# Senate Bill S.1014, the Personal Care Products Safety Act



## Lion Of Judah

I came across this at another group that i think is a point of interest for U.S Handmade cosmetics and soaps. It was on the Handmade Cosmetic Alliance page, it is about "Senate Bill S.1014, the Personal Care Products Safety Act " :

http://handmadecosmeticalliance.org/PDFs/HCA_Feinstein_Legislation_S.1014.pdf

http://www.soapguild.org/docs/public/2015-04-24-Press-Release-Feinstein-Cosmetic-Leg.pdf

http://cosmeticsandthelaw.com/2015/...the-cosmetics-industry-if-enacted/#more-70498

Petition : 
http://handmadecosmeticalliance.org/Contact-Legislators.aspx?mc_cid=6c8949b41c&mc_eid=33fb6b386a


----------



## Susie

You can track it here:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s1014


----------



## kchaystack

I have already sent the e-versions, but I am also going to print them off and send them hardcopy.  Taking the time to actually send letters is supposed to get politicians attention better.

Now, I do not sell.  But I think I might just go ahead and register a sole proprietorship (since the letters say I own a company, and I do not like to lie just lye).  It might make for a little hassle at tax time - but if I do not make any profit it won't cost me anything really.  And if I ever decide to sell, I will have everything ready paperwork wise.


----------



## Soapsense

I received an email from WSP that made it very easy to send a statement to my senator, unfortunately she is Susan Collins.


----------



## Lion Of Judah

kchaystack said:


> Now, I do not sell.  But I think I might just go ahead and register a sole proprietorship (since the letters say I own a company, and I do not like to lie just lye).  It might make for a little hassle at tax time - but if I do not make any profit it won't cost me anything really.  And if I ever decide to sell, I will have everything ready paperwork wise.



i like this idea very much and may use it . i myself do not sell as well , but for the sake of having a voice in these types of issues i may as well go ahead and register a company in name , and who knows maybe it will push me to sell my soap


----------



## pamielynn

This may be the one time my senators actually read my mail  I'm usually complaining about Republican-only bills - and - they really detest Diane Feinstein down here (Texas). 

Does anyone have a link to the actual verbiage of the bill?


----------



## kchaystack

pamielynn said:


> This may be the one time my senators actually read my mail  I'm usually complaining about Republican-only bills - and - they really detest Diane Feinstein down here (Texas).
> 
> Does anyone have a link to the actual verbiage of the bill?



http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/pub...?File_id=445a9268-4964-4de0-89f9-4caf577099f2


----------



## pamielynn

kchaystack said:


> http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/pub...?File_id=445a9268-4964-4de0-89f9-4caf577099f2



Ah! Thank you!


----------



## kchaystack

You are very welcome.  I so hope this gets squashed.  

I am pretty liberal for social issues, but this is stupid.

I agree the labeling laws need to be  clarified.  

Sigh


----------



## pamielynn

So, in another group, it is being questioned since the bill says that "domestic" manufacturers and those making less than $100k/year are exempt. And also that "soap" isn't a cosmetic, so the bill is not aimed at us.

Anyone got an opinion on that comment?


----------



## kchaystack

pamielynn said:


> So, in another group, it is being questioned since the bill says that "domestic" manufacturers and those making less than $100k/year are exempt. And also that "soap" isn't a cosmetic, so the bill is not aimed at us.
> 
> Anyone got an opinion on that comment?



Soap is not a cosmetic until you make a claim that it does something other than clean.  You can not say your soap moisturizes, or that it soothes, or any other cosmetic claim.  If you do, then it becomes a cosmetic.  

As far as the domestic and < $100k/year thing - I need to read the law again.  (Legal speak is not fun to parse, and I am not that good at it).  But those kind of things can vanish easily.


----------



## LBussy

pamielynn said:


> So, in another group, it is being questioned since the bill says that "domestic" manufacturers and those making less than $100k/year are exempt. And also that "soap" isn't a cosmetic, so the bill is not aimed at us.
> 
> Anyone got an opinion on that comment?


Shave soap *is* a cosmetic - as are lotions and other B&B things.


----------



## pamielynn

Right, I said that some of us make cosmetics (according to the FDA, anyway), but the text of the bill states the minimum and "domestic" as exluded. There are some in this group stating that we are worrying for nothing. I say, once the bill is in, it's not that hard to include us "small fry" manufacturers. 

But, I tend to overreact to most things. I was just wondering what you all are thinking about the bill and it's repercussions. Thanks for the responses!


----------



## not_ally

This bill would impact me, not b/c of soap, but b/c my sister and I are starting up a co.  that will be retailing a non-US mftred hair oil product.  The link that Susie provided (the govtrack one) did indicate that it had very little (2%) chance of getting passed, though, that is kind of comforting.  I have not seen the full text of the bill, although Janeau's links provided useful summaries.  I don't have issues w/labeling so much as passing on of costs for FDA testing, that could add up for small businesses like mine that get caught up in the net.


----------



## Cindy2428

Yes, I proudly sit on the conservative side of the aisle in most things for the primary belief that I don't want big government sticking their nose where it doesn't belong. Even the most well intentioned legislation becomes corrupted and funded by special interest groups. 

We (handcrafters) are affecting "big soap" - they cannot do what we do and it is affecting their profit margins. Once they get their foot hold, and who knows how the final bill will turn out.... it will mean no good to any of us.

Yes there are idiots out there selling bad products, but there isn't a law in the land that will stop them. It's forums like this, the HSCG and dedicated soapers striving for excellence in every bar and product, that keep the artisan industry surviving.  - edit to say thriving!

What they are proposing parallels current state law in Fl. I know quite a few Fl soapers, and many if not most violate the law because they can't afford dedicated manufacturing space. Legally they can't make bath bombs or lip balms.

This is a special industry with a majority of people here for the right reasons. Every group has a few bad apples. We can take care of them ourselves.


----------



## kchaystack

@not_ally  - I have read thru the text again, skimming most of it - 100 pages of that kind of stuff is headache inducing.  I think you are right to be concerned.  I mean the big manufacturers (who count profit in the BILLIONS) this is just a little itch.  But new companies...  this puts a lot of red tape in the way.

Right now I am leaning on it not affecting most small time people.  It would probably impact our suppliers however.  And that means the costs would be passed on to us with increased materials.  And the things that DO need to be addressed - like labeling standards - are still pretty vague.


----------



## Dorymae

pamielynn said:


> Right, I said that some of us make cosmetics (according to the FDA, anyway), but the text of the bill states the minimum and "domestic" as exluded. There are some in this group stating that we are worrying for nothing. I say, once the bill is in, it's not that hard to include us "small fry" manufacturers.
> 
> But, I tend to overreact to most things. I was just wondering what you all are thinking about the bill and it's repercussions. Thanks for the responses!



Your not overreacting. It is called tiptoe totalitarianism and is used by government very often to get their agenda through.  First they introduce the tight bill, only affects a few, then they "modify" it every so often until it includes everyone. (No one reacts when it doesn't affect them, and by the time they realize it does - it is already done.)


----------



## OliveOil2

If this has already been discussed please ignore, I have read through this post, but not all links. What troubles me most is that this bill is heavily supported by the 'Personal Care Products Council' a trade group representing the following companies:
Johnson & Johnson 
Procter & Gamble
Revlon
Estee Lauder 
Unilever 
L’Oreal

It is clear to me that those giant companies are threatened by the handcrafted cosmetics, I am thinking to myself; what a conflict of interest, this bill is more about protecting your profits, than keeping the general population safe.The bill is strange in that they are mainly targeting those companies that will have the most impact on their profits. So it is OK for a handcrafter to make an untested product if their revenue is below a certain point? For the purpose of discussion I include soap in this, even though till this point in the US soap has not been considered a cosmetic. Unilever is Dove, and Lever soap. Even though I sell a very small amount, and only soap I can see where this could go down the road. You just have to look at the laws made to allow cottage industries out of the home, well there are laws now making it legal, however the fees and required licenses, and classes make it impossible to comply.


----------



## LBussy

> First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
> Because I was not a Socialist.
> Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
> Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
> Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
> Because I was not a Jew.
> Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.


-- Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)


----------



## OliveOil2

Just to be more clear, the Personal Care Products Council has 600 members, and I mentioned some of the big players. Also when I referred to the Cottage industry laws, they pertain to food prep in a home kitchen, making bread, jams, and other items that were deemed to be safe, but needing regulation.


----------



## not_ally

OliveOyl, I noticed that as well.  The big guys will be affected less b/c they are already subject to many of the requirements that exist in this new bill.  Hence the support on their side.

K, I didn't even think about this "It would probably impact our suppliers however.  And that means the costs would be passed on to us with increased materials."  And of course it would be true if the bill was passed.  Am still hoping that it will not be - again, as per the govtrack analysis, it has a 3% chance of getting through committee and only a 2% chance of getting passed.  Sometimes I think politicians just do these things to go on record, even if they know they will not work.

I am on the liberal side of the fence on most things, although am feeling pinched on this issue.  California's yearly registration fees for LLC's - even ones that are not making money yet, like mine are $800+.  It is definitely a barrier to entry for the little guy.


----------



## not_ally

Thread from another board, I think the input is useful.  I am still hoping - and think, given how slim the chances of passage are - that this is a tempest in a teapot, at least this time around.

http://www.thedishforum.com/forum/i...7-feinstein-introduces-cosmetics-legislation/


----------



## Earthen_Step

Thanks for this thread, I contacted my reps and let them know I'm completely against it.


----------



## Aline

Is there anything in the bill about having to have a dedicated manufacturing space? I know....I could read it, but I have a headache already!


----------



## kchaystack

Aline said:


> Is there anything in the bill about having to have a dedicated manufacturing space? I know....I could read it, but I have a headache already!



No.  In fact in the part where it talks about registering your facilities it talks about how if such a facility is a private residence that address is kept private.


----------



## LBussy

I think the part some of you are missing is the regulatory authority the FDA will have if this bill passes.   No good can come from this for the cottage soap industry.  

Now, if they also crack down on people who sell essential oils as replacements for medical care, it might be a wash.  (The second part was tongenin cheek in case that was not immediately obvious. )


----------



## snappyllama

I sent my representatives a note in solidarity to all y'all soaping business owners.

Lee, that reminds me of a lotion seller/Do Terra person I saw at a home show over the weekend.  I was just looking for a bathroom renovation contractor but found the cure for all sorts of afflictions. Did you know that essential oil lotion cures asthma? Amazing!


----------



## LBussy

snappyllama said:


> Did you know that essential oil lotion cures asthma? Amazing!


I hear it also will cure cancer - but I'm not really allowed to tell you that.


----------



## AnnaMarie

If anyone is interested I just received this link from COHE in my business email:

http://www.indiebusinessnetwork.com/register-pcpsa-call/

It is a free, informational call taking place this Friday, hosted by Indie, and is regarding the proposed safety act (which I am against myself). The link has all the info, and it looks like the Act is going to be explained in a bit more detail. 

Best,
Anna Marie


----------



## LBussy

I read this proposed act in some depth last night.  Sad I know.  While as currently written this does not *seem like* it would apply to most folks here directly, it is irresponsible and frankly a little silly to not believe there will be "collateral damage."  Remember; first comes laws, then comes regulations.  If this passes it will go to the FDA for implementation and they will regulate it how they see fit (which often does not seem how the law was written.)  

Part of the intent here seems to be some manner of control over the efficacy and quality of the raw materials which are used by the industry.  A potential means of implementation would be to "certify" suppliers and products according to these to-be-written regulations.  That burden would be on the suppliers.  Since we are a very small economic demographic, the supplies we get are often enabled by the import/manufacture economy created by the larger cosmetic companies.  Suppliers and manufacturers will be forced to pay the burden of these regulations and they will pass them along to their customers.  Again, because we are small and not really likely to have a separate import/manufacture stream, we will also pay those dues.

So this is one very real, very direct impact such a law will have.  Of course you will in turn pass it along to your clients - unless you are a person who really just enjoys making soap and giving it away.  Things will become more expensive and the more likely impact would be "free" things diminish.  Less people will be participating in the community, less people will be innovating, less people will be giving soaps to homeless shelters just because they can.  All of these things because someone said "there ought to be a law" when Ms Feinstein was listening.


----------



## Soapsense

It's very confusing
I have read that section, it is the explanation of a facility.  It says it does not include domestic manufactures who's sales are under $100,000.  But the next section clarifies "Responsible Person" Which is anyone whose name and address appear on the label.  Then in the regulation it says, "each responsible person engaged in manufacturing or processing of a cosmetic product or a cosmetic formulation distributed in the United States shall register all of the responsible person's Facilities with the FDA.
​​​​​
​​​​​


----------



## not_ally

Soapsense, I haven't read the bill, so this is just a somewhat educated guess.  But if you are exempt (ie, domestic manafacturer w/less than $100k in sales), you don't really have to worry about the definitional stuff, that only applies to people who are subject to the bill.  As has been noted here by people who are more forward-looking than me, it might affect you w/r/t increased costs from suppliers, though, so keep an eye on where it goes, anyway.

I agree, reading legislation (proposed or otherwise) is very confusing, it takes forever, even for those who are used to doing it.


----------



## InNae

LBussy said:


> Shave soap *is* a cosmetic - as are lotions and other B&B things.



Why is shaving soap considered a cosmetic? Can you point me to a reference?


----------



## not_ally

I am not speaking for Lee, he is well able to do it for himself.  But if I was guessing, I would say that if you are making any claim at all that your product does anything other than clean - and even then, you have to make sure your ingredients are basically lye and oils, or using a very good MP base - you are in the cosmetic area.  I have no idea how people would sell shaving soap, but if I were doing it, I guess I would say something like "provides emollients to soften hair and skin so that you get the closest shave possible."  Voila, cosmetics.

ETA:  I don't have my copy on hand, but Marie Gale's book on FDA labeling/regs is very good about explaining this stuff in plain English rather than FDA talk.


----------



## LBussy

InNae said:


> Why is shaving soap considered a cosmetic? Can you point me to a reference?



It is confusing - and the way I read the regulation a soap was a soap.  Until it isn't apparently.  new12soap stopped a long argument about it by simply asking them.  :shock:

I attached the email I saved from that thread. 

View attachment FDA Info on Shaving Soap - SMF.pdf


----------



## Susie

Does anyone have a good letter explaining why this bill is horrible that we could copy/paste to our senators?  I can get one together, but it is going to be low on my priority list for tomorrow.

Here is how you contact your senators:

ww.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

It seems Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) has now signed on as co-sponsor, so this seems to be gaining some momentum.


----------



## kchaystack

Susie said:


> Does anyone have a good letter explaining why this bill is horrible that we could copy/paste to our senators?  I can get one together, but it is going to be low on my priority list for tomorrow.
> 
> Here is how you contact your senators:
> 
> ww.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm



This link will create an email and a rtf letter you can personalize.  The letter is written as you were a all business owner, but it is pretty simple to tweek.


http://handmadecosmeticalliance.org/Contact-Legislators.aspx?mc_cid=6c8949b41c&mc_eid=33fb6b386a


----------



## Susie

Thank you so much!  I am trying to pack to move and my plate is full right now.  And my fiance keeps moving the date closer and closer...lol.


----------



## kchaystack

Susie said:


> Thank you so much!  I am trying to pack to move and my plate is full right now.  And my fiance keeps moving the date closer and closer...lol.



No problem.  I am happy to help you two love birds be able to focus on the important stuff.


----------



## tbeck3579

To make America believe they need it (a new law) you must be willing to spend a huge  sum of money -- cottage industry soap makers are of little consequence  to politicians whose campaign and re-election depend on big money.  Follow the money if you want to understand the reason for this bill.  Who is truly going to benefit if this bill is enacted?  In the '60's and '70's consumers demanded information from corporations: 1966 Fair Packaging and Label Act, in 1972 Consumer Product Safety Act.  It wasn't until the '90's that nutritional information was required and it wasn't until 2002 meat had to be labeled with country of origin.  In the '90's it was corporate America who wanted people to know that their product was healthier than their competitor.  And a short while ago American agriculture wanted you to know your meat was American, and to buy American -- they instilled panic -- mad cow disease, ya-de-dah, and so it goes.  The politics are partially explained here.  We still don't have laws for GMO labeling -- consumers want it but big business doesn't.  Big business throws so much money into making consumers believe that new laws will help or hurt them -- even if the opposite is true.  Consumers really don't drive our legislation in 2015 -- big business and corporate America are the driving forces behind the vast majority of new laws that are enacted.  Follow the money if you want to know the underlying reason behind new legislation.


----------



## tbeck3579

LBussy said:


> Things will become more expensive and the more likely impact would be "free" things diminish.  Less people will be participating in the community, less people will be innovating, less people will be giving soaps to homeless shelters just because they can.  All of these things because someone said "there ought to be a law" when Ms Feinstein was listening.



I agree with what you are saying.  Fortunately, giving to the poor will probably still be an option.  Food that is illegal to sell is legal to donate without the fear of law suits.  America is okay with poor people receiving items that may present a danger to health.  I agree with not holding someone responsible for donating, and 1 out of 5 of American children are food insecure, but...   As a side note, an old man in Florida was arrested about a year ago under a city ordinance that prohibited feeding the homeless -- true story.  Being arrested for kindness...  gad!  :twisted::evil: A small window into the soul of our nation.  When did we turn into a nation of selfish people who seem to be indifferent to the suffering of others?  Sad, truly sad.


----------



## biarine

I did found this article.

Lawmakers want FDA to crack down on soap makers

Excerpts:

People who are trying to do good for their families and the planet by living a simple life based on traditional skills are facing yet another assault. Artisanal soap makers say new regulations, proposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California) and Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine), will put them out of business.

The view of Sen. Feinstein and her corporate backers (listed below) is that the Personal Care Products Safety Act (Senate Bill S.1014) will make the world a safer place by scrutinizing “everything from shampoo and hair dye to deodorant and lotion.” She says the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act should be more progressive like laws in Europe rather than antiquated US regulations in effect since the 1930s.

If the industries that back this law are really so concerned about safety, why don’t they voluntarily make healthy products, like the small time producers already do?

Feinstein does not propose to ban these dangerous ingredients from soaps and cosmetics, just regulate them with tests and warning labels, fees, and recall authority. She thinks some of these products, though harmful to health, magically become “safe when used by professionals in a salon or spa setting.”

Companies and brands that support the bill:

Johnson & Johnson, brands include Neutrogena, Aveeno, Clean & Clear, Lubriderm, Johnson’s baby products.
Procter & Gamble, including Pantene, Head & Shoulders, Clairol, Herbal Essences, Secret, Dolce & Gabbana, Gucci, Ivory, CoverGirl, Olay, Sebastian Professional, Vidal Sassoon.
Revlon, brands include Revlon, Almay, Mitchum
Esteee Lauder, brands include Esteee Lauder, Clinique, Origins, Tommy Hilfiger, MAC, La Mer, Bobbi Brown, Donna Karan, Aveda, Michael Kors.
Unilever, brands include Dove, Tresemme, Lever, St. Ives, Noxzema, Nexxus, Pond’s, Suave, Sunsilk, Vaseline, Degree.
L’Oreeal, brands include L’Oreeal Paris, Lancome, Giorgio Armani, Yves Saint Laurent, Kiehl’s, Essie, Garnier, Maybelline-New York, Vichy, La Roche-Posay, The Body Shop, Redken.


----------



## shunt2011

biarine said:


> I did found this article.
> 
> Lawmakers want FDA to crack down on soap makers
> 
> Excerpts:
> 
> People who are trying to do good for their families and the planet by living a simple life based on traditional skills are facing yet another assault. Artisanal soap makers say new regulations, proposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California) and Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine), will put them out of business.
> 
> The view of Sen. Feinstein and her corporate backers (listed below) is that the Personal Care Products Safety Act (Senate Bill S.1014) will make the world a safer place by scrutinizing “everything from shampoo and hair dye to deodorant and lotion.” She says the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act should be more progressive like laws in Europe rather than antiquated US regulations in effect since the 1930s.
> 
> If the industries that back this law are really so concerned about safety, why don’t they voluntarily make healthy products, like the small time producers already do?
> 
> Feinstein does not propose to ban these dangerous ingredients from soaps and cosmetics, just regulate them with tests and warning labels, fees, and recall authority. She thinks some of these products, though harmful to health, magically become “safe when used by professionals in a salon or spa setting.”
> 
> Companies and brands that support the bill:
> 
> Johnson & Johnson, brands include Neutrogena, Aveeno, Clean & Clear, Lubriderm, Johnson’s baby products.
> Procter & Gamble, including Pantene, Head & Shoulders, Clairol, Herbal Essences, Secret, Dolce & Gabbana, Gucci, Ivory, CoverGirl, Olay, Sebastian Professional, Vidal Sassoon.
> Revlon, brands include Revlon, Almay, Mitchum
> Esteee Lauder, brands include Esteee Lauder, Clinique, Origins, Tommy Hilfiger, MAC, La Mer, Bobbi Brown, Donna Karan, Aveda, Michael Kors.
> Unilever, brands include Dove, Tresemme, Lever, St. Ives, Noxzema, Nexxus, Pond’s, Suave, Sunsilk, Vaseline, Degree.
> L’Oreeal, brands include L’Oreeal Paris, Lancome, Giorgio Armani, Yves Saint Laurent, Kiehl’s, Essie, Garnier, Maybelline-New York, Vichy, La Roche-Posay, The Body Shop, Redken.


 

This is what this whole thread is about from the start.


----------



## biarine

Yes, and it sad


----------



## Soaper12

This legislation requires every cosmetic manufacturer to register with the FDA.  It also states in Sec 605.2.I (about registration) that "An assurance that the Food and Drug Administration will be permitted to inspect such facility at the times and in the manner permitted by this act".  This means that the FDA can come into your home and inspect it whenever they feel like it!  It is not just about the money or fees.  They will be inspecting our homes!  That will deny us our 4th Amendment Rights against illegal search.  They will be searching for anything that does not comply with their mandate.


----------



## The Efficacious Gentleman

But your registration makes it legal, so it would not break the 4th amendment. It is also not "whenever they want" but within times stipulated by the legislation. 

While I can understand people voting against this, let's at least keep the arguments against it valid and accurate.


----------



## not_ally

I still have not read the bill, so still just guessing here.  If it works the way most do, someone who is exempt (domestic mftr grossing less than 100k) would not be required to register.  Please correct me if I am wrong, you guys, or send me a link to the actual bill.  I admit, I have been avoiding it b/c it will take so long to read.

I don't think it is a 4th Amendment violation, that really goes to search and seizure in homes *as* homes, not potential commercial facilities.  If you are making enough soap/money to go over 100k, the lines get blurry and various other statutes will kick in.  Plus, more than likely, the interstate commerce clause (applies to almost anything sold across state lines) will join the mix and it will become an entirely federal issue so state laws will be pre-empted/federal law will take priority.


----------



## Soaper12

The bill is confusing because it says that manufacturers earning less than $100,000 are exempt.  At the same time, it says that ALL manufacturers need to register.  All registered manufacturers of cosmetics can be subject to an inspection of their facility, in accordance with this legislation.  (In my case, that would be a forced warrant-less inspection of my home).


----------



## The Efficacious Gentleman

Soaper12 said:


> The bill is confusing because it says that manufacturers earning less than $100,000 are exempt.  At the same time, it says that ALL manufacturers need to register.  All registered manufacturers of cosmetics can be subject to an inspection of their facility, in accordance with this legislation.  (In my case, that would be a forced warrant-less inspection of my home).




Again, if you were to refuse, they would likely revoke your registration. If you wanted to stay registered you'd have to let them in, which then makes it unforced. 

I've not read the bill as it doesn't apply to me, but if when it says that companies under 100k don't count, but all companies must register, is there something in there that defines a manufacturer as having more than 100k, so when it say 'manufacture' from that point on, it is only referring to those with 100k? Laws often have that so that they can clearly state what actually applies. For example, if it says 'all manufacturers will be subject to inspection by the FDA.....' I imagine it only means manufacturers of the products defined at the start of the bill, but once that term is defined in relation to this bill, they then just use the term itself to make things easier.


----------



## dosco

LBussy said:


> Shave soap *is* a cosmetic - as are lotions and other B&B things.



So I just looked at the FDA page where they explain the definition of soap.

Why do you think shave soap = cosmetic?

Regards-
Dave


----------



## The Efficacious Gentleman

Because the advertised purpose of shaving soap is not to clean you.  You don't clean yourself with a shaving soap, rather you use it to protect the face during shaving, so then it is a cosmetic.


----------



## shunt2011

^^^ Exactly for this reason.  Hense why it needs to be labeled as a cosmetic.


----------



## not_ally

I skimmed the first half of the bill yesterday, TEG is right, if you are exempt the provisions of the bill will not apply to you (if my reading was correct.)


----------



## kchaystack

Soaper12 said:


> The bill is confusing because it says that manufacturers earning less than $100,000 are exempt.  At the same time, it says that ALL manufacturers need to register.  All registered manufacturers of cosmetics can be subject to an inspection of their facility, in accordance with this legislation.  (In my case, that would be a forced warrant-less inspection of my home).



If you look at the bill, right upfront it gives you the definitions of a facility and responsible persons.  It says in this section that domestic manufacturers that gross less that $100K are exempt.  So anywhere there after it uses the terms 'facility' and 'responsible persons' it defaults back to the descriptions at the beginning of the bill.

Also, this won't effect you if all you make is soap, and never claims it does anything but clean.  

But we all know soap is kind of a gateway drug.    Most people who start soaping get into lotions, bath bombs, body scrubs, and all sorts of other bath and beauty products.  And if you make a business out of this expanding your product line is usually not a bad idea. 

My concerns about this are 2 fold. 

1. It does not really address the problems the industry faces.  Poor labeling and fantastic claims are the prime examples.  

2. It will affect places we get some of our supplies from.  I am sure Brambleberry and Nature's Garden and TKB Trading gross more than 100K a year.  Even if they are not making lotion bases or M&P or their other kits themselves, they get it from places who also make more than that.  All of these fee's are just going to roll down hill.  I spend enough money on my hobby, thank you very much.

That is my view on why I think this is just a bad idea.  And if nothing else, I think our culture is generally ignorant on how our government works, so getting people involved is never a bad thing.   Even if this ends up not effecting us in any way - it will be a good learning experience for the next bad idea bill that comes across.


----------



## LBussy

dosco said:


> So I just looked at the FDA page where they explain the definition of soap.
> 
> Why do you think shave soap = cosmetic?
> 
> Regards-
> Dave


Because the FDA says it is?  :razz:   We had a bit of a go-around here some time back and new12soap decided to go to the source.  I've attached the email received as an answer.

Although the reasoning would seemingly also make a razor a cosmetic, it's what they seem to be saying consistently.  So, unless a person really wants to fight it, that's what we have. 

View attachment FDA Info on Shaving Soap - SMF.pdf


----------



## dosco

The Efficacious Gentleman said:


> Because the advertised purpose of shaving soap is not to clean you.  You don't clean yourself with a shaving soap, rather you use it to protect the face during shaving, so then it is a cosmetic.



From the FDA website:

To meet the definition of soap in FDA’s regulations, a product has to meet three conditions: 


*What it’s made of*:  To be regulated as “soap,” the product must be composed mainly of the  “alkali salts of fatty acids,” that is, the material you get when you  combine fats or oils with an alkali, such as lye.
*What ingredients cause its cleaning action: *To  be regulated as “soap,” those “alkali salts of fatty acids” must be the  only material that results in the product’s cleaning action. If the  product contains synthetic detergents, it’s a cosmetic, not a soap. You  still can use the word “soap” on the label.
*How it's intended to be used*: To  be regulated as soap, it must be labeled and marketed only for use as  soap. If it is intended for purposes such as moisturizing the skin,  making the user smell nice, or deodorizing the user’s body, it’s a  cosmetic. Or, if the product is intended to treat or prevent disease,  such as by killing germs, or treating skin conditions, such as acne or  eczema, it’s a drug. You still can use the word “soap” on the label.

Note that the definition doesn't say "soap is something that is to be used to clean and/or remove dirt."

So I can see the argument where shave soap can fall on either side of the definition.

Interestingly, LBussy's PDF states that shave soap is regulated as a cosmetic. I don't see anywhere in the email where that FDA employee is a lawyer, and if I had enough money I would hire a lawyer to challenge this in court. Why? Consider the following possibilities:

Possibility #1
I make soap from fats saponified into alkali salts of fatty acids (reqt #1), have only alkali salts of fatty acids as the ingredients (reqt #2), and label it as "soap" (reqt #3) ... and I now have made and marketed soap, per the FDA definition, that is outside of the regulatory framework. If the purchaser decides to use it for shaving, well, that's outside my control. Plenty of folks post on the various shaving forums about how great various bar soaps are for shaving (Ivory, Irish Spring, etc.).

Possibility #2
As soon as I take the soap from possibility #1 and I change the label and market it as "shave soap" it now falls into the regulatory framework and is (apparently) a cosmetic ... despite  the fact that I haven't materially altered its composition. That's annoying.

Possibility #3
Now, if I and make the soap using HP and add shea butter after the saponification is largely complete, and then label the product as "moisturizing soap" I've now made a cosmetic that is subject to regulation.

Possibility #4
If I make it using HP, add the shea as a constituent fat, and then saponify (but have made it with superfat so that leftover shea is present) and label it as soap, I've again made a product that falls outside the regulatory framework.

Is there a trade association for soap artisans? (yes, I am ignorant).

Apologies if I'm rekindling an old debate.

Regards-
Dave


----------



## dosco

kchaystack said:


> 2. It will affect places we get some of our supplies from.  I am sure Brambleberry and Nature's Garden and TKB Trading gross more than 100K a year.  Even if they are not making lotion bases or M&P or their other kits themselves, they get it from places who also make more than that.  All of these fee's are just going to roll down hill.  I spend enough money on my hobby, thank you very much.



Where are the various suppliers purchasing their raw materials for lotions, hair conditioners, etc.? My guess would be the various producers that also supply the same chemicals to the large manufacturers ... I agree that there will likely be some new costs that will be passed down to hobbyists, but how much of a price increase are we thinking of?

(yes, I'm ignorant)

-Dave


----------



## LBussy

Dave if you do decide to take on city hall, let me know.  Not so I can help mind you, I just want to watch.  

In another pastime we have some of the same arguments regarding interpretation of regulations.  The person giving you the interpretation need not be a lawyer, it's an official interpretation because they are selected/authorized to give you one.  Regulations are not laws - they are regulations. Therefore the agency which creates the regulations are the arbiters of the interpretation.  Yes you can fight it but you have to wait until you are cited - then you can hire a lawyer (and they will want a LOT of money up front) to fight it.  In the meantime any actions they take against you like a cease and desist, seizure of inventory, etc., will stand.

It's just easier to put the right label on it.


----------



## dosco

LBussy said:


> In another pastime we have some of the same arguments regarding interpretation of regulations.



I currently work in this environment ... I generally agree with your position; however I avoided a large dissertation about Government, etc., for a number of reasons. Mostly because I don't feel like composing a dissertation.



> Yes you can fight it but you have to wait until you are cited - then you can hire a lawyer (and they will want a LOT of money up front) to fight it.


Yes. Like I said in my post, if I had a lot of money I would consider making a run on this. But I don't have a lot of money, so ... it's moot.



> It's just easier to put the right label on it.


So let's assume you make soap per "Possibility #1" that I presented ... which label would you put on your product?

-Dave


----------



## LBussy

dosco said:


> So let's assume you make soap per "Possibility #1" that I presented ... which label would you put on your product?


Depends who my market is.  If it's a mass market, take anyone that has money sort of thing then I guess I would sell a bar of soap and just call it soap. However a guy/gal would have to make darned sure NONE of the marketing included anything about shaving.

I like to consider myself a discerning consumer however, and I would not buy a bar of soap because "the masses" says it shaves great.  You can find plenty of people to tell you the various M&P vendors make great shaving soap.  We've had other conversations here (about dirt in soap for instance) where people say "my customers love it."  Well, to paraphrase Groucho Marx, I would not want anyone as a customer that thought clay made a good shaving soap.  I can afford that sort of snooty attitude (I admit it, it is snooty) because I do not sell my soaps.  I think the people who DO say that Ivory soap makes a great shaving soap don't know their ***es from a hole in the ground.  I tried it and it was "okay" surprisingly, but not a "good" shaving soap.  I'd use it before Barbasol though.  :-D

Therefore if I was going to go to the trouble to create a shaving soap (I did) I would want to market that soap for it's qualities, not as a bar of soap.  I would want to share with my customers WHY it was a good shaving soap.  Otherwise, what really distinguishes anyone these days?  I think soapers here anyway are very proud of what they create as evidenced by the frustration that's often shared about the other soapers who do not care - pick any thread about the "other person at the farmer's market" as an example.  I would want real discerning shavers as clients and then worry about them, as representatives in the community, to be the example others follow.

And as you know I correctly (I think) label the soap I give away anyway.  I think the folks I give my soap to deserve no less information than those that buy soap.  So again, I would not entertain #1 as a solution.  I'd just do it right.  Given the way things went for the last guy who got loose and frisky with the truth and shavers (I think you know what B&B thread I am talking about), why even chance it?  As a matter of fact I think it behooves us to strive to provide customers/clients with as much information as possible whether we "have to" or not.  If we do not then we run the risk of it being forced on us anyway.  I have absolutely nothing to hide so I would not fail to share everything that is required of a cosmetic anyway.

All THAT being said, I hate the regulations and wish the gubmint would stick to things it does well like .. um ... gimme a second here, I'll think of something.


----------



## dosco

LBussy said:


> Depends who my market is.  If it's a mass market, take anyone that has money sort of thing then I guess I would sell a bar of soap and just call it soap. However a guy/gal would have to make darned sure NONE of the marketing included anything about shaving.



Yes and concur.

I suppose the only argument I would make is that if I make a soap that fits their technical definition of "soap," that I could dual market as "soap" and "cosmetic," does the product and my manufacturing process really need to be regulated.

Moot discussion, I think, if the $100k and below limit precludes the cottage industry from being regulated.




> All THAT being said, I hate the regulations and wish the gubmint would stick to things it does well like .. um ... gimme a second here, I'll think of something.


Why taxing and spending, of course. And getting large donations from rich folk. lol.

-Dave


----------



## LBussy

dosco said:


> I suppose the only argument I would make is that if I make a soap that fits their technical definition of "soap," that I could dual market as "soap" and "cosmetic," if the product and my manufacturing process really need to be regulated.


And that's a good example of where the consumer loses - you would choose/be forced to NOT use "one product" for both - you would have to split the product and treat each half differently.  Instead of an educated consumer and good information, you get smoke and mirrors _by regulation._



LBussy said:


> I think soapers here anyway are very proud of what they create as evidenced by the frustration that's often shared about the other soapers who do not care - pick any thread about the "other person at the farmer's market" as an example.


Hate to quote myself but it wasn't 30 minutes before a new thread was started that proves my point:

http://www.soapmakingforum.com/showthread.php?p=514500#post514500

:clap::clap:


----------



## zolveria

*Jesus help us  soap makers*



pamielynn said:


> So, in another group, it is being questioned since the bill says that "domestic" manufacturers and those making less than $100k/year are exempt. And also that "soap" isn't a cosmetic, so the bill is not aimed at us.
> 
> Anyone got an opinion on that comment?



SO I GUESS our sales have to be at 999.99 dollars. SMH. 
can any of us get ahead .. these big companies that started when the nation was founded or lilttles after are so greedy


----------



## galaxyMLP

dosco said:


> From the FDA website:
> 
> Possibility #4
> If I make it using HP, add the shea as a constituent fat, and then saponify (but have made it with superfat so that leftover shea is present) and label it as soap, I've again made a product that falls outside the regulatory framework.




Actually, in this case, as long as you list it as "soap" it still falls under the regulation of soap and not a cosmetic. And as long as you dont call it moisturizing, you can still add the shea superfat after the cook and it will still be "soap" This is because the definition of soap is that the "bulk of the nonvolatile product consists of alkali salts of fatty acids" that's why liquid soap is still soap, even though it is mostly water because water is a volatile component of the product. You only find that out if you read the full wording of the law. Not just the summary. 

" 1) The bulk of the nonvolatile matter in the product consists of an alkali salt of fatty acids and the detergent properties of the article are due to the alkali-fatty acid compounds; and

2)The product is labeled, sold, and represented only as soap.

(b) Products intended for cleansing the human body and which are not “soap” as set out in paragraph (a) of this section are “cosmetics,” and accordingly they are subject to the requirements of the act and the regulations thereunder. For example, such a product in bar form is subject to the requirement, among others, that it shall bear a label containing an accurate statement of the weight of the bar in avoirdupois pounds and ounces, this statement to be prominently and conspicuously displayed so as to be likely to be read under the customary conditions of purchase and use.


That is the full definition. What's odd that I didnt notice before is that it says soap should be labeled as soap and have the net wt. Interesting. I label all of my soaps anyway though so...


----------



## not_ally

For anyone who sells/needs to label their soap carefully, or even for  those who are interested in the whole FDA regulation topic, I *really*  recommend Marie Gale's book on soap and cosmetic labeling.  I think it  is the best, clearest guide on this topic out there.  Posting a link  below, there may be an updated edition, check before you buy.

The only think that sucks about it is that I couldn't find a  cheap/e-book version, always check b/c I buy so many books, and none of  the usual suspects (Amazon/Powells/Barnes and Noble, etc) have them, you  have to cough up the full amount.  But if it is important to you, it is  really worth it.

http://www.amazon.com/Soap-Cosmetic-...rds=marie+gale


----------



## not_ally

Also, found this link on another board (thanks Irena/soapbuddy).  It is from Marie Gale, and is a very good summary of the bill, hopefully it will clear up some questions about the parts that are most confusing.  I encourage anyone who has questions to take the time to read it:

http://blog.mariegale.com/personal-care-products-safety-act/#more-1804


----------



## AnnaMarie

As I mentioned much earlier in this post, the Indie business network provided an extremely helpful conference call for soapers that went over the entire bill and cleared up a few misconceptions. That being said, I am still against the bill and have written to a senator. The call featured Anne Marie Faiola as well as a lobbyist (can't remember his name, but I believe he was a lawyer) who broke down the bill. It was about an hour, but extremely helpful. Here is the link to the breakdown:
http://www.indiebusinessnetwork.com/personal-care-products-safety-act-of-2015/
I believe you can still listen to a recorded version of the call, but I haven't located that. If you are interested in staying informed Anne Marie has a new group called COHE that is for soapers to stay involved in the political landscape. Hope this link helps
Best,
Anna Marie


----------

