Oh, Oh Bloggo - Think about it

Happy Valentine’s Day – Kiss Kiss! 02/17/12

2012-02-17T07:29:00.000-08:00

Yesterday morning the Washington Post reported recent FDA findings on lead in lipstick for 400 lipsticks. (See below for link). I was very concerned by the paucity of the report. It seemed to lack context and background information.

We all need to be concerned about how adulterants get into products. We need safe consumer products. We also need to be complete and truthful about the context, the threats and the real goals. While I understand that it is easier to focus on the cosmetic industry and to hope that women will put pressure on the government about beauty products, the real problem in this country is with chemicals and how they are made. The EPA is under constant attack by lobbyist and the current Congress to reduce their authority to mandate SAFETY and HEALTH for all Americans. Criticizing lipstick is a sidebar at best and distracts from the real issue at worst.

The article failed to explain how different levels of lead are allowed in different agencies, from 15 ppm for water under EPA to 0.01ppm for children’s candy under the CPSC. Nor does it make clear that lead is not classified as a carcinogen but is a neural toxin for developing children. (In fact, the article does not say why lead is a problem at all). Babies exposed to lead tend to accumulate the lead in their bones where it continues to effect how their brains and other nerves develop into adulthood. There are not any studies that indicate any anyone has suffered anything from using lipstick (except that time I got in trouble for drawing on white walls with my mom’s lipstick when I was 3).

Bottom line: everything can be safer and healthier. If we are serious about safety, we need to look at the chemical industry, the base manufacturer of everything we buy and use. This constant harping on the cosmetic industry seems to avoid the hard work of changing how we make and sell chemicals in this country. Let’s get real and do the hard work. Start by using as much organic product as possible.

LINK:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/400-lipstick-brands-contain-lead-fda-says/2012/02/14/gIQAhOyeDR_story.html

Whole Panic! Will they empty the shelves?

2011-05-27T13:18:00.000-07:00

This week I have received numerous calls asking: “What can I do to get certified for (you pick the question)…the Whole Foods List…the Whole Foods Standards…the NOP…the NSF…? And then they want to do all of this by June 1^st for formulas that already exist and were never designed to meet any of those Standards.

Certified by next Wednesday.

Yeah, right.

I have received “Help!” calls from brands, from private label labs, from cosmetic distributors, and from NOP certifiers who look at ingredient statements of things like: “Cocoamidopropylbetaine, Sodium Cocoaphoacetate, Sodium Cocoyl Sarcosinate” . . . and their eyes cross. (Just in case you don’t know, none of these ingredients would pass NOP or NSF).

Folks - a few basics:

#1 - The NOP Standard is for food. The NOP certifiers are looking for an ingredient statement that includes recognizable food ingredients. (Yes, I know you make cosmetics but...facts are facts). You will need to make sure that your INCI names translate into things like “sunflower oil”, “Non-GMO Vitamin E”, etc. You will not meet the NOP unless you used all food ingredients and a few allowed non-organic food ingredients like citric acid and malic acid. Good luck with that.

#2 – The NSF Standard was designed without being tested by real cosmetic companies which means it will change repeatedly over the next few years. (Reminded me of that old line that a camel was a horse designed by a committee). They do NOT have a list of approved ingredients and it does not allow things like most vitamins (no C, no D, no A, etc.) and the only effective preservative it allows is potassium sorbate and sodium benzoate. Again, good luck.

#3 – Whole Foods sent this letter to their vendors…what, a year ago? Well, 11 months anyway. Now what?

Whole Foods decided that the NOP and/or the NSF were the only acceptable standards for their store. They have that right. One might argue that in the interest of promoting organic agriculture it would have served us all if they accepted the other organic standards, but . . . they didn’t and too many companies have waited until now to react.

Results? As of today - there are only 2 private labels labs in the US certified to do NSF certified products and it takes a few months to get through the process. There is only 1 certifier offering this standard and my sense is that it is a struggle to get the right documents from their applicants and they are learning as they go. It is a confusing process that is evolving and will get easier – but not before June 1^st. There are about 5 brands, (1 large, 4 small) who have gotten products certified.

SOOOO - should we start a pool? Who thinks that WF will pull all the non-certified products that are not certified off the shelves next Wednesday? I really don't know. I also don't know if they realize how few people have gotten certified. I am working with a few who are trying to get certified - but it won't be by next week.

Stay tuned - this will be interesting!

How Stupid is This?

2011-02-01T11:55:00.001-08:00

It has been 11 years since I started working on the concept of certified "organic" cosmetics. In Europe they have multiple standards and literally thousands of certified product. Where are we here in the US?

Nowhere. The NOP is not designed to deal with chemicals (in spite of having certified multiple synthesized chemicals) and certainly can't sanction the use of synthesized preservatives. We don't really have a functional certification program. What constitutes a functional program?

TRANSPARENCY - the process should be clear and understandable to the participants and to the public.

RESPONSIVENESS - this is a young industry, any standard needs to be sufficiently responsive that when we learn something new or conditions change, the standard can be adapted in reasonable time and with reasonable effort.

RIGOR - the standard needs to 1) continuously improve and 2) be tough enough that it meets the consumer idea of an "organic cosmetic".

CREDIBILITY - the certifiers offering the standard need to have enough understanding of cosmetic chemistry, chemical manufacturing, and the laws governing the manufacturing and sale of these products that they are trustworthy.

The NSF Org. cosmetics program has been singled out by Whole Foods as its choice for standards and yet it does not seem to meet many of the criteria above. Consumers have no access to the standard (well - they can spend 100.00 and buy it). It is very cumbersome to change and so not responsive. It is not especially rigorous - there is no internal mechanism to review ingredients by experts before they are added to the allowed list and they don't actively communicate with consumers. Finally - QAI continues to ignore the fact that they need to hire a chemical engineer (like EcoCert did) - so credibility? Not so much. They are looking at chemicals with no one on staff who is trained in how chemicals are manufactured.

The continuing disconnect in this arena is that the cosmetics are made from chemicals. Whether people realize of not - even water is a chemical, H2O. And we all know that water can be contaminated by all sorts of nasty things.

Until the retailers and organic NGOS support multiple private standards to compete for the respect and trust of the consumers, the US will continue to lag behind Europe when it comes to a functional organic cosmetic certification program.

See? Like I said, how stupid is this?

What Is RBD Oil?

2010-11-20T08:07:00.000-08:00

RBD or RBDW is “Refined, bleached and deodorized” and the “W” is “winterized”. Is that allowed for “organic” certified? Let’s look at the process of how we get oil from a seed.

Vegetable seeds, all seeds in fact, contain some oil. Nuts have as high an oil content as 74% (macadamias - no wonder they taste so good). Other sources of commercial oils are sunflower seeds, soy beans (beans are seeds . . .), or the seeds from coconuts and palms. We are also familiar with peanut oil, canola oil, and flax seed oil.

Conventionally, all of these oils are extracted from seeds via some combo of heat, pressure and solvents. “Organic” or natural oils are “expeller pressed” - the seeds are mechanically pressed to squeeze out the oil. In commercial, conventional manufacturing plants, the seeds are also treated with hexane, a petrochemical solvent, to get the last little bit of oil out of the seed. In organic operations the use of hexane or other petrochemical solvents is prohibited.

The product of any of these processes is called crude oil. In some cases it is simply filtered and then sold. “Virgin” oils, like “virgin coconut” are crude oils that have been filtered to remove the non-oil remnants from the extraction. Castor is filtered and then boiled to volatilize off any moisture. Unfiltered oils may also be sold - this should be somewhere in the product description. I sell an unfiltered avocado oil that is so dark green it is almost black and it smells just like avocados. RBD avo oil is pale yellow-green and has no distinguishable smell.

Refined oils may go through a number of treatments. In the organic world this may include filtration through diatomaceous earth or fining clay which reduces the color and smell of the oil and a treatment with less than 1/2 % of citric acid. The citric acid binds to metal molecules and allows the refiner to make sure that there are no heavy metals floating around your oil. Finally, winterizing, is a chilling process that brings any waxes to the top and allows them to be removed to ensure that the oil stays as clear as possible.

Personally I recommend refined oils for personal care: they have less of an aroma to conflict with essential oils or other aromatics, they have no heavy metal risk (remember - plants grow in dirt, dirt has all sorts of molecules so heavy metals naturally occur in plant derived products), and they tend to have a better shelf life.

There are different processing details that apply to each of the different types of oils but this is the basic thing that happens to make an RBD or RBDW oil. These letters should appear on the Specification or Certificate of Analysis that should accompany any oil you buy.

If you have any questions about this blog or other blogs, please call out office at 408.370-1501 or post a comment or question below.

What is a “Safe” Cosmetic?

2010-11-08T16:17:00.000-08:00

In 2000 (OMG, the Dark Ages!) I first started to participate in various industry discussions hoping to define “organic cosmetics”. What I heard was apples and oranges: one set of people who talked about product “safety” in terms of chemical exposures and the other set who said - “organic” ingredients were “safe” because they were food. I repeat - what is a “safe” cosmetic?

We all know about “food safety”. When that phrase is used most people think about control of bacteria and other contaminants. We want food that is free of salmonella, listeria, e-coli, insect parts, etc. Other than that, we generally seem to believe that there is enough information on food packages to allow us to make an informed decision - so long as we don’t get food poisoning.

Cosmetic “safety” has a broader and less clear meaning. “Safe Cosmetics” to some means that individual ingredients are somehow perceived of as “safe”, as we see on packages that state they are free of parabens, sulfates, etc. Additionally “safe cosmetics” includes protection from bacteria exposure or other adulterations (just like in food safety). To others the broader issue of environmental persistence from cosmetic waste moving downstream is a concern when assessing these products.

I point this out for a reason - do buyers have enough info on a package label to make an informed decision about cosmetics? Here are at least three areas of concern: individual ingredient safety, protection from contamination or adulteration, and downstream pollutants. Do you think about all three when you shop for your personal care regimen?

As a world of consumers we are using more of these products than ever. Mintel has reported that 93% of adults shampoo “almost daily”. That is a lot of downstream waste!

Pre-internet most cosmetics were made by large companies that had staff who understood the need to test for bacterial safety. Now I speak with small internet companies and learn that they are not testing the cosmetics for bacterial safety prior to selling over the internet. Scary!

The whole issue of the safety of individual ingredients is an on-going challenge and question. What , exactly, is wrong with sulfates? (There will be a blog). Is the Safe Cosmetics Database always right? (No, not always).

What is the “big picture” effect of cosmetics on us and our world and what should we buy? We need to identify the problems so that we can address them. We need sensible solutions, even if those solutions take time. Consumers need to know what questions to ask of their retailers.

For the short term, look at the big picture and make sure the products you buy have been made by companies that are consistently improving and sold by retailers who can answer these concerns. Ask the questions above, was this product tested? What do you know about the downstream effects of this product?

The stores are the gate keepers, you vote with your dollars. Good luck out there!

Why The Proposed Safe Cosmetic Act of 2010 Won’t Work

2010-08-24T08:43:00.000-07:00

The proposed “Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010” (SCA 2010) won’t work. Yep, really, it will not work even though the intent, consumer protection, is a great goal.

It won’t work because laws all depend on each other. The SCA 2010 has at it’s center this requirement:
... a manufacturer of an ingredient or a cosmetic... “shall provide to the Secretary, through a statement under paragraph (3), all information required to determine if an ingredient or cosmetic meets the safety standard.”

This proposed law assumes that the FDA can make informed choices based on this mandate. Herein lies the rub: chemicals (the ingredients used to make most anything that is not legally defined as “food”) are regulated by the EPA and the the EPA does not have the legal authority to require COMPLETE safety data for all chemicals. So - if you make chemicals or cosmetics, you only have to give the FDA the (excuse my language) half-axxxd safety info you have because that is all you can get under law. Then the FDA is supposed make an informed decision based on half-axxxd information. Then we are all supposed to pay for it because the SCA 2010 will add a significant department to FDA that does not now exist. They will need a large number of high salaried scientist and they will need to run tests and they will need to manage the registration of thousands of companies and ALL of their manufacturing information - and that ain’t cheap! Further more, the financial burden will land on the cosmetics industry (and then on consumers) and the chemical companies get to skip along the same old path with no accountability.

It is not all bad news, there is also a proposed law that could give the EPA the power they need to hold chemical manufacturers accountable. This is a reform of TSCA - the Toxic Substance Control Act from the 1970s. We, as a country, desperately need to reform this Act. Most people have not heard of this. (Consider yourself informed, write a letter to your congress person today).

So - why has Ken Cook, the President of the Environmental Working Group, who stood up in front of the US Congress and supported the TSCA Reform not mentioned this via the rather significant press ability that the EWG has? Why have they put all of their press resources into backing a bill that can’t work while not mentioning to anyone that we might need to pay attention to the real problem; the chemicals that are manufactured and sold with less than complete accountability in this country? And why just cosmetics? Why not focus on ALL of the chemicals that seem to do harm?

We all need better consumer goods protection and it strikes me odd that the EWG is not making a really big fuss about TSCA and pushing Americans to support this very important bill that will protect us across all consumer good. I guess they think the cosmetic industry is an easier target and that they will get more contributions in support of cosmetic reform than they would if they tried to explain Reform of TSCA?

Mr. Cook - get real. If you want to reform how cosmetics are made you have to go back to the root problem, the chemicals that are used to make those products. The rest of us should support TSCA Reform, then cosmetics, drugs, carpeting, clothing, food, and toys will get cleaned up by themselves.

Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010 (Not)

2010-07-24T10:29:00.000-07:00

Oh spare me. The Environmental Working Group should know better than to focus on cosmetics using the “Cosmetic Safety Act of 2010”: "safety" concerns should be motivating a righteous noise about a comprehensive chemical policy in this country. They should be hammering on the Toxic Chemical Safety Act of 2010 (TCSA). That will solve most of the problem. Any parent knows you’ve got to choose your battles wisely. Let’s make TCSA well designed and implemented, then let’s see what is left to clean up with the cosmetic industry and other product sectors.

Energy is finite and, when it comes to politics, energy is expensive. If EWG:
- thought more comprehensively about safety
- if they really understood the cosmetic industry
- if they were honest that the same chemicals in cosmetics are in medicine, household goods, and food (wow!)
then they would recognize that it all leads back to the chemicals that are made and allowed to be used in this country. They would use their energy and money to regulate chemicals instead of one portion of the consumer products industry.

ALL consumer products should be safe. This proposed Cosmetic Safety Act is making one consumer product group responsible for a small part of the pollution and safety risk we all face. Folks - why make it hard for thousands of small businesses when the responsibility sits with the chemical industry in this country and those of us who have the voices to change it? Hello!! Cosmetics are blended chemicals. The cosmetic companies don't make the chemicals, chemical companies do. How do we push them to make safer chemicals?

I advocate that we delay this poorly written Act that will hurt small cosmetic companies and not really make cosmetics any safer and focus on the real issue: comprehensive chemical reform.

(Oh - and if you watch the video that they made, you might want to note that when the narrator reels off her chemical body burden, most of the chemicals are products from food or household furniture, not from cosmetics).

2010-07-01T16:06:00.000-07:00

Whole Foods may want to re-think the timeline and method of their mandated organic certification policy for personal care products. The concept is great, appropriate, and what we all need to do. Cheers to Whole foods for finally recognizing that they have an important role in guiding the industry. However, the time frame and choice of certifiers needs work.

Part One – Changing products loses customers.

One of the points has been that there is “chaos” in the market place. I think the chaos of not knowing what “organic” means for personal care products, pales in comparison to the chaos created when brands change their packaging, formula or any other detail. If the brand loses customers, so does Whole Foods, so does the organic community and so does the organic farmer. Any seasoned brand manager will tell you that when you change something about a product, you lose customers. If a large percentage of WF brands are changed all at the same time, both the brands and WF will lose customers. How does that help expand the use of organic ingredients? I want to see more organic content in everything, not less and I know this strategy, in the short term, reduces the use of organic ingredients and adds confusion. (I know this because numerous companies have stopped buying organic ingredients since the advent of the lawsuits and now they are telling me that to comply with WF they need to become “natural” and will stop buying other organic ingredients.)

Part 2 – Most Cosmetics ARE Synthetic! USDA-NOP Organic Should not be.

Another comment from WF has been that their customers don’t expect a big difference in the meaning of “organic” between personal care and food. This is a serious flaw: there IS a big difference. Bread and pasta sauce (organic foods) do not require CAS numbers because they are not synthesized chemicals (and under the jurisdiction of the EPA). Organic = food and Cosmetics = chemicals. To pretend that consumers won’t notice that there are “organic” chemicals listed on products seems a bit more than naïve to me. Someone will ask, ”Since chemicals are synthetic, how can you have a “certified organic” chemical?” Really, how can you? Certified organic mono and di glycerides?? Outrageous, but they exist.

Part 3 Where Is That Word “Sustainable” in the Relationships?

If indeed Whole Foods supports the sustainable principles inherent in organic agricultural production, they need to apply those same principles to cosmetics. Cosmetics are made from chemicals. The chemical industry will not be motivated to use organic raw materials unless it can identify and quantify the demand for raw materials made using those inputs. They can’t do that for a few years and need cooperative planning. Telling people to get certified to a food law in a 12 month period will not promote the creation of the necessary chemicals to make “organic” personal care. For one thing, it will take the NOSB 5 years just to get to a place where they can review all of the new materials and processes needed to make these organic chemicals. The USDA-NOP program doesn’t even have an agreed upon definition for “synthetic” – how can you make “organic” chemicals unless you know what the word “synthetic” means under that law? That will take another 18 months to resolve. Can’t the timeline change a bit?

Part 4 – What Should We be Doing?

We have an amazing opportunity to take the concept of “organic”, a single measurement of one type of sustainable agricultural product, and extend it to the production of cosmetics, a large international market and make a truly sustainable model for consumer good production. We can take all the good raw materials created on the agricultural side and ethically mandate chemical production methods that use those organic raw materials using only sound environmental production methods. We can teach people that there is, indeed, better living through chemistry, but only if we are honest that there is chemistry.

This is a complex picture. Using a thoughtful and strategic path that incorporates stakeholders and cooperation instead of lawsuits and threats will benefit the planet instead of hurting some and confusing many more. It is time for our corporate behavior to be as sustainable as the organic farms we support.

The Joke:

Here is the joke I use for WF as a parable:

John went on vacation. He asked his brother to take care of his adored cat. About day 3 of the vacation, the brother calls John and says, “Your cat died.” John gets upset with his brother and says, “First you should have told me that the cat was on the roof, then called in a few hours to say that the Fire Dept. was there. Then called a couple hours later to tell me that the cat was not doing well and was at the Vet’s. Then a few hours later you should have told me that the cat was dead.” John’s brother felt really bad.

The next year John went on vacation. About 3 days in, his brother called him and said, “John, Mom is on the roof.”

The reason I use this “parable” is that WF really should have started this in 2003 when we implemented the Calif. Organic Products Act of 2003. They could have actually required compliance with the LAW, and that would have been the mental equivalent of the cat on the roof. While I am glad they agree that cosmetics need to be certified, the way they are going about it seems almost punitive. I don’t think that is the way you treat the vendors who have supported your growth for the entire history of you business. Can’t you add a couple of years and a few certifiers?

Hey, Whole Foods! Organic is on the roof! You will end up with more “natural” than organic on your shelves, you will lose customers and you could achieve the same goal (certification) using slightly different parameters. Come on – we can do this . . . together!

2010-06-15T06:39:00.000-07:00

SELLING WITH THE CURRENT SEXIEST WORD

Let’s face it, “organic” is a sexy word for selling products these days. It may be food, dry cleaning, or lipstick; if it says “organic”, people are attracted. We also know that cosmetic sales rely on sexy marketing messages to stay fresh and interesting to consumers. That said, as trends go, the appeal of the word “organic” on cosmetics may have run its course. I predict that the “organic” label claim will now be marginalized and newer, bigger claims for “sustainable”, “green”, and that old stand-by, “natural”, will lead the marketplace, perhaps building a better approach to retail product manufacturing and selling than “organic” ever could.

After all my years of pushing “organic cosmetics”, I am sure some of you are wondering what has happened to make me say this.

The recent statements by Whole Foods and the Organic Trade Association that they will only accept NOP or NSF cosmetic certification (WF) and/or new standards (OTA) creates further barriers for the use of organic ingredients in “organic” cosmetic products. Most of us realize that you cannot make more than a few products that actually perform and keep a loyal following using those standards. We have been fighting this battle for the past 10 years and many people have lost interest and moved on. Since I sell ingredients, I know what people are asking for and “organic” is no longer at the top of the list. Now requests sound like:
- “Gay, do you have any Fair Trade [product type]? Organic is good, but not required…”
- “Do you carry soy-free products?”
- “I am looking for non-GMO [product type].”
- “Our company will only use “sustainable” palm derived ingredients. Do you have any?”

There you have it—the business as usual for cosmetics is: make a new message and sell it! Please do not depend on the American cosmetic industry to support organic farmers in any significant way in the near future. They have no incentive to do so and it will take at least 5 years to even get preliminary agreement on a Standard that covers both NOP and FDA issues. In other words, the cosmetic industry will blow right by this trend and create other new trends.

Those of us dedicated to serving the organic cosmetic community must find new ways to serve creative customers who really want to make a better product but see no return on investment in doing so with “organic”. If the use of a reasonable standard is another 5 years off, why bother? Look at any Vogue Magazine. The ads tell the story better than I do.

This change in market demand breaks my heart. Organic agriculture is a major key to environmental recovery worldwide and I have spent the past 20 years working to increase that market—but I just don’t see it happening here in the U.S.

Guess we better get down to the work of defining “sustainable” cosmetics.

This blog has moved

2010-04-30T09:11:00.001-07:00

This blog is now located at http://blog.ohohorganic.com/.
You will be automatically redirected in 30 seconds, or you may click here.

For feed subscribers, please update your feed subscriptions to
http://blog.ohohorganic.com/feeds/posts/default.

BONE RANT

2010-04-23T07:39:00.000-07:00

Okay – I’ve just had it with the calcium/bone loss commercials.

I have a degree in both archeology and physiology –so I’ve looked at a lot of bones for a variety of reasons. For the moment, please ignore my whole organic cosmetic thing.

Human bodies are amazingly efficient. If you are not using your bones by pulling on them with your muscles, they really have no reason to lay down calcium and get stronger. SO – you can take all the calcium by mouth you want but if you are not using your muscles to pull on bones, the essential signal to your body to increase bones strength and density is not communicated. And why should it be?

One of the reasons we know this is true, is that when you look at skeletons you can almost tell their profession by the bumps on the bones where muscles attach: people who did a lot of physical labor had larger, denser bones with pronounced muscle attachment points. The wealthy (think nobles in Europe who had servants) tended to have finer, smoother bones with less density. And you should see the hand bones of pianist!

So when I see these dumb commercials selling calcium and drugs to reverse bones loss, I just want to scream. They don’t work well and many of them lay down a layer of a completely different mineral (not calcium) that is brittle and in no way protects you from breaking your hip or crushing a vertebra.

All humans, especially woman, should do 2 days a week of 20 minutes each session of weight training from 40 years on. It is the only way to ensure that you have safe bones as you age.

Why the US needs private organic cosmetics standard

2010-03-10T17:31:00.000-08:00

This was originally published in CosmeticsDesign.com on March 8, 2010

Why the US needs private organic cosmetics standards

Organic certification creates an even playing field for the industry, it provides answers for consumers, and it supports credible exports; broadening the marketplace for both American-produced cosmetics and for organic raw materials.
It allows clear education and communication and is vital to the development of new ingredients and technologies. It provides a platform that supports investment in this industry sector.

However, in a recent survey by the Organic Trade Association, 26 percent of its personal care members were certified to any standard, while only 8 percent were certified organic to the USDA National Organic Program.

Meanwhile, over 60 percent of European companies making organic claims are certified. This means that American companies are at a disadvantage in international markets and in their ability to answer US consumers' questions about organic claims.

Why USDA-NOP is not good for certifying cosmetics

The existing USDA-NOP works well for food, not for cosmetics. Cosmetics require synthesized chemicals (surfactants, emulsifiers, preservatives) for functionality.

As a result, the NOP rule has been used to certify as organic, non-food synthetics like soap (potassium cocoate) and mono-and di-glycerides. Synthetics are not “bad”, but they are very different from organic food.

Separate standards for cosmetics will channel the creation of cosmetic ingredients to an appropriate industry sector and protect organic food while supporting increased use of organically farmed materials.

In addition, the NOP must reconcile with the FDA how to regulate ‘organic’ cosmetics. This process will take many years. We are wasting time if we wait for it to become final.

Furthermore, the NOP program never fully included “sustainability” in processing standards as they did in farming.

Farmers are required to prove that they improve their environment as a result of farming, but processors are not required to meet these criteria.

We can have a better standard that includes sustainable practices for manufacturers and drives sustainability throughout the supply chain.

Role of retailers

Retailers did a great job supporting organic food certifiers in the 1990’s, but have seriously dropped the ball for cosmetics claims. In the mid-90s, one could not sell a food product labeled “organic” to a retailer unless one was third party certified to a private standard.

Today, instead of requiring this in the US, retailers are making up their own ‘standards’ that are only lists of ‘allowed’ ingredients and are not focused on ‘organic’ but exclusively support ‘natural’ claims.

In the 90s, we had the perfect confluence of private certifiers, market demand, and retailers demanding third party certification. This drove organic market innovation, supported consumers, and increased the demand for organically farmed products.

During this time the infrastructure of the organic food industry grew to support the need for the NOP. This model gave us a great food program. Retailers should once again support certification, not unverified ingredient claims. They should be the gatekeepers for all of the stakeholders.

Get off the Fence!

The personal care industry needs a clear, sustainable future; that future should give better products and better information to consumers.

As long as we avoid the responsibility for certification of organic claims, we can do neither. Avoiding certification causes us to lose out in our efforts to ‘grow’ organic farming, and few will invest in the future of companies making self-professed ‘organic’ label claims.

The European companies exhibit a robust market for investing in ‘organic’ companies, using private certification.

American personal care companies need to make a choice and get certified - to any of the organic standards.

Choose a standard and go with it

All of the ‘organic’ personal care companies should stop ‘waiting for things to settle down’ and commit to a standard, and tell the National Organic Standards Board to back off; the industry needs to try private certification in the marketplace.

Likewise, retailers should recognize and support the important role they play. As a result, all the stakeholders would benefit.

Fear of lawsuits and lack of market incentives and consumer understanding has effectively stopped the conversation about what defines an ‘organic cosmetic’.

Until we allow this conversation to move forward in the US, we will continue to deal with ‘wishful’ organic labels, an uninformed public and ‘organic’ retailers who support ‘natural’ cosmetics.

This is a betrayal of the original goal of the organic movement: to nurture and grow the organic market place for farmers.

How To Learn To Use Chopsticks

2010-02-23T13:40:00.000-08:00

Can’t talk about organic all the time! So the other evening my daughters and I were smiling while watching someone in a restaurant struggle with chop sticks. My youngest (13 yrs.) was rather smug about her skill with said sticks. Then we remembered how they learned to use them. It was not from growing up in a family that used them nightly.

When it came to teaching my kids here is what I did:
- Gave them a big bowl of popcorn and each a set of chop sticks,
- Told them they could only eat what they got in their mouths with the chop sticks.
- Then they graduated down to some sort of cereal that was roughly the size and shape of Trix.

They were around 6 and 8 at the time and they really did master the skill.

That is one way to learn how to use chop sticks.

Scones

2010-02-15T17:40:00.000-08:00

There is a big difference between "organic" and great cooks. It would be amazing if I could get the great cooks I know to use organic ingredients; I'll keep working on it. That is just my disclaimer - now I'm going to tell you about some wonderful products I've found lately. Not cosmetics.

As some of you know, my brother had a stroke. Lately he has had some other issues. As children of Southern parents (Georgia and Tennessee), there are certain foods we just love. Biscuits are a form of high art in Southern Cuisine. So when I was looking for something to cheer my brother, it was natural for my eyes to fall on scones, a special biscuit with "stuff" added.

So here is the best scone I have ever eaten in my whole life: "Charmed Scones". I found them at the Los Feliz Farmer's market on Vermont on Sunday mornings. Or you can buy them at: Click here

I never push products but these were so good that she deserves loud and abundant praise. Scones are hard to make well. They are usually heavy and crumby an not awe inspiring. These Charmed Scones are awe inspiring.

Then go over to the Hollywood and Vine (really Hollywood and Ivar Street) Farmer's Market on Sunday morning and try the organic coffee in the food aisle. Amazing - especially the latte. Again, awe inspiring if you are a person who loves the taste of coffee (not just the effects).

I love Farmer's Markets and I've been in LA a lot lately. If you are ever there on a weekend, check these out. Support organic farmers and these markets. Experience artisanal, lovingly grown and made food. At home it is the Campbell Market for me, but there are many good markets. Buy produce from producers! Not grocery men. They can have all the other money.

Here's to scones and coffee!

2010-01-21T15:59:00.000-08:00

If you own a company that makes personal care products and uses organic claims on your products, you may want to seriously study the issues in the recent complaint filed with the USDA- NOP by OCA and Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soap, and Essential Organics against personal care brands that use “organic” claims.

Complaint:
The “Complainers” are saying that the “Defendants” are “cheating” because, regardless of the amount of organic content these companies use, they are not certified to the USDA-NOP. The "complainers" hold the view that the defendants, should not have the right to use the word "organic" unless they are certified to the USDA-NOP.

Background:
The USDA-NOP is an agricultural agency dedicated to supporting American farmers and ranchers. The NOP (Nat’l Organic Program) was originally conceived (in 1991) as a labeling program to create an “even playing field” for organic products in interstate commerce and on the international market. Throughout the law it refers to “food”, 35 times in fact. There is no reference to personal care. If you can make it and label it as though it were a food, then you may get certified. The NOP has published a document on their web site that states that a personal care product MAY be certified to the NOP but it may also get certified to a private standard. They also state that they have no jurisdiction over cosmetic labels, as that is the job of the FDA.

What Ifs:
IF this complaint were to be acted on by the NOP, IF they could because they had jurisdiction and IF there were laws that any of these companies had violated, what would happen?* NOP would begin to mandate that all personal care companies be certified to the NOP.

What Is NOP Organic?
In order to make an “organic” claim, ALL of your ingredients, except for the few that are listed in the law as “allowed non-organic” must be certified organic to the NOP. The “allowed” list includes non-organic glycerin and tocopherol and a few other things. These must be used in less than 5%. That means, no, you may not use just a couple of drops of non-organic jasmine or sandalwood oil because they are NOT on the “allowed list”. You could not add a little bit of ANY non-organic emulsifier. Your only preservation option would be org. alcohol. You’d need to have a current certificate for every single organic ingredient you use and it would probably cost around 1800.00 per year or more to get and stay certified.

In the complaint Bronner, et al, includes the Stella McCartney products - this line is certified to the EcoCert Organic Cosmetic Standard. In France law requires that they include water when calculating any label claim. Their label laws wants consumers to know the actual percentage of a package that makes any claim. Under the U.S. organic law we exclude water. So here someone can make a product that is water, salt and a few drops of lavender oil and call it “95% organic” - even though it is actual less than 1% organic in total. In France and under EcoCert it is the actual percentage of the total. International laws make this type of labeling complicated so the OCA complaint about that product line may be wrong - if they calculated it the same way we do, they may well meet the threshold of 95% for certain products. If you were to apply the same principle as the French use to “made with organic” soap, the label would have to claim around 5% of the total as “organic” content. Liquid soap would not meet the EcoCert standard for skin care, for example. They make an exception for soap and allow it to be 5% and use the claim. I think that may be the more honest approach.

That leaves the big question of how we create credibility for organic claims? In the food industry, the organic farmers and food processors worked for over 40 years to get their standard made and passed into law. We don’t use preservatives in food because we cook it or refrigerate it, and then we use it up or feed it to the dog. It doesn’t stay on the bathroom shelf for 4 years. As to emulsifiers, egg yolks and mustard are dandy emulsifiers - again for food. Not a good idea for skin care.

How do we get a standard that recognizes the unique challenges of cosmetic formulation and product shelf life? Do we use a food standard? Is that a smart thing?

I continue to be struck by the fact that no one will buy a product that does not perform to meet a consumers expectation. I suspect that the reason I never see USDA shampoos, lotions and conditioners in the stores is because they do not sell well. (Frankly, I am well over 50 and darned if I will use alcohol on my skin).

Personally, I want to see strong standards that are credible. I think the EcoCert Standard and the OASIS Standard are both valid standards that will evolve into the future of “organic” cosmetics. I know from the history of the organic food movement that we need a solution to a problem that includes some real challenges:
Thousands of small businesses, all of whom have (sort of) made their own rules about what their “organic” claim means.
Insufficient organic ingredients to emulsify and preserve products that perform.
International legal labeling issues that should be integrated into any standard.
And a lack of clarity due to both deliberate and unintentional misinformation.

I would like to see all of the non-certified personal care companies make the effort to understand the NOP rules (call me - happy go over your ingredient statement and explain where you fit) and to work together to create a plan to serve all these small businesses and their very specific needs. The food regulations were never intended to do this and soap is certainly not food.

* A judge has already examined the charges in the complaint and ruled that there was no violation of law. Actually, 2 judges.

No Growth Blues for Greens

2009-12-14T11:12:00.000-08:00

This morning the TABS Group, a U.S. based consumer analysis firm announced a study finding that there was little or no growth in “organic” personal care product sales in the U.S.. Recently Organic Monitor, out of the UK, announced that double digit growth in “organic” personal care continues in European markets.

What is up with that?

I think it has to do with certification. In the EU over 60% of the products making organic and natural claims are certified. The Europeans have used various standards for many years. BDIH, a natural standard, has been around since 1951, certifying “natural” since 1996. Soil Association and EcoCert both put out organic and natural standards in the early 2000s. The Europeans are not allowed by law to certify cosmetics to a agricultural standard so they use private standards. As a result:
Manufacturers get educated through the certification process
- They educate their consumers
- Consumers can look up the standards on line and hold someone accountable
- Retailers know they are getting a product that has been vetted by a third party
- Organic farmers continue to be supported
- Sustainable production is increasing as a result of this work

Man, I hate it when the Europeans are ahead of us.

On our side of the pond, things are a mess. Yep, you read it, a mess. “Organic” cosmetic companies are not getting certified nor are they compelled or encouraged to get certified. Why?

- A litigious party brought a law suit and made many people paranoid that they might be sued too. So they just keep doing what they are doing hoping that no one will notice them.
- Whole Foods made their own “list” which they call a “standard” but there is no third party certification, just people saying they meet it. So, what is that all about? It has nothing to do w/ organic!
- OCA (who only ever prints half of any story, because if you knew the full story they wouldn’t be able to scare you into making a contribution), has done their level best to support the use of the organic food laws to certify synthetics!! Why? I wonder if it is because of who they get money from?
- No one seems to remember the 90s, when we all bought privately certified food products because we were working out what processed organic food was. It took 12 years! Cosmetics needs the same thing.
- Finally; why would anyone use a food law to certify cosmetic chemicals? Why?

Another opinion, although one supported by consumer research; people buy products that work, they want “performance”. So the challenge to the “organic” cosmetic industry is to make products that perform AND that are made from organic materials. In order to do this, we have to use organic raw materials, like coconut and palm oil and react them in similar ways to conventional products, using environmentally safe processes and technologies. This will make “organic” ingredients that perform (under a separate standard). Again, the EU is far ahead on this path.

What can you do? Write the National Organic Program Director, miles.mcevoy@ams.usda.gov and tell him you don’t want the USDA to regulate personal care products until private standards have been developed enough to give us the ingredients and standards that are appropriate for personal care. Twisting the organic food regulation in order to certify synthesized chemicals is simply hurting the organic food community. Further more, it s a statement by a very few that consumers are not smart enough to tell the difference between a food standard and a cosmetic standard. Consumers are smart enough and they deserve respect and certified products that work. Not some lousy “shampoo” that you have to follow with a lemon juice rise so that you don’t completely destroy your hair. Yes, it will take a couple years but the Europeans are already providing the model for good and functional standards that will, eventually, vastly increase the market for organic raw materials. Time for a few people to check their egos at the door and do what is right to promote more organic agriculture in a time when our planet desperately needs it.

Copyright G. Timmons 12/14/09

Progress Or Backslide?

2009-11-21T12:18:00.000-08:00

Two weeks ago the Advisory Board (the NOSB) to the USDA-NOP passed a “recommendation” that the Dept. of Agriculture should regulate organic claims on cosmetics. Currently, the FDA regulates cosmetics labels, not the USDA-NOP. Then a bunch of “natural” food stores sent out policies or letters telling their vendors that, if they make an organic claim on a personal care item, they needed to get certified to the NOP. Spare me.

There are thousands of small companies all over the US and Canada that make uncertified “organic” claims on personal care items. Most of them do not follow the NOSB. Even in OTA, an organization that one assumes attracts dedicated “organic” businesses, in a recent survey discovered that only 9% of their personal care members are certified to the USDA-NOP. Again: nine percent!!!!

Why?

Cosmetics depend on synthetic ingredients to function well. There are simply not enough of the functional ingredients necessary to make a personal care product that performs well, which assures repeat sales. This means that conventional synthetics must be used.

How did we get to a regulation for organic food? The effort included 40-plus private certifiers serving the “organic” community from the 1960s until 2002 which created the momentum and infra-structure necessary to arrive at and support USDA-NOP certified food. It takes time to create a market and all the parts of the market necessary to make it work. (A factoid: Whole Foods profited for 24 years on non-NOP “organic” claims.)

Organic food contains certified agricultural ingredients. In cosmetics the “organic” certification of potassium cocoate, mono and di glycerides, and sucrose palmate is certification of non-agricultural ingredients. Is it best for all “organic” stakeholders to include the certification of “synthetics” under the Dept. of Agriculture?

This is what I see: people want the “organic” label to mean the same on all product categories, but it doesn’t and it can’t. I don’t want certified organic synthetic ingredients in my food. I want organic food to stay pure. I also want certified organic personal care products, but I know they need to be made using synthesized ingredients, and I want those ingredients to be synthesized out of organic raw materials. I also know putting this in place will take years.

The FDA and the NOP, under ideal conditions, cannot “enforce” a law until they have a law. First they have to agree to do this type of enforcement (remember, cosmetic labels are not currently reviewed). Then they have to either amend the Organic Food Production Law or pass a new law. Then they have to write the standard. I'd guess this could take 5 to 8 years. The NOSB seems to imply that they want enforcement now. It simply cannot happen - what do we do in the meantime?

We do what they did with food: use private standards. This could support the NOSB recommendation to the NOP and help make organic certification of cosmetics a reality. To tell companies that they “have to” get certified to the NOP when there are no safe preservatives, no mild surfactants, and no non-slimy emulsifiers is literally throwing the baby out with the bath water. We will end up back in the 1980s with an array of “natural” products and a very few “organic” products. Why can’t the NOSB support private organic cosmetic standards for now? At least people could be certified to something!

The Organic Food Production Act of 1990 was written expressly to certify AGRICULTURAL products. Personal care items are not food, I don’t want to eat them; I want them to work to clean my hair, sooth my skin, and keep my children from getting sunburned. That will not happen using a food paradigm. I want a strategic plan to get us from where we are now to that ideal certified organic cosmetic. The fact is that a number of people have made NOP PC shampoos and lotions and they do not seem to sell well. I suspect this is why we don’t see these products in Whole Foods and other “natural” stores. If we can’t get repeat sales, we can’t “grow” organic agriculture. And why would a store carry something that does not sell?

Isn’t that what this is all about? Increasing the market for organic ingredients? It won’t happen just because of the NOP seal. It will only happen if the products are good enough to create repeat sales. Shampoo is not an apple or cookies. The production of an organic apple cleans up the planet but it pretty much tastes and looks like a conventional apple. “Organic” shampoo under the NOP dries out my hair and I can’t use the lotion due to the alcohol preservative. They are not comparable to the more functional conventional versions. Darn it, I want organic versions.

Get real folks - we have a lot of work to do and it is important to do it but let’s use our brains and apply history. The NOSB’s message is well intended but poorly executed. As leaders of the industry, they should be able to supply a timeline, and a plan that will take us from 91% non-certified to 100% of players certified. Their recommendation does not do that. It just further confuses things and seems to be encouraging the removal of some pretty nice “organic” products that are not certified from the shelves. This move by the NOSB and some of the “natural” stores is a shame and diminishes the use of organic ingredients. I think we are backsliding, not making progress. What do you think?

Gay Timmons

NOSB

2009-11-09T20:01:00.000-08:00

It is unwise to take the recent Personal Care Recommendation by the NOSB (Nat’l Organic Standards Board, an advisory board to the NOP) out of the context of the whole meeting and even out of the context of the NOSB's history.

On the NOP web site, there are 10 pages listing the titles of Recommendations (that go back 9 years) by the NOSB to the NOP (this does not include those recommendations that go back to 1994, prior to implementation nor the recommendations passed this latest meeting). Many of these are for materials, which the NOSB does a a really good job at handling. Reportedly, 65 different policy recommendations are still unresolved between the NOSB and the NOP; we still do not have standards for pet foods, textiles, or aquaculture. This is not a criticism, it is an observation about how government works. There are issues of priority, regulatory complexity, expertise within the department to deal with a particular problem that all influence the forward motion of any recommendation.

If you look at the Livestock committee, for example, you see that the first recommendation on pasture access policy was in 2001. I think I read in the "Tweets" that this was finally adopted as policy by the NOP at the meeting last week - but I may be wrong on that. Am sure someone in the know will correct me. Just an example of why you should take the OCA “news” report with more than a grain of salt. It took from 2001 to now to get agreement on "Pasture Access" between all the members of the NOSB and then all of the departments within the USDA. This “high priority” issue took 9 years to get from “Recommendation” to “Policy”. (This is good - it took the FDA 11 years to agree on the legal definition of peanut butter).

We need uniform standards for organic cosmetics. It is also imperative that we continue to support the use of as many organic ingredients in cosmetics as possible. I just don’t think it will happen in the next few years as the result of the NOP. I believe that the NOP’s clear message that personal care is not a priority, as was stated during the meeting:

did not come from the program director but rather, represents the position of the Department of AGRICULTURE,
is a message to the industry to move forward with private standards which will only help any future efforts to write either an FDA or an NOP PC Standard,
is also a message to the cosmetic industry to make some of it’s own progress instead of waiting for the wheels of government to grind down their slow path.

The issues that need to be resolved in the NOP are highly complex and may start with this: that until the NOSB has submitted and the NOP has agreed to final, working definitions of "synthetic”, “non-synthetic”, and “non-agricultural", we cannot make ANY progress on a standard that depends on synthesis chemistry.

Then we need to define what we are certifying - I realize that NOSB set a proposed definition of "personal care" in their recommendation but it may be in conflict with FDA law - which includes things like brushes, candles, neti pots, nail clippers, and anything else sold for "personal" "care" in their legal view of that phrase.

Of course then there is the issue of safety - I would never use a product preserved with 15% alcohol, not on my body and especially not on a child. We have to deal with this. Alcohol is one of the few things that really can act as a transdermal carrier.

So - yes Mr. Bronner and the folks at OCA, after these and many other issues have been resolved, we may be able to move towards enforcement and standards writing, but this will take years. It is impossible to enforce laws that don’t exist;

In the meantime, we still have do not have retailers requiring any sort of certification (except "Natural - which does us no good). There are years of work facing the NOP and the NOSB needs to decide if animal cruelty, existing standards recommendations, certifier training, bio-diversity and food safety should be prioritized before or after personal care.

Folks - this is not going to happen any time soon. 74% of OTA members in the PC biz are not even certified and many of them would not meet the requirements and probably could not sustain their businesses if they did. And that is only OTA members. So let's add this question: in the worst recession we have seen since the “Great Depression” (why do they call it “great”?), is the NOP going to tell thousands of small businesses that they cannot do what they have been doing without some sort of long term lead up (like we did with food)?

We need a strategic path to get people into the fold of certification. This was the first volley across the bow by the NOSB and, as they even stated, it is intended to start a conversation, one that will go through the multi-year process of analyzing the industry. There is a lot of work to be done here. And most of us already have jobs. I continue to believe that we are all responsible for creating and enacting a long term strategic plan that will allow people to get certified, develop the necessary supporting infrastructure and do this thoughtfully. Sorry - it just takes a long time. It took organic food 40 years. It does not have to take the cosmetics industry that long but with the continued barriers being thrown up, it may.

2009-09-28T11:52:00.000-07:00

Even Government Committees Need to Do Their Homework

Secret Codes: (okay - so they are just acronyms . . .)

NOP = National Organic Program

USDA = Untied States Department of AGRICULTURE (Farms!!)

NOSB = the National Organic Standards Board

(They are supposed to represent “us” to the NOP).

CACC = The Compliance, Accreditation and Certification Committee

(A committee of the NOSB).

FDA = Food and Drug Administration

The CACC has made a recommendation to the NOSB that ALL organic personal care products must be certified to the NOP. The recommendation, if implemented the way it is written, would mean that if you have a product that is not certified, you could not call it “organic” - even if it were all organic unless you are certified to a food standard. So let’s get this straight:

1 - An organization that does not have a single member representing the cosmetic industry on it’s board is making this recommendation.

2 - The CACC has not even discussed that fact that there are THOUSANDS of companies in the US that have high content organic personal care items that are not certified (I confirmed this with the Chair person of the CACC). They have no strategy to addres this issue.

3 - In spite of the fact that they were sensibly asked to form a Task Force by OTA to look at the issue, they refused and just made the recommendation without input from the industry.

The really dumb thing about this is that they have no idea if it can even legally be done. The FDA has authority over cosmetic labels. It is unlikely that the USDA can mandate label authority. Even if the FDA and the USDA agreed to some sort of memorandum of understanding, the necessary regulations will take years to first be agreed upon and then to move through the regulatory process (3 years, 5 year, who knows).

Summary - this does not solve the existing problems:

Retailers do not make it a point to carry certified products; where is the incentive?
Even if you get certified to a standard, you might be sued by OCA or he who shall remain nameless.
There are thousands of people making products, they need to be “brought into the tent” of organic and there needs to be a reasonable strategy that will achieve this. This is not a reasonable strategy.

The NOSB is asking for comments on the recommendation. I am going to write them that they should not waste all of our time without doing the necessary work. NOSB, CACC - do your homework! Don't spin everyone’s wheels by asking for comments on a completely irresponsible recommendation. We need standards for organic cosmetics, but this is not the way to achieve them. You need to understand who the players are, what the barriers are, and come up with a sane solution. Just writing a law that puts thousands out of business is not a solution, it is a nightmare.

Go to the link below to read the recommendation and comment to the NOSB, then send them a note.

http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5079488&acct=nosb

Gay Timmons 09/28/09 Copyright

2009-08-01T08:56:00.000-07:00

Alcohol and the American Home - Real Work

When I first started to sell organic ingredients into the cosmetic world, I received a pint of certified organic alcohol as a sample - I think of it as my own personal white lightening stash. Don’t get me wrong, you can’t drink this stuff. Here is what you can do:

Sterilize cuts (yes, it stings)
Get sticke goo of glasses and plates
Get Sharpie marks off clothing (they need to be fairly fresh)
Get leaky fountain pen ink off your hands
Remove ink pen off clothing (or your daughter’s arm!)
Get gum out of the rug (some gums, not all.)
Sterilize anything that needs to be sterilized.
Removes pine tar droppings from car windows and surface.

You don’t need special, pure alcohol, plain vodka will work as well as anything.

Two other points about alcohol: I have beautiful hard wood floors and when I moved in there was this one bad stain on the dining room floor. Just for the heck of it, I tried the alcohol. It worked! Now these are floors from the 1950’s. I don’t know what the finish is on them but it may have been that the alcohol acted as a solvent so I was able to remove the layer of whatever the stain was. It is worth a patch test. The other thing I know about alcohol is that it can be used to sterilize (as I repeat above). When a family friend was in the Peace Corp he complained about being unable to use running water and soap to clean or sterilize utensils and his tooth brush. It told him to find the local white lightening dealer and keep a jar of hooch to rinse his glass, eating utensils, and clean cuts to avoid infection. Anything over 15% alcohol content should have some ability to kill microbes.

Of course, organic alcohol is best. You can now buy organic vodka and tequila as well as the wines and beers that are on the market. Cheers!

2009-07-19T11:59:00.000-07:00

Deal With It

One of the reasons that the organic food program works is because of certification. I’m not convinced that consumers understand or care about a certification seal but I am convinced that the certification process provides the growers and manufacturers with the knowledge and resources to improve and expand both their organic production and their commitment. I have always thought it was like when someone quits smoking and becomes the biggest advocate a la’: I did it and it is great so everyone should do it! Certification educates producers and provides the path to “grow” the entire industry.

This motivating force, certification, is not being used here in the US for organic cosmetics and personal care products. There is no law that says it needs to be used and the litigation that hangs as a looming threat from a certain soap family, has discouraged everyone I know from working with the private voluntary standards that exist. While there are probably over 5000 certified personal care products in Europe, there are a handful here in the US due to this barrier. (And most of them are either simple blended oil lip balms or, what I consider to be, misbranded “organic” soap”.)

You might ask how, thinking that companies can get certified to the USDA-NOP. While this is true for certain products, it is questionable for certain other products. The organic food law was designed for food and is fairly clear in it’s intent that “synthetic” materials are not to be added to “certified organic” finished products. So, somehow some of the certifiers thought that certification of some synthetics was okay. Philosophically and legally I do not agree. When the chemical reaction between oil and lye is finished, there is neither oil nor lye remaining: it is a whole new molecule, a soap molecule. That reacted product is the very definition of “synthetic”. The creation of a new molecule = synthesis. A loop hole in the food law allows this: we use lye in food in less than 1/2 a percent for a few limited purposes, mostly to de-nature proteins, we use lye in soap as a reagent/ingredient to react with and become part of the soap molecule in 8% to 16% normally. Besides, you can’t eat it.

I am not saying that we should not have organic personal care ingredients, we should. I am saying that the food law should stand alone to protect it’s credibility and that we should start working with private standards for cosmetics. We need education and growth to get polluting chemicals out of our personal care products. We need certification to motivate that education and growth process. The private standards may well result in a regulation after a few years.

I also believe strongly that we need to be honest with consumers. The ingredients necessary to make bread, well, they grow, they are combined, baked and used as food. The ingredients necessary to make shampoo must be manufactured in a chemical plant. We need to look at that manufacturing environment very differently - does it make a safe product? Does it’s manufacturing process pollute? How does this material affect the whole planet?

If we are going to live in a clean world, we need to look at every aspect of what we make, use, and discard. One day we may have 100 different manufacturing standards; food, personal care, tennis shoes, drugs, everything conceivable. We cannot continue to use up resources and toss out the trash. We also need an ethic and certification standards that will help us all learn about the particular product, the “cradle to grave” affect of that product on the planet and the ultimate responsibility we bear as a result of using that product. We need that certification to be a truthful representation. We cannot do this by pretending that good synthetic ingredients are just like food. They are not. They are what they are, synthesized - so, as my attitudinal 15 year old says, deal with it. This is all about credibility.

How do we get past the barrier of the legal threat from a single bully? I think we should band together, come up with a new phrase to indicate that personal care products are made using organic ingredients that may have been synthesized into environmentally responsible chemicals and get on with certification. We should build a branded seal that stands separate but right next to the USDA-NOP food standard. We should deal with it. Otherwise we will be in court for another 2 years. Copyright - G. Timmons - 07.19.09

2009-06-22T07:37:00.000-07:00

EDUCATED TRANSPARENCY

The cosmetic industry seems obsessed by this notion of harmonized standards yet seems unaware that it took the organic food movement over 40 years to get most of the standards on a level field. Even today there is no reciprocity between the US and the EU for organic food standards. How can there be an expectation that the cosmetic industry is any more agreeable than the food folks?

Certification fills two major roles (among a number of roles): one is to teach the applicants about the principles of organic production in their work to conform with the standards aka education. Another is to push the industry to continuously improve as they strive to prove to the consumer that they are credible gatekeepers of the values consumers believe “organic” certification represents aka transparency.

We need companies to make decisions to get certified to any standard in order to begin the process of “organic” education and so to develop credibility through transparency. Until companies make a commitment and begin to use a standard and push it’s development, we will continue to read about the weaknesses of these systems.

Gay Timmons

2009-06-01T07:43:00.000-07:00

THE CERTIFICATION PROCESS

Let’s talk about how cosmetic products get certified under the NOP. Maybe it will help people see how this food model interacts (or does not) with cosmetics.

Start with the qualifications - the NOP allowed everyone who wanted to, to become a certifier initially (2001) - whether they had the experts on hand or not. As years have gone on, the NOP has tightened up and are requiring more and more of the certifiers to demonstrate greater management expertise and product/service expertise. They have still not looked at the education as it relates to fine points but they do require that you show that the people making decisions have some education, training, and/or experience in the area that they are certifying, i.e., livestock decisions need to made by people that have qualifications for working with livestock management. The NOP is actually rescinding the right to certify in certain areas of the “Scope” (Farm, Livestock, Processing) if the certifier cannot demonstrate the necessary expertise to assess and make an informed decision about the products at hand.

Then what happens?

An applicant fills in forms (that were designed to evaluate food production) and submits these along with a recipe or formula or ...whatever you want to call it. In their “Organic System Plan” they explain how they manage the procurement identification, physical handling, and batching of the organic and allowed non-organic inputs to the finished product. They also have to provide documents that “prove” that the non-organic ingredients comply with the requirements of the regulation (non-gmo, not irradiated, not solvent extracted, etc.). The certifier is obligated to “confirm the ability to comply” and then they can set up an inspection. Then you (applicant) should be able to “prove” through documentation that anything you say you do, you have, indeed, done. For example, if you say that you wash down the line and remove the residue of the sanitizer, you should be able to prove that, 1) the sanitizer can be removed (which is not the case for quaternary ammonia products) and that, 2) you have logged the practice of implementing your sanitizing procedure. If you say an ingredient is “organic”, you need to have a current certificate AND an invoice to prove you purchased ingredient. Oh - the certificate needs to match the invoice. You can’t buy it from someone that is not qualified to sell it - unless the package is intact and the vendor is a broker of a trader. An example of this is that I sell some oils in their original drums and can provide the cert from the original packer and their label is on my certificate - either way it proves my handling of those products is compliant. This is what the certification world refers to as “audit trail”.

So then - it comes to the “on site” inspection. The certifier sends an inspector to verify that what ever you say you do, is being done and that you are not doing things that you have not represented in the “Organic System Plan” or OSP (think of the OSP as GMPs for organic.)

Here are a few of my concerns: in an environment where a company is synthesizing ingredients like soaps or glycerin or esters, the certifiers usually have no experience at all in synthesis chemistry. Now this is fine if the applicant knows all the rules and does it all according to the rules, but if the chemist is thinking one thing and the inspector is thinking another and there is a lack of understanding...than things can get certified that, perhaps, should not be. This can happen, for example, because certifiers ask for “processing aids” and never mention reagents or catalysts (again, not used in food production) or simply because what is so simple or normal to a chemist and may not be allowed under the NOP but "food" language if different than "synthesis chemistry" language and things can get cloudy. Another area of concern is the making of finished products. If a company runs hair care products through their equipment and does not have dedicated organic equipment or a way to truly remove the residue from quats and silicons, they are making “organic” product that is contaminated due to contact with these 2 categories of materials. Since most certifiers are unaware that these materials are used as ingredients (in the food world they would only look for quats in sanitizers and they don’t use silicons at all in food) so...they may not ask about these materials at all, they would be invisible and would remain as contaminants under an NOP system.

Further more - since many of the certifiers do not have chemists on staff, they are making, what I call, “Google Decisions” about some of the processes that they certify - they have no first hand experience or knowledge of the process but they’ve looked it up on Google and seem to glean enough info to make them comfortable about certifying it.

I won’t even get into the issue of certifying cosmetics to a food standard that requires food labeling laws but are being labeled under INCI.

Summed up: when decisions are made by a certifier who is not FULLY informed, there exists a chance that the certificate could be pulled at some date, or that labels are wrong, or lord knows what else. That is the time to remember that the applicant is responsible for the law. You need to understand it better than your certifier because they will have plenty of customers and no one really knows who they are. Brands, on the other hand, have a reputation to protect. Look at Johnson & Johnson.

2009-05-20T07:39:00.000-07:00

MAKE A COMMITMENT!

Natural Beauty Summit May 2009 Report

Okay - so I am not really “just back from” the Natural Beauty Summit (NBS) but, after a couple weeks of the normal mess involved with moving, I am getting around to a report. Keep in mind - these are the things that stuck in my head 2 weeks after the event.

After 2 days of (estimate) 30 people speaking, there is no doubt that “organic” and “natural” are here to stay for a while. At the same time these label claims are being increasingly held up to scrutiny, hence the various standards. Listening to the various people that got my attention, I came away with two messages -

1 - make a commitment,

2 - and we really do have a problem with waste in this industry.

Make a commitment: Mike Indursky of Burt’s Bees and Ido Lefler of Yes to Carrots hit the same theme: pick a standard, get certified, commit and support the standard you’ve signed on for - use the logo to your advantage, any logo, any program, just commit. We should keep in mind that not everyone has the million dollars that Burt’s put into marketing the NPA logo which, from what I hear, is expensive and not transparent in it’s delivery process - but what the heck - if you have an NPA product out there you should send a “thank you” letter to Mike.

Then Jasper van Brakel (CEO Weleda North America) discussed the 80 odd year history of Weleda and their steady climb through the market place by recruiting growers to grow the Bio-Dynamic crops used for the herbal products they make. This is an “inside-out” approach - buy my product because of what is on the inside of the bottle. This is a commitment to their own company policy and ethos. Their company age and the simplicity of their ingredients makes this very achievable for them.

The counter to the above speeches was the presentation about the “Cosmos” Standard which is supposed to be the “harmonized” EU organic and natural standard that totally confused most people there. Evidently the “harmonization” is not planned to occur until 2012 and then they only need to use the standard as a base line! So much for that idea.

I presented about OASIS, we are marching along (that is another blog) and Joe Smilie of QAI tried to convince everyone that the Dept. of Ag (USDA) would be able to enforce cosmetic labeling and use the NSF “made with” standard. He failed to mention that the use of synthetic materials is prohibited under the Organic Foods Production Act, the law upon which the USDA-NOP regulation is based so . . . it probably won’t happen. Hello! This is personal care - surfactants, preservatives ad emulsifiers are ALL synthetic, even if they are “good” synthetics. We need a different approach than the food world needs.

Waste: There was a great presentation about “cradle to grave” certification (something we are working on at OASIS). I know that personally the packaging of cosmetics has always blown my mind - of course I grew up next to Berkeley, Calif., in the days when we went to the first (real) Body Shop where one re-filled bottles with personal care product base and added one’s own choice of fragrance - at least until the State of California stopped that practice as “unsafe”. Okay - so maybe we needed to return our bottles and have them sterilized first but . . . what are a few bacteria compared to the tremendous pile of garbage we create daily? Point being, that this industry has much greater issues to grapple with in the future. There were many talks that touched on these long term issues. They start you thinking.

So - the marketers pushed the need to craft and commit to a clear message (put that way, it doesn’t sound very original, does it?) and the environmentalist pointed out the continued long term implications of what we put down the drain and in the garbage.

There were also sessions about using “food” as personal care ingredients, something I’ve worked on for 10 years - so, in view of my need to start moving 6 years of stuff into a new home, I opted to leave. I’ll make a few calls to folks that attended it and let you know the outcome.

All that said - it was a good conference, expensive but, I think worth it, and I look forward to the development of this particular venue to support and educate the cosmetic industry.

Whether You Are Certified Or Not; Good Ideas

2009-03-27T07:21:00.000-07:00

I was talking with a friend about how I comply with my org. certification and he thought I should post it. Here you go:

One part of the regulation, 205.200, says: "Production practices implemented in accordance with this subpart must maintain or improve the natural resources of the operation, including soil and water quality."

Most certifiers do not enforce this - but I think it is a good idea regardless so every year I try to find a new way to add a practice in my business to my organic system plan (and my business procedures) to reduce my impact on the planet. The first year I simply made sure that all my boxes and all my office paper were recycled - to some percentage. The next year I figured out that I could give all of my empty drums to folks who were either in the bio-diesel business or who wanted to make barbecues - so I posted in the "for free" section of craigslist. No more problems looking for homes for my empty drums! Then I switched to 100% recycled/bio-degradable puff for packing our boxes. Most recently I wrote all of my customers and told them we wanted to shift to paperless invoicing - we email all invoices (I do have 2 customers that insist on paper). This saved paper, envelopes, time, gas to the P.O., stamps, and printing ink! We done a few other simple things, swirly light bulbs, up the recycle content of boxes and paper, we recycle everything anyway - it is law in our county.

For next year we are talking to the landlord and I'm helping them shift the entire landscape around our building to native & Mediterranean, low water need plants (getting rid of the grass - not like were playing football here!). Fortunately I have a hobby of brain dead low maintenance gardening so I've got the resources, suppliers and plants at my fingertips. We think we can save the building (CAM if your are a commercial renter) a bunch of money with this change.

Anybody have any other ideas?