05-01-2015, 10:08 AM
#1
  • kav
  • Banned
  • east of the sun,west of the moon
User Info
 05-01-2015, 10:12 AM
#2
  • Mr_Smartepants
  • Senior Member
  • Cambridgeshire, UK (CONUS post address)
User Info
It only affects larger soap makers. 

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/i...af577099f2
Quote:3) FACILITY.—
...
Such term does not include— 
...
"(G) domestic manufacturers with less than $100,000 in gross annual sales of cosmetic products"

47 1,953
Reply
 05-01-2015, 10:14 AM
#3
User Info
I'm sure something has happened to spur this either by a bigger company complaining about lack of sales or some health issue has arose from a soap manufacturer. That's usually how legislation rolls.

49 356
Reply
 05-01-2015, 10:14 AM
#4
User Info
Lol so pretty much all the companies and stock hol.... er... Govt officials are the ones in favor to crush the little man/woman so they don't risk losing money. Go figure. 

We are adults who can think for ourselves and chose what we want to use and know there maybe risks. They all need to just bugger off! 

148 3,602
Reply
 05-01-2015, 10:18 AM
#5
User Info
(05-01-2015, 10:12 AM)Mr_Smartepants Wrote: It only affects larger soap makers. 

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/i...af577099f2

Quote:3) FACILITY.—
...
Such term does not include— 
...
"(G) domestic manufacturers with less than $100,000 in gross annual sales of cosmetic products"
How do we know what some of the artisans we deal with and love don't fall just above that mark? As soon as they get successful and start building something big business/politics wants to kick them back down. 

148 3,602
Reply
 05-01-2015, 10:22 AM
#6
User Info
Some states do that for smaller beer breweries as well. If they produce so much they have to declare a bigger tax and aren't considered small anymore or a micro brew. Pretty much getting punished for succeeding.

49 356
Reply
 05-01-2015, 10:31 AM
#7
User Info
Hey there.. Yes you... The government..... Mind your own business..!!!!!!!!!

20 1,375
Reply
 05-01-2015, 10:34 AM
#8
  • Agravic
  • Emeritus
  • Pennsylvania, USA
User Info
Advance reminder to all : please refrain from any politically charged posts, per forum rules.
Gentlemanly discussion is fine.
Thanks. Smile

102 18,669
Reply
 05-01-2015, 10:37 AM
#9
  • jamesrobson5
  • Chubby Chaser... Big Brush is Best!
  • Sherwood Park AB Canada!
User Info
I hope that this won't stop some of the excellent soaps that I have been introduced to on this forum.
Keep up the great work artisans! 

29 1,627
Reply
 05-01-2015, 10:39 AM
#10
User Info
(05-01-2015, 10:37 AM)jamesrobson5 Wrote: I hope that this won't stop some of the excellent soaps that I have been introduced to on this forum.
Keep up the great work artisans! 

+1  Shy Agreed

20 1,375
Reply
 05-01-2015, 10:42 AM
#11
User Info
I suspect that this legislation is being pushed by lobbyists for corporations, and not because there is a risk to the public on the part of handcrafted soapmakers.  

https://simpleunhookedliving.wordpress.c...ap-makers/

Companies and brands that support the bill:

Johnson & Johnson, brands include Neutrogena, Aveeno, Clean & Clear, Lubriderm, Johnson’s baby products.
Procter & Gamble, including Pantene, Head & Shoulders, Clairol, Herbal Essences, Secret, Dolce & Gabbana, Gucci, Ivory, CoverGirl, Olay, Sebastian Professional, Vidal Sassoon.
Revlon, brands include Revlon, Almay, Mitchum
Estee Lauder, brands include Estee Lauder, Clinique, Origins, Tommy Hilfiger, MAC, La Mer, Bobbi Brown, Donna Karan, Aveda, Michael Kors.
Unilever, brands include Dove, Tresemme, Lever, St. Ives, Noxzema, Nexxus, Pond’s, Suave, Sunsilk, Vaseline, Degree.
L’Oreeal, brands include L’Oreeal Paris, Lancome, Giorgio Armani, Yves Saint Laurent, Kiehl’s, Essie, Garnier, Maybelline-New York, Vichy, La Roche-Posay, The Body Shop, Redken.

0 281
Reply
 05-01-2015, 10:55 AM
#12
  • Mr_Smartepants
  • Senior Member
  • Cambridgeshire, UK (CONUS post address)
User Info
(05-01-2015, 10:14 AM)jhawlz Wrote: I'm sure something has happened to spur this either by a bigger company complaining about lack of sales or some health issue has arose from a soap manufacturer. That's usually how legislation rolls.

How about Mr. D. Smythe lying about the ingredients listing on HTGAM and PPF soaps?  I'd say that was a pretty big reason.  Caused quite the scandal last year.

47 1,953
Reply
 05-01-2015, 11:07 AM
#13
User Info
Wow.  Seems like an over-reach to me.

The soaps pictured on the linked article look really nice; I'd rather use one of those than any of the mass-marketed garbage that's on the grocery store shelves, that's for sure. 

2 1,557
Reply
 05-01-2015, 11:31 AM
#14
User Info
Strangely there are only a few soap manufacturers, most companies outsource their manufacture...

0 280
Reply
 05-01-2015, 11:32 AM
#15
User Info
(05-01-2015, 10:42 AM)Mystic Water Wrote: I suspect that this legislation is being pushed by lobbyists for corporations, and not because there is a risk to the public on the part of handcrafted soapmakers.  

https://simpleunhookedliving.wordpress.c...ap-makers/

The link to the article is dead...

0 280
Reply
 05-01-2015, 11:51 AM
#16
  • Jovan
  • Banned
  • Traveling USA
User Info
When it comes to California, Large and small mean nothing.  As a small businessman I argued that a law was for employers that had 50 plus employees, I had three employees and the Judge simply said "one is the same as 50, an employee is an employee".  So I would expect this law to hit all the soap makers the same.  Hence I closed my business and looking to relocate to another State...This law would be sad and tough on all the small makers of soap, not just shaving soaps IMO.

2 479
Reply
 05-01-2015, 11:51 AM
#17
  • bullgoose
  • The Enabler
  • Redondo Beach, California, U.S.A
User Info
(05-01-2015, 10:14 AM)FreddieP318ti Wrote: Lol so pretty much all the companies and stock hol.... er... Govt officials are the ones in favor to crush the little man/woman so they don't risk losing money. Go figure. 

We are adults who can think for ourselves and chose what we want to use and know there maybe risks. They all need to just bugger off! 

About 5 years ago there was an artisan that supposedly produced a whole batch of soap with too much lye. Had you received one of these soaps, you may be singing a different tune. Tongue

A parallel situation concerns the health department and restaurant inspection. I for one am happy that there is oversight and I will not eat in a restaurant with less than an A rating.

46 18,639
Reply
 05-01-2015, 12:07 PM
#18
User Info
(05-01-2015, 11:32 AM)Sabre Wrote:
(05-01-2015, 10:42 AM)Mystic Water Wrote: I suspect that this legislation is being pushed by lobbyists for corporations, and not because there is a risk to the public on the part of handcrafted soapmakers.  

https://simpleunhookedliving.wordpress.c...ap-makers/

The link to the article is dead...

hmmmm...that's strange, it's working for me.  What I found interesting in it is a partial list of ingredients that Senator Feinstein cites as being harmful, which are not even used in the handmade industry, but only by the more mainstream corporate manufactures: "Methylene glycol, (an ingredient in a popular hair smoothing treatment known as the “Brazilian Blowout”) turns into formaldehyde when heated, and exposure has been reported to result in hair loss, rashes, blistered scalps, nosebleeds, bleeding gums, shortness of breath, vomiting and increased risk of cancer; Diazolidinyl Urea, which is used as a preservative in a wide range of products including deodorant, shampoo, conditioner, bubble bath and lotion; Lead acetate, used as a color additive in hair dyes"; and others.

"Feinstein does not propose to ban these dangerous ingredients from soaps and cosmetics, just regulate them with tests and warning labels, fees, and recall authority. She thinks some of these products, though harmful to health, magically become “safe when used by professionals in a salon or spa setting.”"

It continues:

"Feinstein says her proposal is a “streamlined national system of oversight” and it won’t cost the taxpayer anything because it’s funded by industry user fees (until they pass the extra cost to the consumer, that is). Big multinational soap makers may be able to manage the increased fees and paperwork called for by Senate Bill S.1014 but the the Handmade Cosmetic Alliance says they will cripple their cottage industries. They tried to explain this to Feinstein without success.


The senator assures the new law encourages public input with many opportunities built in for consumer groups, companies, medical professionals, scientists and the public to weigh in …but according to the Handmade Cosmetic Alliance, they’re already not listening.

The HCA had several meetings over many months with the sponsor of S. 1014 and presented information to support small business exemptions similar to those the 2011 Food Modernization Safety Act (FSMA). Sadly, a decision was made to use prescription drugs and medical device standards for small handmade cosmetic businesses.  This does not make sense.  "My products are soaps, lotions and scrubs made largely with food-grade ingredients found in any grocery store,” according to the letter provided by HCA, that natural soap makers can send to lawmakers."

0 281
Reply
 05-01-2015, 12:36 PM
#19
User Info
Considering who are the customers of Bradford Soap (who bought and closed Hewitt) and Twincraft, who actually does make soap?

0 280
Reply
 05-01-2015, 01:42 PM
#20
  • greyhawk
  • Senior Member
  • Southern California
User Info
These products do have the potential to cause harm--we use them on our skin and faces, and they can certainly get into our eyes and be ingested. Long-term exposure to some of these chemicals could be problematic.

If you read the actual bill--rather than just the biased comments about the bill on healthimpactnews.com and simpleunhookedliving--you will see that Feinstein does not cite any ingredients as being harmful. The bill calls for investigating ingredients to determine whether they are harmful. The investigation includes a 60-day public comment period. 

I see the websites above posting inflammatory statements that appear to be knee-jerk reactions because they haven't read them carefully, or because there is some other agenda, and people taking those statements as fact. Critical thinking is a good thing. Wink 

60 849
Reply
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)