User:AYEJ2014/sandbox

History

A coalition comprised of women’s, public health, labor, environmental health and consumer-rights organizations including Tommorow, Breast Cancer Fund, Clean Water Fund, Commonweal, Environmental Working Group, Friends of the Earth, Massachusetts Breast Cancer Coalition, National Black Environmental Justice Network, National Environmental Trust, and Women’s Voices for the Earth launched the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics effort in 2004. The founding members aimed to prioritize the health of workers and consumers by implementing reforms in corporate, regulatory and legislative sectors to remove toxic ingredients in cosmetics and grooming products. Chemicals in cosmetics became an important issue due to a public concern for phthalates, “a set of industrial chemicals linked to birth defects and reproductive harm,” Public awareness has led to the discovery of more harmful ingredients in cosmetics including carcinogens, pesticides, and hormone disrupters. The Campaign identifies with using a science-based approach, customary activist tactics and grassroots organizations to put pressure on the cosmetic industry to manufacture safe products and on the government to pass legislation regarding the safety of cosmetics. Traditional methods such as letter writing, education, and boycotts inspired additional supporters to become involved in the cause. The belief that human health and wellness are directly connected to the environment as a whole has also led to the growth of the TCSC movement

• In spring 2004, members of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and more than 50 other organizations ask cosmetics companies and personal care product companies to sign the Compact for Safe Cosmetics (Compact for the Global Production of Safer Health and Beauty Products), a pledge to remove toxic chemicals and replace them with safer alternatives in every market they serve.
• In 2005, the Environmental Working Group releases "Skin Deep: A Safety Assessment of Ingredients in Personal Care Products". This computer investigation looks into the health and safety assessments on more than 10,000 personal care products and found major gaps in the regulatory safety net for these products. An online rating system that ranks products on their potential health risks and the absence of basic safety evaluations is also available. The analysis compares ingredients in 7,500 personal care products against government, industry, and academic lists of known and suspected chemical health hazards.
• In 2006 Nationwide nail polish manufactures OPI, Orly and Sally Hansen remove the “toxic trio”(formaldehyde, toluene and dibutyl phthalate) from their nail polish.
• In 2007, representatives of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and environmentalist David Steinman hold a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. regarding the presence of 1,4-dioxane in children's and adult's bath and beauty products. With participation from the Environmental Working Group, the conference highlights a range of products including name-brand baby shampoos and bubble baths that were found to contain traces of dioxane which was never included in product labeling. The press conference also called for official Food and Drug Administration oversight of the cosmetics and personal care products industry, which is currently subject only to suggestions from the FDA.
• In 2007, Stacy Malkan releases "Not Just a Pretty Face: The Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry." The book records the history and success of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics.
• In 2008 product testing shows that some of the biggest manufacturers are using less phthalates, this is a victory for the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and consumer health.
• In 2008 more than 1,000 manufacturers sign onto the Compact for Safe Cosmetics, aiming to partner the Campaign and companies together to achieve safe standards for products and transparency.
• In 2008, the nationwide movement progresses as 9 states contemplate legislation to prohibit dangerous ingredients in products.
• In 2009, the Skin Deep database expands to more than 52,000 products and more than 9,000 ingredients.
• In 2009, Johnson & Johnson agrees to meet Campaign representatives to discuss reformulating their baby shampoo from having harmful chemicals.
• In March 2009, the Campaign finds carcinogenic ingredients, formaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane, in children’s bath products and launches the campaign, "No More Toxic Tub: Getting Contaminants Out of Children's Bath and Personal Care Products.” Campaign supporters span across 13 states and the campaign gets global media attention, leading to international government action and a bill in the U.S. Senate.
• In 2010, The Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010 is introduced in Congress.
• In 2010, the Campaign’s "Not So Sexy" report shows that popular fragrance products (Glow by JLO, Calvin Klein Eternity and Old Spice body spray) contain allergens and hormone-disrupting chemicals, which are not listed for consumers and have not been assessed by the FDA.
• In 2011, the Campaign releases the report "Market Shift" and finds that 122 out of 322 cosmetics companies that joined the voluntary pledge to avoid harmful ingredients and product ingredient transparency have made progress towards their promise.
• In 2011, L'Oreal and Johnson & Johnson eliminate or adopt policies against the use of the toxic pesticide triclosan in their products.
• In 2013, the Safe Cosmetics and Personal Care Products Act of 2013 is introduced in Congress in March

Strategic Objectives

2.2 Environmental Justice Issues

Environmental justice researchers have found numerous disparities in the risks of safe cosmetics and its distribution in different populations. While the average woman applies 12 different cosmetic products daily the average man uses around half that number. Although both men and women use grooming products, women are known to generally use more. Additionally, women are key figures in family units that directly correlate to the overall health and well being of their families. Since women have a higher proportion of body fat than men, women are more vulnerable to carrying a larger amount of toxins that can be passed to children during pregnancy or breastfeeding. Fetuses are susceptible to chemical exposure and risks because they have sensitive responses to tiny amounts of chemicals. In the last decade, both scientific and social research has discovered the consequences of harmful ingredients on women, children, and families. Lower income communities are vulnerable to environmental harms and impacts on reproductive health through avenues including low quality, cheap food, home care products, grooming products, and the workplace. In recent years, consumer information database tools have emerged including the Goodguide [1] and the Environmental Working Group [2] to give consumers the option of researching the ingredients in their household products and cosmetics. Supporters of the online consumer tools state that these websites lessen transparency of product ingredients and provide credible sources of data on health, environmental and social consequences of goods. Opponents critique the websites by saying that consumer tools shift the burden from the industry and corporations to the consumer, who is interested enough to discover what their household products and cosmetics are made out of.

Public Policies for Safer Cosmetics

3.1 United States Federal Policy

The US Food and Drug Administration power to regulate the cosmetic industry is minimal in comparison to to the FDA’s regulation of food and drugs. In reality, the FDA does not evaluate the safety levels of products before they are released to consumers. The FDA, an agency created within the US Department of Health and Human Services, does not have the power to control the safety of cosmetics. In terms of the law itself, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act “prohibits the marketing of adulterated or misbranded cosmetics in interstate commerce.” Adulterated refers to toxic substances in ingredients or cosmetics made in unsanitary conditions. Misbranding includes cosmetics that are misleading or inaccurately labeled. Additionally, FDA is granted under the Fair Packing and Labeling Act to “require a list of ingredients for cosmetics marketed on a retail basis to consumers...This requirement does not apply to cosmetics distributed solely for professional use, institutional use (such as in schools or the workplace), or as free samples or hotel amenities.” However, when asked if the FDA approves cosmetics before releasing products to the public, FDA responded by saying, “under the law, cosmetic products and ingredients do not need FDA premarket approval, with the exception of color additives." Although the FDA can go after cosmetic companies that do not follow the law, the real question that comes into play is how efficiently and quickly they take action. The FDA relies on the cosmetic companies and individual manufacturers to be responsible for the safety of cosmetics. Since many cosmetic companies that manufacture dangerous products are able to release toxic cosmetics into the market before they are held legally responsible for their actions, people are at risk. Not only does this policy put consumers at risk, but it also affects a growing number of people because there is no determinate amount of time before the harmful effects of the ingredients are discovered and the product is taken off the market. Without comprehensive pre-screening of cosmetics, there is no telling what types of products are released until the harrowing consequences of ingredients in faulty cosmetics are realized. Even more concerning is the fact that, “neither the law nor FDA regulations require specific tests to demonstrate the safety of individual products or ingredients... the law does not require cosmetic companies to share their safety information with FDA.” Since cosmetic companies do not have to inform the FDA of their ingredients there is little incentive for cosmetic companies to make their ingredients safer when there are cheaper, more dangerous substitutes. The FDA’s insufficiency falls onto The Cosmetic Ingredient Review, which is the cosmetic industry’s self-regulating entity. Furthermore, the CIR does not make up for the FDA’s ineffectiveness, since in “its more than 30-year history, the CIR has reviewed the safety of only 11 percent of the ingredients used to formulate personal care products, and through June of 2008 has found only nine ingredients to be unsafe for use in cosmetics." Unfortunately the FDA’s incapability is not repaired by the CIR; the CIR does not look at all aspects of toxic ingredient exposure such as the aftermath of lifetime exposure and consequences of unhealthy ingredients for distinct populations like the very young and beauty salon workers.

3.2 California, Massachusetts, Vermont, New York

Considering recent legislation to combat dangerous ingredients in cosmetics, The California Safe Cosmetics Act was passed in 2005. This act makes it mandatory for manufacturers, packers, and distributors of all cosmetics sold in California to provide the California Safe Cosmetics Program a comprehensive list of all cosmetic products that contain any dangerous materials linked or presumed to “cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm." The CSCP is focused on compiling data on dangerous and potentially toxic ingredients found in cosmetics sold in California and taking that information and making it accessible for citizens. When analyzing laws that influence the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, the California Safe Cosmetics Act of 2005 stands out because California differentiated itself from federal law and placed more restrictions on the cosmetic industry to avoid harmful ingredients in cosmetics. Aside from pioneering the campaign for Safe Cosmetics, CSCP has compiled a list of potentially toxic ingredients, developed comprehensive reporting systems, constructed a publicly accessible database of company reported product ingredients, and collaborated to evoke additional research for the safety of consumers. The 2005 Act marks a significant victory for the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics because California is “the first state in the nation to pass legislation governing the safety and reporting of cosmetic ingredients."