Mar 012010

I’m tipping my hat to colleagues who joined me in blogging, tweeting, emailing and shouting “Stop” to the potential affects of this bad bill.  The bill failed in Committee today 7 to 4.  Some Colorado legislators reported they had received up to 700 emails regarding the bill.  I listened to streaming radio from the hearing and those on our side were far more aware of the facts than either the representative from Compact for Safe Cosmetics or some of their small business supporters and individuals who testified.  Although learned in his field and knowledgeable regarding environmental toxins and endocrinology, Dr. David Norris, PhD, Deptartment of Physiology, University of Colorado, was not well versed in cosmetics themselves nor skin absorption and allowable dilutions and was a weak proponent of the bill as a result

.”The bill creates the “Colorado Safe Personal Care Products Act” such as moisturizer for sensitive skin, which prohibits a manufacturer from knowingly selling, offering for sale, or distributing for sale or use in Colorado on and after September 1, 2011, any personal care product that contains a chemical identified as causing cancer or reproductive toxicity.”  HOUSE BILL 10-1248

I wasn’t able to listen to the hearing today early on, and missed the testimony of many of those on our side.  Many thanks to Cindy Jones, Jerrell and Elissa Klaver, and others for their testimony and taking valuable time away from other important aspects of their lives and businesses.

Together, we made a difference and this bill was defeated in Committee today.

 Posted by at 7:30 pm

  3 Responses to “Update: HB 10-1248 Colorado Safe Personal Care Products Bill Fails in Committee”

  1. Thanks for this informative post. It is amazing what tenacious small business owners and 700+ email messages can do. It is clear now, if it was not before, that we are a force to be reckoned with. Thanks to people like you on the front lines, taking the time to make it happen. It’s great to have all facets of your background and expertise on this issue. You make it happen!

  2. I was just adding a link to your great recap of the hearing, D-M, which can be found here: http://tinyurl.com/yhy6vx5 Without your great leadership for IBN members, this probably wouldn’t have happened. We should also credit the big guns (Estee Lauder Companies, Procter & Gamble and Johnson & Johnson) who were also there to help defeat the bill, but it’s a victory nonetheless for the little guys.

  3. I agree Marcia, this was a bad bill with potentially fatal consequences for many businesses, large and small.

    But it was not because the public does not deserve safer cosmetics!

    As Stacy Malkan posted on her blog; “The bill was sponsored by the Colorado Women’s Lobby, not the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, and was an attempt to protect consumers from being exposed to the worst chemicals used in cosmetics.

    Contrary to some claims, the bill would not have banned olive oil or any other natural food-grade ingredients, but only chemicals that are already banned from cosmetics in the EU, and which also appear on other authoritative bodies’ lists of chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive harm (EPA, NTP, IARC and NOISH) – about 15 chemicals in all, most of which are not ever used by small companies.”

    What is missing from this list is the Skin Deep database, or perhaps I’m missing something. 90% of what I’ve been reading in blogs and on facebook and in tweets…is how the Skin Deep database is wrong. Where did this bill identify the EWG or the Skin Deep database as having any authoritative weight in determining whether or not an ingredient caused cancer?

    I’d like to know what the same industry leaders who were so quick to rally around the “cause” when it might cost their clients money, are planning to do to work toward safer cosmetics.

    Why are small, independent cosmetics crafters and ingredient suppliers joking about the “bad science” behind the bill when comments like “a person would have to take 700 baths a day for 70 years in order for the substance to become potentially harmful” are not based in any science or anything really, other than sarcasm.

    Why is Proctor and Gamble willing to reformulate their product lines to remove 1,4-dioxane but small, artisan, Indie and handmade companies are rallying around their right to continue to use it?

 Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>



Uk meds