This week on Kitchen Chemistry, Kayla makes a DIY Mint Chocolate Whipped Butter! You can watch the video here. 

       

Use coupon code: BACKTOSCHOOL25 to get 25% off Clearance! 9/7 - 9/13

Go to our CLEARANCE now!

Recently Lisa Rodgers, co-founder of Personal Care Truth had the opportunity to interview Don Havery with the FDA Office of Cosmetics and Colors in regards to the Voluntary Cosmetic Registration Program {VCRP}. I asked permission to guest post her interview here on Essential U. 

       

Here is what Don had to say:

What is your role in regards to the VCRP?
I am the administrator of the Voluntary Cosmetic Registration Program (VCRP) program. I am responsible for daily operation, answering questions, troubleshooting the program when issues come up, and making changes to the program that improve its operation.

What is the VCRP?
The VCRP is an FDA program that collects information on cosmetic manufacturing establishments (facilities) and cosmetic products and their ingredients that are in commercial distribution in the U.S. The program has been in operation since 1973. In 2005 the program was modified to allow submission of information electronically over the internet which has made participation in the VCRP much easier.

Why should a manufacturer register with the VCRP?
The VCRP helps FDA in its mission to protect consumers. It also helps cosmetic manufacturers and distributors make informed decisions about ingredient use in their products. For example, if it is determined that a cosmetic ingredient presently being used is harmful and should be removed from product use, FDA can notify the manufacturers and distributors of affected products. Since the VCRP is the only source of information about what products are on the market, firms that do not participate in the program won't receive that information directly.

Information from the VCRP database also assists the Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) Expert Panel in determining its priorities for ingredient safety review. The CIR is an industry-funded panel of scientific experts that regularly assesses the safety of cosmetic ingredients. Since cosmetic manufacturers are responsible for assuring that their products and the ingredients in them are safe, participating in the VCRP is one way of supporting the safety review process since VCRP data is used to by the CIR safety review program (See http://www.cir-safety.org).

How many manufacturer's are presently registered?
We currently have 1,168 firms that have filed 38,450 active products in the VCRP.

How does the FDA handle communicating to the companies registered in the VCRP?
Since 2005 when the electronic program was initiated, FDA communicates with VCRP participants primarily via email. More than 99% of current VCRP participants do so using the electronic program. For those firms that participate using paper forms, FDA communicates with them using traditional mail or by telephone.

Can a company register online?
Yes, online is the easiest and fastest way to participate in the VCRP program and there is no cost to participate.

How is the manufacturer's information used?
The VCRP data provides FDA with information on what products are currently on the market, what ingredients are used in them, and how frequently specific cosmetic ingredients are used. The data is also used to support the CIR safety review program.  (See earlier answer.)

Do you have anything else to add to why a company should register?
Both the FDA and cosmetic manufacturers have a common interest in assuring that cosmetics are safe for their intended use by consumers. Since FDA does not have premarket approval authority for cosmetic products or their ingredients (with the exception of color additives), the VCRP is FDA’s primary source of information on what cosmetic ingredients are being used, and what products are on the market. The more firms that participate in the VCRP program, the more information FDA has, and the better able FDA is able to assure that cosmetics on the market are safe for the U.S. consumer.

Massachusetts public hearing with the Joint Committee on Public Health on HO2361 is scheduled for September 13, 2011 at the Massachusetts State House, located at 24 Beacon St., Boston, Massachusetts, 02108.  

     

You can find the schedule for two cosmetics bills schedule in Massachusetts clicking here – you will find one listed as number 14 and the other as number 19 on the agenda .

If you are able, we would encourage you to get to Boston for this hearing to testify or go in numbers as a show of opposition.  We have passed this information on to several of the trade groups who are planning to be there as well.  Please don’t let this opportunity to stand up for your business go by. You can find how to get there by clicking here.  

The hearing begins at 10:00 a.m. and if you want to participate you must sign up at the beginning of the hearing to testify. You do not have to register in advance. Prepare for about 3 minutes or less of remarks and be prepared to answer lawmakers questions. If you cannot appear to testify in person, you can submit a letter with your position and send it to the chairs of this committee. (See list below)

You can also request meetings in advance of the hearing with the sponsor and/or any member of the committee.

Some may wonder why we should bother with this state hearing, especially if we don’t live in Massachusetts.  There are many reasons and here are just a few:

1. If you sell products into Massachusetts you will be impacted by this law.  Even if you don’t sell there today your business may grow and one day sell into Massachusetts and other states.  It is better to think too big than to think too small.
2. The most dangerous part of HO2361 is the fact that it establishes a special commission that specifically requires that a signer of the (now closed) Compact for Safe Cosmetics to have a seat at the table.  This means that even if this bill doesn’t impact you the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics will be given the authority to help recommend and create more laws in the state of Massachusetts – and those bills might impact you.  This group has already testified in Colorado that they don’t have any scientific proof that their claims against cosmetics and cosmetic ingredients.  You can listen to her testimony here. It is dangerous to give a position of authority over cosmetics in the state of Massachusetts to an organization with an agenda, especially when they have no science to back up their agenda.  
3. If this bill passes it will be burdensome to businesses as it will create another patch in the patchwork quilt of state regulations.  There needs to be one standard set by the FDA on a national level in order for small business to thrive in America.  
4. Even if you don’t feel like you would be heard, or are not comfortable speaking up, your very presence will make an impact.  When a similar hearing took place in Colorado so many people showed up that they had to move rooms.  This bill will harm the industry and we need your help to oppose it in mass. (Pardon the pun...)

If you can’t show up in Massachussetts that is okay, you can write the sponsor of HO2361 and make your voices known.  But do it today…don’t wait till it’s too late.   In Colorado so many people wrote emails and faxes that at the start of the testimony one of the members made comment of the overwhelming number of corresponds they received on the bill.  

Here is the contact information for the sponsor of HO2361:

Bradley H. Jones, Jr.

• Phone:617-722-2100
• Fax:617-722-2390
• Email: Bradley.Jones@mahouse.gov

Here is a list of the Petitioners and their contact information:

George N. Peterson, Jr

• Phone: 617-722-2100
• Fax: 617-722-2390
• Email: George.Peterson@mahouse.gov

Elizabeth A. Poirier

• Phone: 617-722-2100
• Fax: 617-626-0108
• Email: Elizabeth.Poirier@mahouse.gov

Viriato Manuel deMacedo

• Phone: 617-722-2100
• Fax: 617-722-2390
• Email:Vinny.deMacedo@mahouse.gov

Donald F. Humason, Jr

• Phone: 617-722-2803
• Fax: 617-722-2390
• Email: Donald.Humason@mahouse.gov

F. Jay Barrows

• Phone: 617-722-2488
• Fax: 617-722-2390
• Email:F.JayBarrows@mahouse.gov

George T. Ross

• Phone: 617-722-2130
• Email: George.Ross@mahouse.gov

Donald H. Wong

• Phone: 617-722-2488
• Fax: 617-626-0299
• Email: Donald.Wong@mahouse.gov

Shelia C. Harrington

• Phone: 617-722-2305
• Fax: 617-626-0199
• Email: sheila.harrington@mahouse.gov

Matthew A. Beaton

• Phone: 617-722-2230
• Email:Matthew.Beaton@mahouse.gov

Paul K. Frost

• Phone: 617-722-2489
• Email:Paul.Frost@mahouse.gov

Here is the contact information for all of the members of the Joint Committee on Public Health:

Members from the Senate:
Susan C. Fargo - Senate Chair

• Phone: 617-722-1572 
• Email: Susan.Fargo@masenate.gov

Harriette L. Chandler

• Phone: 617-722-1544
• Fax: 617-722-1357 
• Email:Harriette.Chandler@masenate.gov

Katherine Clark

• Phone: 617-722-1206
• Fax: 617-722-1063
• Email: Katherine.Clark@masenate.gov

James E. Timilty

• Phone: 617 722-1222 
• Fax: 617-722-1056
• Email:James.Timilty@masenate.gov

Michael F. Rush

• Phone: 617-722-1348
• Fax: 617-722-1071 
• Email: Mike.Rush@masenate.gov

Robert L. Hedlund

• Phone: 617-722-1646
• Fax: 617-722-1028
• Email: Robert.Hedlund@masenate.gov

Members from the House:
Jeffrey Sanchez - House Chair

• Phone: 617-722-2130
• Email: Jeffrey.sanchez@mahouse.gov

Jason M. Lewis

• Phone: 617-722-2017
• Fax: 617-722-2849
• Email: Jason.Lewis@mahouse.gov

Christine E. Canavan

• Phone: 617-722-2575
• Fax: 617-722-2238
• Email:Christine.Canavan@mahouse.gov

Ruth B. Balser

• Phone: 617-722-2396
• Fax: 617-626-0119
• Email: Ruth.Balser@mahouse.gov

Carolyn C. Dykema

• Phone: 617-722-2210
• Fax: 617-722-2239 
• Email:
• Carolyn.Dykema@mahouse.gov

John J. Mahoney

• Phone: 617-722-2450
• Fax: 617-626-0247
• Email:John.Mahoney@mahouse.gov

George T. Ross

• Phone: 617-722-2130
• Email: George.Ross@mahouse.gov

Christopher G. Fallon

• Phone: 617-722-2430
• Fax: 617-722-2436
• Email: Christopher.Fallon@mahouse.gov

Carl M. Sciortino, Jr.,

• Phone: 617-722-2013
• Fax: 617-626-0127
• Email: Carl.Sciortino@mahouse.gov

Denise C. Garlick

• Phone: 617-722-2430
• Fax: 617-626-0197
• Email: Denise.Garlick@mahouse.gov

Paul Adams

• Phone: 617-722-2014
• Fax: 617-626-0110
• Email: Paul.Adams@mahouse.gov

You can read more detail and the bill itself here.

Here is a list of bullet point concerns about HO2361:• Defines an “authoritive body” as “any federal, state, or private agency or formally organized program or group” instead of an authoritive body being defined as a scientific, research or fact based state or federal agency.  An authoritive body should be an accredited organization that has factual information that can be backed by science and not be such a loose definition.

*  A chemical can be classified as causing cancer or reproductive or developmental toxicity by an “authoritive body” by using information that includes, but is not limited to, chemicals known or reasonable anticipated as cancer causing based on the National Toxicology Report, carcinogenicity evaluations by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, classified as a carcinogen by the United States Environmental Protection agency, or classified as having adverse developmental or reproductive effects by the Center for Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction.  Why is that “authoritive body” left wide open again here by not limiting information to international and federal organizations that are designed to research these exact topics?  The door is left wide open for organizations with an agenda to “classify” chemicals without any science.

*  The definition of a cosmetic ingredient includes, but is not limited to (paraphrased): chemicals that provide a technical or functional effect; incorporated into the cosmetic as an ingredient of another cosmetic ingredient; processing aids;  substances added to a cosmetic during processing for their technical or functional effect; contaminants present at levels above technically feasible detection limits (that is parts per billion); contaminants that may leach from container materials or form via reactions over the shelf life of a cosmetic and that may be present at levels above technically feasible detection limits (that is parts per billion); components of a fragrance, flavor, or preservative declared individually by their appropriate label names; any chemical identified by the phrase “and other ingredients” and determined to be a trade secret; or any individual component of a botanical, petroleum-derived, animal-derived, or other ingredient that the Commissioner or the Director determines to be considered an ingredient.

*  That is a very broad range definition of a cosmetic ingredient.  It comes straight out of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics language.  This kind of definition would create an ingredient list for cosmetics that is unreadable, illogical and out of step with the rest of the nation and the world.  For instance by simply using cocoa butter, olive oil and lavender essential oil your ingredient list would look something like this, but would actually be larger because of the parts per billion of potential “contaminates” from your packaging:

Olive Oil (Tri-Glycerides of Palmitic, Di-Glycerides of Palmitic, Palmitoleic, Stearic, Oleic, Linoleic, Arachidic Acid, Linolenic Acid, Squalene, Beta Carotene, Campesterol, Methylenecholesterol, Stigmasterol, Sitosterol, Fucosterol, 28-Isofucosterol, Stigmadienol, Brassicasterol, 7-Cholestenol,Ergostadienol, Avenasterol, Triterpene Alcohols, Tirucallol, Taraxerol, Dammaradienol Beta-Amyrin Germanicol, Butyrospermol, Parkeol, Cycloartenol, Tirucalladienol, 24-Methlene 24-Dihydroparkeol, 24-Methlenecycloartanol, Cyclobranol, 4-Methyl Sterols, Esters of Tyrosol, Esters of Hydroxytyrosol, Vitamin E (Tocopherols), Carotenoids, Oleuropein), Cocoa Butter (Tri and Diglycerides of Stearic Acid, Palmitic Acid, Lead, Oleic Acid, Linoleic Acid, Isoleic Acid, Beta Carotene, p-Hydroxybenzoic Acid, Vanillic Acid, Ferulic Acid, Syringic Acid, Phenylehtylamine, Theophylline, Aliphatic Esters, Aromatic Carbonyls, Caffeine, Theobromine, Diketopiperazines and Alkylpryazines), Lavender Essential Oil ( Cineole Octanol, Octanone, Alpha Bisabolol, Alpha Cadinol, Alpha Humelene, Alpha Phellandrene, Apha Pinene, Alpha Terpinene, Alpha Terpineol, Alpha Terpinyl Acetate, Alpha Thujene, Alpha Thujone, Beta Bisabolol, Beta Pinene, Beta Thujone, Borneol, Bornyl Acetate, Camphene Camphor, Cineolealpha Terpineol, Carvone, Caryophyllene, Carophyllene Oxide, CIS Alpha Terpineol, CIS Alpha Bisabolene, CIS Carveol, CIA Linalol Epoxide, CIS Ocimene, Citronellal, Citronellol, Coumarine, Cuminaldehyde, Eugenol, Furfural, Geraniol, Geranyl Acetate, Geranyl Butyrate, Hexanol, Hexyl Tiglate, Isoborneol, Lavandulol, Lavandulyl Acetate, Limonene, Linanlol, Linalyl Acetate, Methyl Heptenone, Myrcene, Nerol, Neryl Acetate, Oleanolic Acid, P Cymene, Rosemarinic Acid, Sabinen, Terpinenol, Terpinolene, Trans Carveol, Trans Epoxy Linalyl Acetate, Trans Linanol Epoxide, Trans Ocimene, Ursolic Acid).

*  In the language of the bill a company would need to declare all contaminants in parts per billion.  This would require premarket testing for these contaminants of every batch of finished products, especially for cosmetics that use natural ingredients.  There are hundreds of potential contaminates found in nature that botanical ingredients have the potential to include. 

*  The state of Massachusetts would conduct random investigations on the cosmetics sold in the state.  This would be costly for the cosmetic company to potentially defend itself and the state of Massachusetts to either build labs to conduct these tests or to pay an outside organization to test for them.  This does not define who exactly would perform these investigations, who would interpret the results and what would happen to the company that is investigated.  It also duplicates the work of international, national, private and public testing that is done already on cosmetics.  Instead of relying on true authoritive bodies to tell the state of Massachusetts the toxicity and cancer potential of ingredients, it creates a whole new level and division of government.  

* The United States Congress is currently considering a bill on cosmetic legislation.  It seems prudent for the state of Massachusetts to wait to see what happens on a federal level regarding cosmetic regulation before creating a new layer of government on a local level for businesses.  

* If Massachusetts passes this bill it will set a precedent for other states to pass different laws on the state level. A patch work of state laws for products that are sold nationally and even internationally will place an unfair burden on businesses to comply with a different law in every state.

Let the sponsors of this bill and the members of the committee know how you feel today.  If you would like to follow more about his legislation and other state pending legislation please join us on the Facebook page State Cosmetic Laws.  For even more information on the hearing check out Indie Beauty Network's blog.