulation and product development—find out more!
Most Popular in:
From California to Colorado: Three Battles Against Cosmetics
By: David C. Steinberg, Steinberg & Associates
Posted: May 27, 2010, from the June 2010 issue of Cosmetics & Toiletries.
page 4 of 5
Where are her facts supporting this statement? According to the 2005 Frequency of Use report from the FDA,6 no registrations for DEP in cosmetics were reported. Primavera also states, without any evidence, that “almost 40 Colorado companies sell toxic-free products.” However, HB 1248 states that any level of a banned chemical would cause the product to be banned, and it is highly likely that at least one “toxic” substance could be found in parts per billion levels in every product; most anyone can find a single molecule of a given chemical if they have the right tool to measure at such minuscule levels. Just look at what fresh vegetables contain.
Primavera’s last comment regarding DEP is the same distortion of truth the EU used in 2004 to ban ingredients linked to cancer and reproductive harm; both fail to mention the fact that of these banned ingredients, only dibutyl phthalate was ever used in cosmetics and it was applied in nail polish. The CIR7 and even the EU’s scientific committee have found dibutyl phthalate to be safe for this application. Her final statement was: “The evidence linking chemicals in personal care products to cancer is compelling. We must act to protect the safety of Coloradans.” Where’s her proof? She has none. Fortunately, this bill was defeated in committee, 7 to 4. The industry has therefore survived this fight long enough to fight the same battle in other states. Be prepared.
The EWG took its victory in California and tried to claim another one in Colorado. The first of the two major changes from the California legislation to the Colorado legislation included changing the word ingredient to chemical, which means that finding one part per duotrigintillion (yes, this is a real number—1099 or the last number before one google) of any chemical on the banned list would result in banning the product and large fines. The second change was the added provisions for enforcement in Colorado, which allowed any bounty hunters cashing in on banned ingredient-containing products in California to move to Colorado and terrorize more companies.
Had this bill passed, it probably would have meant that no personal care product would be sold in Colorado. One can only hope that Primavera was prepared to go through life without toothpaste, shampoo, cleansing products, makeup, sunscreens, deodorants and perfumes and bear the brunt of any subsequent effects from the lack of these hygienic products. This author personally contacted the local Denver television stations that reported on this bill when it was introduced to point out the gross distortions and untruthful statements. When asked why they did not question the fraud about to be placed on consumers, they all replied that they just report the news. To this comment, this author responds, “The truth be damned.”
Finally, as a comment regarding Primavera’s personal experience, it is understandable that she is interested in discovering what caused her breast cancer. Everyone hopes the causes are some day found and a cure is developed. However, chasing the cosmetic industry is a disgrace. Why not question the clothes she wears, the car she drives, or the everyday cleaning compounds she uses to clean her dishes, clothes and home? Or, if she truly wants to protect the safety of Coloradans, as she stated, why not ban all tobacco products? Why not make it a criminal offense for pregnant women to consume alcohol? These practices are known, not suspected, to cause cancer and 90% of all reproductive harm.