Recently a bill has been proposed in Colorado, the ‘Colorado Safe Personal Care Products Act‘.  Hearings on the bill begin in March.

The bill would prohibit the sale of “…any personal care product that contains a chemical identified as causing cancer or reproductive toxicity.“  On the face of it, that sounds logical. I mean, who wants bottles of cancer, right?  But this bill is not setting reasonable limits – it would be an outright ban on anything that is even classified as a potential carcinogen. It’s a broadly worded bill that would have many unintended consequences.

The bill is overly broad and would ban many natural ingredients

This legislation would ban naturally occurring substances that can be found in extracts and essential oils. For example, one of the components of Basil, Citronella, Rose Otto and Tarragon Essential Oils is Methyleugenol. This essential oil component is considered a carcinogen if ingested in high quantities. However, no toxicity has ever been proven when used as a topical application.

However, the way the legislation is written, manufacturers who use these essential oils in a lotion or soap could face fines up to $10,000 per product.  This legislation, while well-meaning, is too general and will harm small personal care manufacturers who prefer to use all natural ingredients, like essential oils.

It will also have an impact on things like preservatives and antimicrobials, which are added to formulations to keep consumers safe when products are stored in high growth medium areas like bathrooms.

The proposed bill requires a  complete ban of any product that has been proven dangerous in any capacity (such as ingestion), rather than just considering the typical (and already regulated) usage for topical or scenting applications.

The bill is backed by questionable science.

Lab testing for carcinogens usually involves high-dose injections, i.e., 100 – 1000x times the amount used in a typical application, or they are tested using in-vitro mammalian injections.  (This assumes animal testing, which Soapy Hollow has never promoted or encouraged. In fact, one of the reasons we use essential oils is because animal testing wasn’t considered necessary by the FDA because of the topical and very small usage rates.)

According to Oregon State University: The health impact of carcinogens is not always “linear,” This means experiments that are done using high concentrations of a carcinogen – a common practice made necessary by cost and logistics – may not accurately predict the actual risks of the compound when exposure in the real world is at lower levels over long time periods. (Oregon State University link to full article)

The press releases by Skin Deep – an industry group that supports this bill says the following about substances that they want to completely ban:  they list ‘concerns’ for the ingredients in question, one of these reads: ‘One or more animal studies show tumor formation at high doses‘.  Another reads, ‘One or more in vitro tests on mammalian cells show positive mutation results.’ and yet another ‘Cancer – limited evidence.’

Now, I would like to note here, that I am a big supporter of Skin Deep as a rule.  I usually check their database as any part of sourcing new vendors, and I rely on their links to deep research. However, I find their support of this bill problematic because of these key words:   ‘high doses’, ‘in vitro tests’, and ‘limited evidence.’  They are not relying on actual data and studies, but are indeed making an emotive argument using trigger words.

I, just like every other formulator who prefers natural products, want to create formulas that are safe and healthy and good for body and planet.  But we cannot allow emotion to enter into a scientific debate.

Personal care products are not introduced directly into your body (like a drug); they are not in any way introduced ‘in vitro’. (Unless you love your lotion in a way that, well…we probably shouldn’t talk about.) They are leave on and rinse off. If products had the ability to sink beyond the epidermis layer of the skin, don’t you think that anti-aging products would actually work?  (They don’t, by the way…never have. It’s just cosmetics companies preying on the fear of aging…but that’s a whole ‘nother article.)

States vs the FDA

State regulations superseding federal regulations would make it impossible for manufactures to do interstate business. Currently manufacturers must meet federal safety standards.  There is one set of guidelines and regulations to which we must refer.  Small manufactures do not have the ability to become experts on 50 different sets of regulations, and will thereby either cease doing business in the states where they are unsure how the regulations impact their federally legal formulations, or will open themselves up to increasing levels of litigation and prosecution.  Colorado’s proposed legislation, while well-intended, is a direct challenge to current federal regulations and laws regulating intrastate commerce.

Using natural and safe ingredients is important. There is already a governing body that covers beauty ingredients and cosmetic products – the FDA. They have comprehensive guidelines on best manufacturing practices, labeling laws and safety guidelines for essential oils, preservatives, fragrance oils and other additives.  There is no reason for a local government to try and take the place of the federal regulating agency.  For a business perspective on why this bill doesn’t make sense, please read Donna Maria’s blog here.

How to make your voice heard

For anyone who would like to voice their opinion, the House Judiciary Committee will be having a hearing for those both in support of and in opposition of this bill on March 1st.  The meeting will be in the basement of the Capitol Building, in room 0107.  If you do not live in Colorado, here is all the info to contact the house members who are sponsoring this bill to get more information or suggest how the bill may better be crafted to meet the goals set out in the bill.

The bill is sponsored in the house by Dianne Primavera phone # 303-866-4667 click here to email, Dennis Apuan phone # 303-866-3069 click here to email, Karen Middleton phone # 303-866-3911 click here to email, Joe Miklosi Cap phone # 303-866-2910 click here to email.