I have asked this question of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics on Facebook, but they have not replied.

Will this Bill apply to soap?

Will this Bill apply to Over-The-Counter drugs?*

Claims for cellulite reduction, anti-aging, reducing wrinkles, are all drug claims. Many manufacturers make these and similar drug claims but manufacturer, and label, their products as if they were still cosmetics.

The law prohibiting this, making those products misbranded, already exists but it is not enforced.

So my question is, will this new Bill apply to Over-The-Counter skin care drugs like those claiming cellulite reduction, anti-aging, and reducing wrinkles; or will those products continue to be allowed the same freedoms as they enjoy right now?

Cinagro4 -

Personal Care Truth will have a breakdown post shortly of what each section means. We’d love you to join us to find out what this bill really means, http://www.personalcaretruth.com

Have a safe and happy Independence Day!

Lisa M. Rodgers
Co-Founder
Personal Care Truth

Personal Care Truth now has a breakdown of each section. I’ve placed a link in the specific section comment areas. You may also visit http://personalcaretruth.com/2011/07/safe-cosmetics-act-2011-cover-table-of-contents-and-sec-611-definitions/ to click on the individual SEC links.

I have been professionally involved in researching and formulating plant-based, natural ingredient personal care products for over 15 years. SCA 2011 (HR 2359) does nothing to improve the safety of cosmetics and is written without supportive scientific accuracy. Ironically, it adds additional burdensome (and sometimes impossible) labeling requirements that will only confuse customers more. The cosmetics industry is one of the safest industries in the modern age, and current holistic endeavors to introduce important worldwide ecological and cultural considerations for plant-based products are moving it into the next century on a sound footing. Please do more research before supporting the massive PR campaign brought by misguided zealots. I host a group blog in the aromatics industry where you can find sound, rational opposition to this legislation http://www.aromaconnection.org/ You can find other reasonable, rational objections here http://bit.ly/jJLN8x and here http://bit.ly/9IcpSS.

Here we go again! Small businesses, though exempt from registration requirements and fees in this current attempt to regulate the cosmetic industry, will face increased costs for supplies, nightmarish record keeping and ingredient disclosure. These are the same issues we faced when HR5786 was proposed a year ago. Who will profit from this bill? Big lobbying groups such as EWG and CFSC. The current FDA Act, although enacted in 1938, could be enforced much better than it currently is. I don’t feel a brand new piece of legislation is necessary to ensure toxic filth stays out of our cosmetics. We need better enforcement, and we need an updated database of prohibited ingredients. I feel it is borderline criminal for lobbying groups to be propagating the lie that our current cosmetic laws do nothing to ensure safe cosmetics. It couldn’t be further from the truth. Scare tactic and fear mongering didn’t work last year with HR5786, and won’t work this year, either.

I am only speaking for myself. This piece of legislation is absurd to say the least. As a small business, I do not have the means to test and write novels for my labels. As a consumer, I read labels and would pass by anything that took me more than 30 to read. I may be exepmt from registering, but I will just the same. Those of us who make less that 2,000,000 per year are only exepmt from that, not the labeling, testing and so forth.

Here’s the petition to oppose H.R. 2359: Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011 http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/no-2-sca-2011/

This bill HURTS small and independent cosmetics companies, does NOT help consumers by making labels harder, not easier, to understand, and has the backing of lobby groups who have no scientific evidence to back up what they claim. Effectively, groups like CFSC and EWG, while claiming to be for small cosmetics companies, are using them and, with their support of and collaboration on this bill, are backstabbing them. There is no justifiable reason to support this bill.