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

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.