Disturbing changes in U.S. policy

[grumpy_owl]

You guys! This just in on the Soapqueen blog. I didn't see it addressed elsewhere in the forum. Here is the relevant bit about potential changes in the FDA's Food Drug, and Cosmetics Act and the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act.

These proposals addressed issues such as new registration requirements for manufacturing facilities, products, and ingredients; the collection of fees; ingredient safety substantiation and review; reporting requirements related to adverse events; record retention requirements; and mandatory recall authority.

In addition to Congressional interest, in 2012 the FDA testified that it requested legislative authority from Congress to require cosmetics labelers to register their establishments, list their products with FDA, and pay an annual fee.

I find these proposed measures to be intrusive, unnecessary and very detrimental to small businesses. For what it's worth, Anne-Marie has founded a coalition that is taking action to forestall the passing of this bill.
http://www.coalitionofhandcraftedentrepreneurs.com

 

[Aline]

Thanks for the heads up. It's a good thing people like Anne-Marie and others are being proactive. Their livelihoods as suppliers are totally under threat as well as ours....

Here's a link to the blog: http://www.soapqueen.com/bramble-berry-news/join-coalition-handcrafted-entrepreneurs/

 

[Lindy]

Charging fees is a bit overboard I must say.

 

[jnl]

Canada requires all products to be registered with the government (giving them the recipe) BEFORE you can ever sell it. I dont know if there is a fee or not.

but the people i know that sell stuff have not done that.....not sure what the penalty would be if they get caught. for a small time soaper its probably not a big deal.....


canada also requires all labels to have everything in both french and english. which is bull. i wont put french on my labels. i refuse!! i dont live anywhere near any "french" areas. label real estate is precious and im not wasting half of it on french.

 

[reinbeau]

Overly onerous regulations benefit only the governing body and big businesses that can afford to comply. They're after the money here, and control. Europe and Canada have already ceded both.

 

[Dorymae]

I wonder what the guild has to say about this. I'll have to check out the site later when I have some more time to see if there is any news there.

 

[grumpy_owl]

My understanding of it is that Sen. Diane Feinstein is the one to write to--A-M and a coalition met with her in D.C. last December to discuss the bill. IT did not pass but wasn't killed.
Salted between each absurd requirement is a demand for "fees." It's hard enough to make a profit selling soap with the bare minimum of insurance requirements. This will make it damn near impossible. It's enough to make anyone give up and go off the grid.

 

[Lindy]

Canada requires all products to be registered with the government (giving them the recipe) BEFORE you can ever sell it. I dont know if there is a fee or not.

but the people i know that sell stuff have not done that.....not sure what the penalty would be if they get caught. for a small time soaper its probably not a big deal.....


canada also requires all labels to have everything in both french and english. which is bull. i wont put french on my labels. i refuse!! i dont live anywhere near any "french" areas. label real estate is precious and im not wasting half of it on french.

If you're in Canada and don't know if there is a charge you're not even close to being compliant. I know a lady at a Farmer's Market that wasn't compliant and got shut down until she is plus got a fine .

Overly onerous regulations benefit only the governing body and big businesses that can afford to comply. They're after the money here, and control. Europe and Canada have already ceded both.

We don't pay any fees to register our products and believe it is beneficial. It does a couple of things, makes sure we are not using ingredients that are on the restricted or banned list. I have nothing to hide and prefer to stay compliant It is not overly onerous and as President of the Canadian Guild I think it's important for soapmakers to be compliant.

In fact to become a professional member you must be compliant, otherwise you are deemed to be a hobbyist.

 

[Dorymae]

Well, I can certainly understand being compliant to the rules but I hope you don't mind my saying that I hope the US portion of the guild will fight like h*ll against it becoming our law.

It is hard enough to keep up with labeling laws now, and quite frankly I put a lot of time and effort into obeying the rules - I for one hope we never move into the Canadian or EU way of things.

Just edited to add, I don't have anything to hide either, but that does not make it any less intrusive.

 

[Lindy]

I don't blame you. I can say that the EU is probably one of the hardest places to be compliant considering you need to have your formulas assessed by a Safety Assessor and then have trading standards inspect your premises as well as your scale. On top of that you have to put the allergens on your label as well as your ingredients in INCI. Both there and here in Canada soap is considered a cosmetic and therefore is governed as a cosmetic. The EU also has laws against making products that resemble food so overall, we have it pretty easy, and free.

 

[Dorymae]

I already label all my soaps as cosmetic. I never make drug claims, and I'm very careful about any reviews and what they say about my soap, however I would find it very hard to eliminate the words softening, or customers saying they feel moisturized. It is just easier for me to figure they are all cosmetics than to try to stick to the " soap " rule.

I can only imagine the hoops I'd be jumping through if the legislation goes through. The time is now to call your congressman, best to nip it now.
If you do nothing to prevent it you have no call to complain later!

 

[Lindy]

You can't claim softening? Our rules allow for claims that are strictly cosmetic and do not include any drug or pesticide claims.

Good on you for labeling your soap as a cosmetic, it is refreshing considering you don't even have to put ingredients on the label which is so dangerous for the consumer.

 

[Dorymae]

As a cosmetic we can say softening and moisturizing, you can also say brightening BUT you can't say lightening. It can get very confusing and some terms walk the line. However when you label as soap you can only say cleansing.

 

[Lindy]

Exactly. Our rule of thumb is that it can't actually change the composition of something such as lightening. You can say conditioning, brightening, reduces the look of wrinkles, etc. All of these claims are cosmetic.

 

[jnl]

i do not sell.

If you're in Canada and don't know if there is a charge you're not even close to being compliant. I know a lady at a Farmer's Market that wasn't compliant and got shut down until she is plus got a fine .



We don't pay any fees to register our products and believe it is beneficial. It does a couple of things, makes sure we are not using ingredients that are on the restricted or banned list. I have nothing to hide and prefer to stay compliant It is not overly onerous and as President of the Canadian Guild I think it's important for soapmakers to be compliant.

In fact to become a professional member you must be compliant, otherwise you are deemed to be a hobbyist.

 

[The Efficacious Gentleman]

i do not sell.

But you did refer to people who do sell while being non-compliant.

Back to the topic at hand -

Bear in mind that there are (rather secret) talks about us-eu trade agreements. If that was to include cosmetics it would require changes by either side, or by both. Soaps are cosmetics by default here in the eu, so an example would be that soaps are no longer a cosmetic here or that they are automatically cosmetics in the us. Then both sides would need matching minimum regulation.

I say minimum, as even the different member states of the eu have different regulation. All have a set level but then different countries add extra parts. For example, trading standards don't need to come to me here to look at anything. I do need to so things that they don't have to do in the uk or Germany, but then I don't have to do things that they do.

But we did say, as long as so many people in the us are really silly with what they do, it would only result in more regulation. Self regulation clearly doesn't work, so what other choice is there?

 

[LBussy]

But we did say, as long as so many people in the us are really silly with what they do, it would only result in more regulation. Self regulation clearly doesn't work, so what other choice is there?

People will be "silly" no matter what the subject. That does not however mean we ask for the government to step in and regulate it. If you think Ms Feinstein has an interest in the well-being of her constituents behind her authorship of the bill in the OP, you are horribly mistaken. A "coalition" (professional lobbyist) suggests a donation to her reelection campaign, she writes a bill. This is how it works.

Just because I think people should not "X" does not mean I want the government to be the ones to enforce it. If I sold soap I would hope that clearly labeling my products would attract a careful consumer; a careful consumer is one I want as a customer. Just as a snake-oil salesman can attract people who believe that soap can make you attractive to the opposite ***, it will also attract those nut-jobs who believe their cat's hair fell out because of the soap the owner used on her face. That balances it out in my view of karma, and the careless (lying?) soaper gets what he/she deserves.

I want to be careful how I say this because I am not saying one is better than the other, just different: When I lived in Europe I often wondered at the culture that caused people to rely on their government to protect them from things like this. When I moved back to the states after several years I was again taken aback at how little regulation there was. I much prefer the latter now being acclimatized again. I am smart enough to protect myself while the less smart people around me are not going to be any more safe regardless of who is protecting them.

 

[Cindy2428]

Other than the government trying to figure out new ways to tax us, I'm curious to see documented evidentiary support for needing such a bill. Once government gets involved it's all downhill from there. I wouldn't be surprised if it's "big soap" financing this.

 

[mx5inpenn]

Unfortunately, things like this in the US are generally about nothing more than a new way to charge a tax. This happened with the food industry on the state level in Pennsylvania a few years ago. Our cottage food laws are horrible now and unfortunately has made small businesses and farmers unable or unwilling to continue selling at farmers markets. Federal govt has a bill for the same type of changes. Imho a farmers market ought to be the basis of a community, and it is terrible that the government has stepped in and over regulated it to the point that the small farms are disappearing because they can't afford the regulation. It appears the same thing is going to happen with soap if it's not stopped.

 

[lionprincess00]

I'm a tad confused. Going to the coalition website, it states on the news page "no legislation has been made yet".
There is no legislation attempts named, no proposals before congress named, and I'm unsure what proposals other than "talk amongst senators" has occured.

I googled and found this https://www.opencongress.org/bill/hr1385-113/show
If you search bill hr1385 you can find more info on this. I'm not sure what came of this, if it's still bouncing back and forth, or what, but this is all I found in my 5 minutes of searching. More searching will come eventually, I'm sure.

Finally, why are we directed to work along Feinstein amongst all senators :wtf:

I mean, if she's the one proposing this legislation, then I can see one wanting to "talk her down", but I think approaching our own senators and telling them, our own representatives, why they should vote against it would prove more productive.

Anne Marie is a democrat, if I recall off her blog, and the democrats were the ones to propose the hr 1385 bill, and I'm betting they're the ones trying to restrict small business development by regulating things more so than they are currently. So her being a democrat, and working along side other democrats to help regulate things more is fine, but it isn't the way I want to help out, I guess I could say. And what is "it" we want to vote against specifically? I hope to find out, as I said, but without a bill name or prior bills that weren't killed I have no clue what these restrictions are we are discussing.

I've not dived into this completely, so maybe it's republicans doing it, but I seriously, highly, very much doubt it. With republicans the majority in the House and Senate now, I doubt we have much to worry about....for the next 2 years.

Maybe it's a push to join her organization, this coalition, for future bill pushes, because eventually there will be one, I'm sure. Just not right now. Also, I'm not one to try and work with Feinstein on anything. She's not my representative, and I'll work with the people I voted in, because they'll uphold my choices better than one I didn't vote in nor have anything to do with (other side of the country and all).

Edit it state, it is in fact bill hr 1385:
Safe Cosmetics and Personal Care Products Act of 2013 Mirrors TSCA Proposals, Would Greatly Expand FDA Authority Over Cosmetics

So was this passed or what? I can't tell from the sites I've read. I'm assuming this is what Anne Marie is trying to convince Feinstein to work with her on making this not such a heavy burden.

Edit. It was shut down. Like twice. And it was introduced by the dems (in which it never left committee with dems once and republicans once...both disliked it I guess!).

So I think she made this organization for future battles, and is trying to drum up people joining. I just don't want to join and work with the elected leaders she's wanting to work with, but it's very nice she's trying to do something politically to help small business owners not be completely run over by their government and excessive regulations.