From: ACTSNYC**At_Symbol_Here**CS.COM
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Housekeeping chemical "Natural Mineral"
Date: December 9, 2012 10:37:36 AM EST
Reply-To: DCHAS-L <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU>
Message-ID: <4f79.69cefe60.3df60a40**At_Symbol_Here**>

Ken,  That brings up an important issue.  Why doesn't everyone who uses makeup know that the major ingredient is a listed carcinogen?  Why don't most consumer paint and makeup MSDSs reflect this change in cancer status when OSHA requires such changes be reported on these documents 3 month after they are made?  Why doesn't FDA apply the same logic to airbrush makeup that they do to the spray tanning dye DHA?   Right on FDA's website they make the point that if DHA can be inhaled, the product is not approved for use.  The system isn't working.

I think the way to fix this is clear.  We are not going to provide enough funding to governmental agencies to hire the personnel required to enforce their regulations.  Let's just accept this as a given.  Then let's fix it by putting a penalty schedule in each law along with a citizens enforcement clause.  Then activists and roving bands of lawyers will enforce the law at no cost to the government or tax payers.  It works with Prop 65.  It can work with all kinds of laws, especially consumer laws.

I know manufacturers will pass a brick at the mere suggestion, but Prop 65, for all its flaws, is the only law being enforced well in the consumer arena.  One of it's flaws is it doesn't ban anything, it only requires that the label tell the consumer the hazardous substance is there.  I'll take that over tough laws and bans that sit unenforced on the books.

And the only fines levied after Prop 65 cases are won are paid by US manufacturers or the US "manufacturers of record" if the product is imported.  No one else is hurt.  The governmental agency with jurisdiction (in this case the Cal HD) doesn't need inspectors, labs, chemists, or lawyers for those cases to be won (except in rare cases that they choose to pursue themselves).  Usually all the expenses are paid on spec by the lawyers or the activists. 

Think on is class.  If we really want teeny weeny government AND safe consumers, we got to saddle a different horse.  The one we've been beating is dead.


In a message dated 12/8/2012 2:26:05 PM Eastern Standard Time,
smith.j.k**At_Symbol_Here**SBCGLOBAL.NET writes:

Thanks Monona,

This is an issue that bears greater exposure.  I suppose I never thought about the particle size of the "make-up" powders that now are in the nano size.  I also was not aware that TiO2 was listed as a lung carcinogen.  That gives lie to the manufacturer who labels as safe.


Keep up the good work,

Ken (retired ex CIH)

Previous post   |  Top of Page   |   Next post

The content of this page reflects the personal opinion(s) of the author(s) only, not the American Chemical Society, ILPI, Safety Emporium, or any other party. Use of any information on this page is at the reader's own risk. Unauthorized reproduction of these materials is prohibited. Send questions/comments about the archive to
The maintenance and hosting of the DCHAS-L archive is provided through the generous support of Safety Emporium.