Suit accuses cosmetic makers of organic ruse

Ilana DeBare, Chronicle Staff Writer-Tuesday, April 29, 2008

A long-simmering dispute over the definition of organic personal care products boiled over into court Monday, when Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps filed a lawsuit charging many of its competitors with deceptively marketing their soaps and lotions.

The lawsuit - filed in San Francisco Superior Court - targeted many widely known cosmetic manufacturers including Estee Lauder, Kiss My Face, Hain Celestial and Stella McCartney America. It also named smaller firms such as Mill Valley-based Juice Beauty.

In the suit, Dr. Bronner's accused the firms of false advertising by labeling products "organic" that contain relatively little organic material, that contain synthetic chemicals, or that use petrochemicals in processing.

"This is the corrosive marketing of the cosmetics industry that hollowed out the meaning of 'natural' and now is doing the same with 'organic'," said David Bronner, president of the 60-year-old company.

The lawsuit is evidence of the growing clout of green consumers, particularly in the arena of personal care products. Sales of natural body care products grew from $499 million in 2004 to $685 million in 2006 - an increase of 37 percent, according to the consumer products research firm Mintel.

Chasing consumers

Both large and small companies have been wooing eco-minded consumers, with big corporations including Estee Lauder acquiring brands such as Aveda that market themselves as natural or organic.

At the same time, though, there are no federal regulations governing either natural or organic personal care products.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture sets strict standards for organic food. But it doesn't have a similar standard for soaps, shampoos and cosmetics.

Some firms like Dr. Bronner's have voluntarily adopted the USDA's organic food standard for their body care products, which requires that 95 percent of the ingredients be organic if a product is to call itself organic.

Some other firms like Juice Beauty adhere to California's standard for organic body care products, which is less demanding than the USDA food standard.

And still other firms simply label their body care products organic without trying to meet any external guidelines.

Voluntary standards

"Companies are all over the board with what the word organic means," said Stacy Malkan, the Berkeley author of "Not Just a Pretty Face: The Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry."

For several years, cosmetic companies and consumer groups have started trying to sort things out by coming up with voluntary standards.

But they haven't managed to reach a consensus. A nonprofit standard-setting group called NSF International released draft rules for organic personal care products in January. Then in March, 30 cosmetic companies, including Estee Lauder's Aveda, came out with their own set of rules called Organic and Sustainability Industry Standards (OASIS).

"This particular industry seems incapable of coming to any agreement about it," said Ann Blake, an environmental consultant in Alameda.

In Monday's lawsuit, Dr. Bronner's accused OASIS as well as 10 individual companies of misleading consumers by watering down the term organic.

Who decides what's organic?

Among the issues raised in the suit are whether organic personal care products must contain a certain percentage of organic ingredients, whether they may contain petrochemicals and whether they may contain synthetic preservatives.

An OASIS spokeswoman declined to comment on the lawsuit because she hadn't yet seen it, but denied trying to mislead anyone.

Meanwhile, some companies questioned Dr. Bronner's right to define organic.

"We meet the standards of the California Organic Products Act, which is the only regulation in place for organic skin care," said Karen Behnke of Juice Beauty. "The last we know, Bronner was not appointed by any government agency to set a standard. I'm not sure why we would have to follow a standard set by him."

For now, it's unclear how or when a clear definition of organic body care products will emerge for consumers to rely upon.

It's possible that a new administration in Washington might take a more active role in setting organic standards. Or one of the competing industry efforts at standard-setting may win out.

Or - with the Dr. Bronner's lawsuit - the courts may end up deciding what constitutes an organic soap or skin lotion.

"The question that needs to be answered," said Malkan, "is, 'How organic is "organic" going to be?' It will be interesting to see how this plays out."

For more information

To read a copy of Dr. Bronner's lawsuit over organic labeling of personal care products, see links.sfgate.com/ZDEV.

For information on OASIS, a new organic standard for personal care products that is criticized in the lawsuit, see links.sfgate.com/ZDEW.

Another proposed standard for organic body care products, by NSF International, is at links.sfgate.com/ZDEX.

The Organic Consumers Association has a list of personal care product companies that meet the U.S. Department of Agriculture's existing organic standards for food at links.sfgate.com/ZDEY.

Source: Chronicle research

E-mail Ilana DeBare at idebare@sfchronicle.com

There's a place where companies can sell products even if they contain ingredients proven to be related to breast cancer...its called the beauty aisle.

Monday, November 6, 2006
Putting on your face could cause ugly health problems
Chemicals in cosmetics linked to cancer, birth defects
By LISA STIFFLER

When Tracey Naly shops for beauty products, she reads the label to make sure it doesn't contain alcohol because it dries her skin.
Naly's friend, Katie Fordham, admits that she doesn't really check the ingredients in her makeup, perfumes and shampoos at all.
If it's a reputable brand, "I trust the company," said Fordham, as the two toted bags from their shopping trip in downtown Seattle.
That trust could be misplaced.
Scientists say that some of the chemicals found in commonly used health and beauty products can, in sufficient quantity, cause cancer, birth defects or disrupt hormone function. Ingredients called dibutyl phthalates -- a chemical used to soften plastics and found in nail polish and countless other consumer items -- have been linked to development problems in the male genitals of humans and rats.
"The government is supposed to protect the people from these sorts of things," said Jimm Harrison, co-owner of Spirit of Beauty Nutritional Skin Care, a Bellevue-based company that strives to make safer, environmentally friendly products.

"Women for the most part thought that someone was minding the store in terms of the ingredients in cosmetics," said Janet Nudelman, a policy director at the non-profit Breast Cancer Fund in San Francisco. That's not happening, she said.

"The cosmetics industry in the United States regulates itself," Nudelman said. "That's not the case in other countries."
The Food and Drug Administration is responsible for overseeing the safety of cosmetics, soaps, deodorants, shampoos, fragrances and other personal-care products.

Unlike the medicines regulated by the agency, these items aren't reviewed by the FDA before they're sold to consumers. If a product causes health problems once it's on the market, the FDA can ask for safety information from the manufacturer to prove it's OK.

Industry officials say the system works well and that there's no cause for alarm.
"The proof is in the marketplace," said John Bailey, former director of the FDA's Office of Cosmetics and Colors. "FDA gets very few consumer complaints about cosmetic products."
Manufacturers must make sure the chemicals are safe, and if the products are used as instructed, they should not cause ill effects -- even after years of use, said Bailey, now the vice president of science with the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association, a national trade group.
Not everyone is convinced.
A forum is being held in Seattle tonight to discuss the risks posed by these products and to educate the public about their exposure to these chemicals. The first meeting was held Sunday in Bellevue, and another is in Tacoma on Wednesday. By late last week, more than 300 people had signed up to attend the forums.
The free events are being hosted by the Toxic-Free Legacy Coalition, an alliance of advocacy groups, along with multiple health, environment and community non-profit organizations and the Puget Sound Action Team, a state agency overseeing the protection of the Sound.
People are exposed to the chemicals when they are absorbed by the skin, inhaled as fumes or ingested, when applied as lipstick, for example. Environmentalists also worry about the ingredients getting swept up in the food chain as the chemicals are released with the millions of gallons of treated sewage waste that empties into rivers and Puget Sound each day.
"The amount of absorption of cosmetics either through the skin or ingested from lipsticks is small, and thus the laws as written have been sufficient to ensure safety," said Linda Katz, director of the FDA's Office of Cosmetics and Colors, in an e-mail. "If a safety issue arises, FDA does have the ability through enforcement to ensure that unsafe products are removed from the market."
Agency spokeswoman Veronica Castro said no one was available to speak in person for this story.
Consumers are advised to read ingredient lists and shop carefully.
"The product choices they make impact their health and the environment," said Margaret Shield of the Toxic-Free Legacy Coalition.
But the labels on shampoo bottles and eye shadow can be tough to decode. Shoppers more interested in whether an item will give their hair bounce or extra shine can be stymied by dozens of tongue-twisting ingredients.
And seemingly more-straightforward labels calling items are "natural," "organic" or "hypoallergenic" can be misleading. That's because the FDA hasn't established official definitions for these terms.
"So companies can use them on cosmetic labels to mean anything or nothing at all," according to the FDA's Web site.
Critics note that consumers use dozens of personal-care products daily and argue that potentially hazardous chemicals shouldn't be used in the first place. The European Union has banned more than 1,000 ingredients considered unsafe for use in cosmetics. The FDA has banned nine.
Some big-name nail polish companies recently agreed to phase out the dibutyl phthalates. The chemical has been banned from use in personal-care products sold in the EU, but it is legal here.
Bailey said the nail polishes are safe: "In the (United States), the use of phthalates was well below any level of concern. The phasing out is a marketing decision, not a safety decision."
There also are concerns about the increased use of nanotechnology -- compounds thousands of times smaller than the width of a human hair. Because of their size, there's potential for these nano-sized ingredients to penetrate human cells and tissues. The technology is already being used in anti-aging creams and sunscreens -- but the labels don't have to specify its use.
In the absence of stricter regulations, California lawmakers adopted the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2005. It requires cosmetic manufacturers to give the state a list of ingredients in their products that can cause cancer or reproductive harm. Washington has a program for reducing exposure to select hazardous chemicals, but nothing specific to safeguards for cosmetics.
Nudelman is leading the national Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, which drafted a pledge that more than 450 companies have signed onto vowing not to use chemicals that can cause cancer, birth defects or mutations.
"You have to learn to trust the manufacturer that you're buying from," said Harrison, owner of Spirit of Beauty. "It's difficult," he said. "The consumer is really up for a challenge."

MORE INFORMATION

Chemicals to avoid
Dibutyl phthalate
Risks: Prohibited for use in cosmetics in the EU; possible human reproductive or developmental toxin; endocrine disruptor
Found in: Nail polish
DEA (diethanolamine) and TEA (triethanolamine)
Risks: Can form carcinogens, cause skin irritation
Found in: All varieties of personal care products
Toluene
Risks: Possible human reproductive or developmental toxin
Found in: Nail polish
Acrylamide
Risks: Possible human carcinogen; restricted in EU cosmetics
Found in: Moisturizers, conditioners, skin masks
BHA (also called butylhydroxy anisole, BHA/BHT, butylhydroxyanisol)
Risks: Possible human carcinogen; endocrine disruptor
Found in: Various types of makeup, moisturizer, conditioner, etc.
Formaldehyde
Risks: Known human carcinogen
Found in: Nail polish
Parabens (methyl, butyl or propyl)
Risks: Still being determined; possible allergen, possible endocrine disrupter
Found in: All varieties of personal care products
Safer products
Some of the companies pledging to eliminate chemicals that can cause cancer, mutations or birth defects: The Body Shop, Burt's Bees, Kiss My Face, Aubrey Organics, Avalon Natural Products
Exposure
People are exposed to the chemicals by: absorbing them through their skin, ingesting them, inhaling fumes, and releasing them into the environment where they become part of the food chain.
Web resources
· How safe are your favorite products?
· Companies pledging to use safer chemicals
· FDA on cosmetics
Want to go?
These free forums, sponsored by advocacy groups, will discuss harmful ingredients in beauty and hygiene products and safer alternatives.
· Seattle: Monday, 6-9 p.m., Glaser Auditorium, Swedish Medical Center, 747 Broadway
· Tacoma: Wednesday, 6-9 p.m., Scandinavian Cultural Center, 122nd and South Park Aves., Pacific Lutheran University
More information: toxicfreelegacy.org
Sources: The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, Skin Deep/Environmental Working Group, Jimm Harrison

P-I reporter Lisa Stiffler can be reached at 206-448-8042 or lisastiffler@seattlepi.com.