Challenges
DEA Safety Concerns
After his research found that diethanolamine, or DEA, "slows the creation of brain cells vital to memory in rodents," the University of North Carolina nutritionist Dr.
Steven Zeisel suggested that pregnant women "check shampoo and sunblock labels," to avoid products with DEA. "I'm not saying I know women will do harm. My personal choice would be to heed this warning. Why use shampoo and sunblock containing DEA until research under way is complete?" Zeisel asked.
CTFA's John Bailey questioned Zeisel's warning. "The exposure is, by all measures we can see, thousands or tens of thousands times lower than reported in [Zeisel's] paper," he told the Raleigh News & Observer.
Nanotech Safety Concerns
In mid-2006, a coalition of environmental groups asked the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration to regulate the use of nanoparticles in cosmetics, saying their safety had not yet been determined. Two groups,
Friends of the Earth and
International Center for Technology Assessment, filed a formal petition with the agency. The petition "coincided with the release of a report by the groups that highlighted the number of personal care products with nanoingredients." The report states that nanoparticles are "used extensively in more than 116 sunscreens, cosmetics and personal care products," according to the San Francisco Chronicle.
The FDA "plans an October meeting to discuss the new kinds of nanotechnology materials being developed for use in the products it regulates, including drugs, food, cosmetics and medical devices," reported AP. The SF Chronicle reported, "Animal studies have shown that some nanoparticles can penetrate cells and tissues, move through the body and brain and cause biochemical damage. But whether cosmetics and sunscreens containing nanomaterials pose health risks remains largely unknown, pending completion of long-range studies recently begun by the FDA and other agencies."
CTFA's executive vice-president for science, John Bailey, claimed, "The amount of knowledge that we have for the safety of these materials is more than adequate to deal with their safety in the marketplace. That, combined with the FDA's authority to seek more information if they require, combine to form a powerful check and balance."
Campaign for Safe Cosmetics
In 2002, a coalition of environmental and public health groups calling themselves the
Campaign for Safe Cosmetics released its first report, "Not Too Pretty: Phthalates, Beauty Products and the FDA." The report stated:
Major loopholes in federal law allow the $20-billion-a-year cosmetics industry to put unlimited amounts of phthalates into many personal care products with no required testing, no required monitoring of health effects, and no required labeling. ... In animal tests some phthalates damage the developing testes of offspring and cause malformations of the penis and other parts of the reproductive tract. The same phthalates that cause permanent harm of the male reproductive system in laboratory studies are also found in hair spray, deodorant, and fragrances.
Harvard professor Russ Hauser, described by the San Jose Mercury News as one of "the few researchers to have studied phthalates in humans," said in 2005 that, "There's not enough human data to say they are safe and don't cause health effects. But, on the other hand, there's not a lot of human data showing they do." Hauser's research team "found that some phthalates may cause sperm abnormalities" (Julie Sevrens Lyons, "Chemicals' Toxicity Debated; Phthalates Are Used in Personal Products," San Jose Mercury News (California), May 18, 2005).
The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics urges cosmetics companies to "pledge to remove toxic chemicals and replace them with safer alternatives in every market they serve."
Activist groups are attacking us on several fronts and taking their messages to consumers. ... I would like to see us reach out more to connect with others regarding the positive philanthropy efforts of our industry. We should reach out to FDA, state and local governments, thought leaders and influencers to help them understand all of the good that we do, and be ready to aggressively respond to our opponents when necessary and appropriate.
In March 2006, at its annual meeting, CTFA announced five "consumer-oriented industry initiatives" seemingly crafted in order to address and neutralize the challenges from "activist groups." As quoted in a CTFA press release, Pritchard said, "[T]he world is changing, with better consumer technology moving information and unfortunately misinformation, at lightning speed. These initiatives will empower our consumers by giving them easy access to user-friendly, accurate information, and the facts and context they need."
As described by CTFA, the initiatives, which "will be further developed in 2006 and implemented in 2007," are the following:
"A new consumer commitment code," to "reaffirm the industry's commitment to provide safe products";
"A consumer beauty information web site," billed as "the definitive place to go for consumers seeking information about the science behind cosmetic products and ingredients";
"A systematic review of the
Cosmetic Ingredient Review program," to promote "transparency and clarity," better communications around CIR findings, and possibly "increasing the number of ingredients reviewed";
"A new global communications infrastructure to assist in the creation of harmonized global regulations for the U.S., Europe, Asia, Latin America, and Canada"; and
Enhancing "the infrastructure of CTFA."
California Legislation
CTFA's 2005 annual report also warns that "The California legislature passed anti-cosmetics legislation" over the past year.
SB 484, state legislation "requiring cosmetics and personal care product manufacturers to notify state health officials when using ingredients with potential links to cancer and birth defects," was signed into law by Governor
Arnold Schwarzenegger in October 2005. Women's Wear Daily reported (Joanna Ramey, "California Enacts Cosmetics Registry," WWD, October 12, 2005):
"The Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association is very disappointed that the governor signed the damaging and redundant" legislation, the industry's Washington-based lobbying arm said in a statement, noting how "cosmetics and personal care products are already completely safe and well regulated under state and federal law."
At issue is a long-brewing battle in California, as well as other states, in which consumer advocates clamor for more public disclosure of cosmetic and personal product ingredients known to be harmful in large concentrations. These chemicals include phthalates, commonly used in hair sprays and deodorants, and formaldehyde, found in nail polish and nail polish remover. Also under fire are preservatives known as parabens. ...
The bill doesn't impose restrictions on ingredient use, but creates a new state regulatory arena to explore questions about safety. The legislation calls for companies to register with state health officials, starting Jan. 1, 2007, any product sold in the state containing "any ingredient that is a chemical identified as causing cancer or reproductive toxicity" . ...
[Bill sponsor Democratic state Sen. Carole] Migden got support from the Breast Cancer Fund and about 150 companies producing mostly products of natural ingredients. These firms signed a Compact for Safe Cosmetics and included
POMEGA5, The Body Shop International, Burt's Bees and Dr. Bonners' Magical Soap.
European Regulation
Another challenge mentioned by CTFA chair
Marc Pritchard in the 2005 annual report was Europe's regulation of cosmetics:
We are facing increased regulatory clout from the European Union which is affecting our industry on a global basis, notably in China. It is clear that our industry is at a crossroads in the areas of safety, self-regulation and global harmonization, and will require further action on our parts to lead to positive changes in the future that are good for consumers, and good for our industry. ...
With the European Union now larger than the United States market, we can no longer assume the world will follow the US on regulatory matters. In fact, we are seeing safety and regulation issues coming from other markets and impacting us. Some of these influences are certainly welcome if they can level the playing field across markets and make it easier to foster innovation. But some of these forces could impose standards that are not appropriate for every market, and may even inhibit innovation. We must build even stronger links,and indeed alliances, with trade associations around the world-particularly
COLIPA in Europe - to work together on a common set of actions.
Environmental Health Network
In the early 1990s, the
Environmental Health Network, described as "a grass-roots group formed to raise awareness of [multiple] chemical sensitivity," successfully petitioned the San Francisco city government to declare all governmental public meetings fragrance free. The Dallas Morning News reported (Jane Meredith Adams, "California group raises stink about perfume Members worried about their health laud mayor's decision to hold fragrance-free meetings," The Dallas Morning News, March 19, 1993):
The fragrance-free meeting policy was quietly adopted Nov. 30 [1992] but it has reeked of controversy in City Hall since the perfume industry sought to have it overturned beginning in January. ...
The Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association in Washington has hired a prominent San Francisco public relations firm,
Solem & Associates, and has geared up for a possible legal challenge.
The industry maintains that the fragrance-free meeting policy impinges on the rights of individuals to wear perfume.
"In effect it is putting San Francisco in the business of trying to regulate personal hygiene," said Irene L. Malbin, vice president of public affairs for the fragrance association.
Animal Rights Activism
In 1989, Women's Wear Daily reported, "[T]he Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association promised to launch a counteroffensive aimed at defeating proposed animal-testing bans in the eight states in which they are under discussion: California, Pennsylvania, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Connecticut, Hawaii and Massachusetts" (Rober LaRussa, "CTFA plans strong effort to maintain animal tests," WWD, September 27, 1989). The article continued:
E. Edward Kavanaugh, president of the CTFA, said the industry will mount a public relations and legislative campaign to provide lawmakers and the media with "objective information" about a "highly emotional" subject.
"We are here to combat a very negative and -- from the standpoint of the American public -- very dangerous campaign that is being conducted in the name of animal rights," Kavanaugh said Tuesday at a Washington news conference. "Human safety is under attack."
Although the CTFA wouldn't say how much it will spend on the campaign, a letter sent by Kavanaugh to industry members in June said the campaign would cost "$1 million beyond that provided in the 1989 CTFA budget."
According to WWD, CTFA retained the PR services of
E. Bruce Harrison in its campaign to counter animal rights activists.
In CTFA's $1 million PR fundraising drive, the association claimed that "animal rights fanatics threaten the very heart of our compact with our consumers" (James Erlichman, "Beauty firms fight back on animal tests," The Guardian (London), August 4, 1989).
According to minutes of an April 15, 1987, meeting of the "Health and Safety Committee" of the industry group
Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA, now called the American Chemistry Council):
The committee discussed the various animal rights bills pending that would restrict the use of animals for health effects testing. It agreed to gather more information on policies and positions that other trade and professional groups have adopted. The Health and Safety Committee recommended that CMA allow the Cosmetic, Toiletries and Fragrance Association to take the lead advocacy role on this issue.
In 1991, WWD reported that CTFA was looking for allies to join its campaign against animal rights legislation. "I would like to think we are seeing a counter reaction to this in terms of the biomedical research," said Kavanaugh. "The
American Medical Association and other groups are finally getting off their duffs a little bit and realizing the real threat of the animal rights groups. We couldn't get much attention from groups we thought would be natural allies five years ago." WWD noted, "The American Medical Association said it has not taken a position on the use of animal testing for cosmetics, but has worked aggressively to protect the ability of researchers to use animals for biomedical and pharmaceutical purposes" (Steve Farnsworth, "CFTA hopes to acquire allies in testing fight," Women's Wear Daily, March 1, 1991).
According to WWD, CTFA's efforts in fighting state-level legislation restricting animal testing for cosmetics ingredients included "hiring legislative and legal help in California," and "flying association experts to state capitals to testify on legislative proposals." Kavanaugh told WWD, "Ten states have bills pending in their legislatures to ban the use of animals in safety testing" (Steve Farnsworth, "CFTA hopes to acquire allies in testing fight," Women's Wear Daily, March 1, 1991).
According to The Oregonian, these moves all came after CTFA "banded together in the face of demonstrations in 1980 to endow a research institute at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health dedicated to finding methods to test products without using animals," called the Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (Bryan Denson and James Long, "Terrorist Acts Provoke
In 2005, CTFA worked with the Sacramento-based PR firm
Perry Communications Group. CTFA statements against California state bills SB 484 and AB 908 list Perry Communications staff as CTFA media contacts ("Statement From the Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association on Governor Schwarzenegger's Signing of Damaging and Redundant SB 484," October 8, 2005; "Press Statement Regarding the Assembly Floor Vote on SB 484," September 1, 2005; "AB 908 Hearing Held Today; Expert Testimony Highlights Why Legislation to Ban Phthalates Is Unnecessary and Misleading," April 19, 2005; all distributed via PR Newswire).
The CTFA Foundation has retained
Hyde Park Communications to promote its "Look Good...Feel Better" campaign.
[20] Hyde Park was involved in media outreach around the program's 16th anniversary in 2005 (CTFA statement distributed via PR Newswire, "Look Good ... Feel Better Strengthens Cancer Patients and Their Families; Program Celebrates 16 Years of Helping Women," January 17, 2005).
In February 2003, O'Dwyer's PR Services Report reported that CTFA had worked with the San Francisco-based PR firm
Solem & Associates. Solem's specialties range "from environmental issues management and media relations to public opinion research and political campaign management," according to O'Dwyer's. The Solem website describes CTFA as a "long-time" client. he Solem website states that the firm's account coordinator,
Sarah Lynch, works on the CTFA account: "[Lynch's] clients include the Cosmetic Toiletry and Fragrance Association and the Lead Pigment Retention Group, who are kept apprised of governmental issues through weekly research."
Lobbying
Federal lobbying
On June 1, 2006, CTFA hosted "Fragrance Day" on Capitol Hill, to "showcase the scientific, technological and physiological elements involved in creating fragrances" for members of Congress and their staff members. Honorary event hosts were Representatives
Joe Baca (D-CA),
Henry Bonilla (R-TX);
Sue Kelly (R-NY);
Carolyn Maloney (D-NY);
Deborah Pryce (R-OH); and
Linda Sanchez (D-CA). The event opened with "a VIP reception, by invitation only, for Congressional Members including members from the Committee on Energy and Commerce," followed by an "open house for members and staffers." Perks included free perfume samples from Estee Lauder, Ralph Lauren, Avon,
Tzerah, Christian Dior and Giorgio Armani.
In lobbying reports filed with the U.S. Senate Office of Public Records, CTFA reported lobbying the U.S. Senate, House and FDA on four issues in 2005: S. 172, on "contact lens regulation"; H.R. 2744, on "FDA appropriations for fiscal [year] 2008"; S. 1391, which would "require manufacturers to disclose the chemicals in consumer products"; and H.R. 1507 and S. 729, on the "Independent Food Safety Administration."
In 2004, CTFA reported lobbying on H.R. 3714 and S. 2007, dealing with BSE, or
mad cow disease; H.R. 4768, on FDA appropriations; H.R. 4520 and S. 1637, on "Corporate Tax Reform"; H.R. 4673, on "
Radio Frequency ID Tags"; S. 994, H.R. 2901, S. 157 and H.R. 1861, on "chemical security"; S. 1747 and H.R. 2218, "contact lens legislation"; and S. 1553, dealing with "retail theft prevention."
State lobbying
Records filed with the California secretary of state show that CTFA retained three lobbying firms there in 2005:
Livingston & Mattesich Law (from Jan to Oct 2005),
Greenberg Traurig (from Oct 2005 onward), and
Preston Gates Ellis (from Jan 2005 onward). During California's 2005 - 2006 legislative session, CTFA spent more than $460,000 for "general lobbying."
