CPSIA for soap?

by Walter Olson on September 8, 2010

PeacockBeautyPoster“The Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010 (SCA 2010), now before the House of Representatives, is an inappropriate and seriously flawed attempt to make cosmetics safer.” Disregarding considerations of dose and concentration, the bill would require label disclosure of every substance present in an ingredient “at levels above technically feasible detection limits.” Essential oils and herb extracts typically contain 100 or more such substances, some of which, in isolation and at much larger concentrations, would qualify as toxic. And there’s a CPSIA-like requirement that manufacturers test all ingredients before sale. “Most small personal care product businesses will not survive if SCA 2010 passes.” [fragrance specialist Robert Tisserand] The lead sponsors of the proposed Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010 (H.R. 5786) are Reps. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill. of CPSIA fame, Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisc. [Drug Store News] More: Lela Barker, Cosmetics Design.

{ 3 comments }

1 sue 09.08.10 at 2:08 pm

when they came for the jews,it wasnt me so i said nothing…when they came for the blacks, it wasn’t me so i said nothing….when they came for my neighbors, it wasn’t me so i said nothing…when they came for me, there was no one left to speak. slowly, ever so slowly, small and home based businesses will be legislated out of existance “for the safety of the children” {and not incidently the benefit of large multinational corporations.} the experts will say the costs are not that large and small busnesses just don’t understand. we need to make a stand NOW…. in my small town i personally know of 5 home crafters who have lost their busness to cpsia and i’m on the ropes. these are not, as officials will tell you, moms just making extra money for vacations etc. these are people like me who support our families. two of the above mentioned are about to lose their homes. they were not getting rich doing what they loved[and were excellent at] but the managed to pay the bills [and taxes]. now they’re going on public assitance. how is that helping the economy or their children. now due to unresonable and frankly unproven or scientific standards, all reason and common sense has been thrown to the wind. when you make one of a kind, made to order items..destructive testing just doesn’t cut it. i’m waiting for there to be no small busnesses just corporations, suppling the entire country. of course since everyone will have lost their jobs by they nothing will be sold but the government and corporations will have the satifaction of controlling everything at last. sorry about the long post but i needed to vent and as i said i’m on the ropes.

]

2 D 09.08.10 at 3:42 pm

We mourn with you, Sue.
The officials (elected and appointed) claim you (we) are a whiner who doesn’t need that money. You wouldn’t know what to do with it anyway. Money is for people who make decisions.
Everyone’s hero Saul Alinsky says to ridicule anyone who disagrees with you. “”Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.” -Rules for Radicals

3 GregS 09.09.10 at 10:21 am

It amazes me that all those “progressive” people who are so hostile to the mass-produced uniformity that comes from having markets dominated by a few large corporations, and who hate the “regimentation” and “inflexibility” of the modern workplace, are so firm in their support of a political party, the Democratic Party, whose economic policies seem to be (a) to wipe out any space for the small producer and to hand industry after industry to cartels dominated by a few large companies, and (b) to make the rigidity of the conventional labor union the model that all employment should follow.

Comments on this entry are closed.