Death By Lipstick?

ince the beginning of time, one of the most effective ways to change public perception is to implement what is sometimes called "The FUD Factor." If you can instill enough Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt in a person, even if those emotions are unfounded, the person is inclined to act in accordance with them, even to their own detriment.

      

The American Council on Science and Health chose the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics' lipstick report known as "Poison Kiss" as the number one on their "Top Ten Unfounded Health Scares of 2007." Despite the honor as an unfounded health scare, awarded by non-profit organization, the California Senate Appropriations Committee has introduced a new bill that will declare all out war on lipstick in California.  Despite that fact that the entire case revolving around lead in cosmetics leans heavily on the "FUD Factor." 

If passed into law, Senate Bill 1712, introduced by Migden and Romero in the California Appropriations Committee, would add "lipstick that bears or contains lead or lead compounds as an adulterate cosmetic" to the Sherman Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, which Act prohibits the manufacture or sale of adulterated cosmetics. Section 111670 of the Sherman Act says, "A cosmetic is adulterated if it bears or contains any poisonous or deleterious substance that may render it injurious to users under the conditions of use prescribed in the labeling or advertisement of the cosmetic, or under conditions of use as are customary or usual."

The new bill will require that as of January 1, 2009, "the manufacturer of any lipstick subject to regulation by the federal Food and Drug Administration that is sold in this state (CA) to report this fact to the State Department of Public Health and provide evidence to the department, that the lipstick was tested and found not to contain lead."

According to the arguements in opposition of Senate Bill 1712, "The Personal Care Products Council (Council) writes that this bill appears to be based on assertions by the CSC (Campaign for Safe Cosmetics), that the reported levels of lead in lipsticks are unsafe, but the Council asserts the levels identified in lipstick by that report are far below all known standards established by regulatory authorities. 

According to the Council, the amount of lead that a consumer is exposed to from lipstick is almost 2,000 times below the limit established by the EPA for drinking water and approximately 30 times below the safe limit set under Proposition 65."

Come on! Folks are perishing in China after a massive earthquake. AIDS continues to ravage Africa. And the mortgage meltdown, rising gas and food prices are forcing some American families into bankruptcy. And you want to take away our lipstick?!  In the land of plastic surgery and botox?  This bill will hurt little companies who can't afford the testing and help the big companies who can.   

Comments

[Kayla Fioravanti]

Wow! Thanks for sharing the link. It would be impossible for the food, drug, cosmetic, household, and all other industries to forsee allergic reactions of the millions of people that use consumables. Like they said in the story it was a 1 in a million reaction.

I suffer from severe allergies and believe it is my responsibility to avoid my allergins by reading labels before using anything. New allergies for me pop up everyday but they are not the responsibility of corporate America to address. They are my individual responsibility to avoid and to be armed with an EPI pen for my mistakes.

[Maryclaire Mayes]

I thought you were talking about this recent incident, where a woman almost died from using lipstick. This law wouldn't have helped her a bit, but I'm sure it will add ammunition for new laws for cosmetics. http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=181853