Code of Conduct
Results 1 to 26 of 26
  1. #1

    Default Pending legislation in California

    There is pending legislation in California that will significantly impact the fragrance and cosmetics industry. Several firms based in California manufature ingredients used by perfume makers all over.

    To view the proposed law and to track its progress through the California State Senate, use this link:
    http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/po...ll_number=sb_4

    There is a sample letter you can use if you wish to oppose this legisaltion (or modify if you wish to support it) here: http://www.kintera.org/c.deIJLOOsGnF...acy/index.aspx

    This is a letter sent in opposition to the bill from FEMA and FMA:

    June 2005

    FEMA and FMA Oppose SB 484

    The Flavor & Extract Manufacturers Association (FEMA) and the Fragrance Materials Association (FMA) oppose California Senate Bill 484 and similar proposals that would unnecessarily restrict the flavors and fragrances used in cosmetic and personal care products, without providing any additional public health protections.

    Flavors and fragrances are safe. Existing regulations and practices ensure that the flavor and fragrance ingredients used in cosmetics and personal care products are safe.

    Requiring cosmetic ingredient disclosure to the California Department of Health Services (DHS) would provide no additional protection to the consumer, is not practical, and would jeopardize the confidentiality of highly proprietary and very valuable flavor and fragrance formulas protected by intellectual property laws worldwide.

    FEMA and FMA oppose SB 484 because:

    The Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic (FD&C) Act prohibits the distribution of cosmetics which are adulterated or misbranded. A cosmetic is considered adulterated if it contains a substance which may make the product harmful to consumers.

    By law, cosmetic product manufacturers have to substantiate the safety of their products. If the safety of a cosmetic is not adequately substantiated, FDA has the authority to take enforcement steps ranging from mandating a product recall, requiring warning labels, to putting the manufacturer in jail.

    The Research Institute for Fragrance Materials (RIFM), an independent, non-profit scientific organization - evaluates the safety of fragrance ingredients and sets safety standards for fragrance material use.

    Any flavors used in cosmetic products must be recognized as safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

    The manufacturers of flavors and fragrances, FEMA, FMA, and RIFM continuously evaluate flavor and fragrance materials based on the most current scientific data available.

    As a result of RIFM Expert Panel safety evaluations, the use of certain fragrance ingredients has been restricted or banned in the International Fragrance Association (IFRA) Standards.

    The data from an FDA reporting program that was in operation for about five years show that complaints about fragrance ingredients ran at less than one in a million, considerably lower than many other FDA regulated ingredients.

    For more information contact John Cox at 202-293-5800.

  2. #2

    Default Re: Pending legislation in California

    Oh dear God, only in California would this happen. [smiley=rolleyes.gif] *There are times when *living in this self-righteous, tree-hugging environment makes me want to hurl, especially when there are so many other more imperative issues to be recognized. *Un-frigging believable. *

    Thanks for the heads-up SoCal. *You can bet I responded to that one. *Somehow this smacks of Berkeley, but who knows where this preposterous bill originated. *Can't blame them for everything lolllll. *
    "Too much of a good thing is wonderful." -- Mae West

  3. #3
    Ladylonestar
    Guest

    Default Re: Pending legislation in California

    Thanks for the info, Socalwoman!

  4. #4

    Default Re: Pending legislation in California

    OH GOOD GOD! The world's gone MAD! I may have to be the next serial killer!

  5. #5
    MJH
    Guest

    Default Re: Pending legislation in California

    Quote Originally Posted by glorious1
    OH GOOD GOD! The world's gone MAD! I may have to be the next serial killer!
    [smiley=shocked.gif] [smiley=shocked.gif] [smiley=shocked.gif] Officer, I think you just need to follow that trail of Opium........ [smiley=evil.gif] [smiley=grin.gif]

  6. #6

    Default Re: Pending legislation in California

    Hi all,

    I got to tell ya...this is the kind of BS that convinced me to leave LOS ANGELES in 1994 after having lived in there (Studio City) for sixteen years! (but NOT before the NORTHRIDGE Earthquake!) geeeeze!

    Regards,
    SixCats!

  7. #7

    Default Re: Pending legislation in California

    Quote Originally Posted by SixCats
    * I got to tell ya...this is the kind of BS that convinced me to leave LOS ANGELES in 1994 after having lived in there (Studio City) for sixteen years!
    There are definitely a few more compelling issues here in Cali such as the rotten school system, unprotected borders, gas prices, smog, a decent public transit system (especially here in Silicon Valley), and the horrendous state debt. You'd think that they'd barnstorm the additives we ingest in our food first before condemning those in perfume and makeup. What a crock.

    Not all of us California ladies go around with unshaved legs sporting Birkenstocks and coke bottle glasses chanting "Ommmmmm" and/or smelling like last week's dirty laundry. I want to get outta Dodge, too, SixCats, but Mr. Fufu is a native Californian. Hopefully, he'll eventually come to reason and consider Arizona or Nevada.
    "Too much of a good thing is wonderful." -- Mae West

  8. #8

    Default Re: Pending legislation in California

    I think this is part of the California BS which is causing my Dad to move to Arizona in August. Even in liberal New Jersey we don't do dipshit stuff like this.
    K
    In rotation: Greenbriar (new), Silver Mountain Water, Dunhill for Men (1934), Acqua di Parma Colonia, Habit Rouge EDC, Ho Hang, B*Men, Agua Brava

  9. #9
    Explorator Dumpsterorum
    Ezhno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    338

    Default Re: Pending legislation in California

    Quote Originally Posted by FufuLaRue
    ......Somehow this smacks of Berkeley, but who knows where this preposterous bill originated. *Can't blame them for everything lolllll. *
    Um. Senator Migden would be the originating Phyllis Diller clone in question...

    Author:
    Carole Migden
    D-San Francisco
    Senate District 03 (Parts of San Francisco, Marin and Sonoma Counties)

    Co-Authors:
    Elaine Alquist
    D-San Jose
    Senate District 13 (The heart of Silicon Valley -- much of Santa Clara County including the cities of San Jose, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, Mountain View, and Gilroy)

    Deborah Ortiz
    D-Sacramento
    Senate District 06 (Close to Der GropenFuhrer's castle)
    Claim to fame: "And while her 2002 legislation to prevent the sale of soda in grade schools was initially met with antagonism......" [smiley=grin.gif]

    This trio seems to have some location, gender, and party similarities, don'tcha know?!

    And I don't wish to seem insensitive to our esteemed senators but dang -- they must have have gotten a bad batch of Lydia Pinkham's Vegetable Compound, or something to go off on a tear like this?! You could almost understand if the authors were stodgy old balding men that had to hire chauffeurs to drive their golf carts, but this?! This begs a resounding "Et tu, Brutessa???" from all women everywhere!

    O well, e-mail sent (...but I think resistance is futile.)

  10. #10

    Default Re: Pending legislation in California

    The California Assembly Health Committee approved SB 484 6/28. Vote was eight to five, eight votes was needed to clear the Committee. SB 484 now moves to the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

    As of right now, Assembly Appropriations Committee will have until August 26 to decide whether to send SB 484 on to the Assembly floor.




  11. #11

    Default Re: Pending legislation in California

    When all you people of good sense leave the state, it will implode from the weight of the regs...

  12. #12

    Default Re: Pending legislation in California

    Here is an article that discusses one of the ingredients targeted by the bill: http://tinyurl.com/d8878

  13. #13

    Default Re: Pending legislation in California

    Here is an article about the outcry from the cosmetics industry in regards to this bill: http://tinyurl.com/e379b

  14. #14
    Ladylonestar
    Guest

    Default Re: Pending legislation in California

    Quoting from the article:

    "Concerned consumers will descend upon cosmetics counters at department stores across the nation this week to demand that major manufacturers including Avon, Estee Lauder, L'Oreal and Procter & Gamble cease aggressive lobbying against cosmetic safety legislation and pledge to make safer products. Many personal care products contain chemical ingredients linked to birth defects, infertility, cancer and other health problems.

    "Events will take place in a dozen cities from coast to coast as part of a Campaign for Safe Cosmetics week of action. The Campaign is a coalition of health and environmental organizations. Actions will include storefront leafleting, talking with cosmetics counter staff and managers, gathering petition signatures and educating consumers and retailers about toxic chemicals in cosmetics and body care products."


    Hmm. I don't know. Sounds like harassment to me. [smiley=undecided.gif] I can see handing out leaflets in front of a store (maybe), but the rest of the "events" seem suspect to me.

  15. #15

    Default Re: Pending legislation in California

    A friend sent this article from the Sacremento Bee to me:
    'Ghost vote' spooks the Assembly
    Senator pushes button of absent GOP member, provoking outrage.
    By Jim Sanders -- Bee Capitol Bureau
    Published 2:15 am PDT Friday, September 2, 2005
    Nobody was surprised that state Sen. Carole Migden voted in favor of her own cosmetics bill. The problem was that she did it in the wrong legislative house.

    Toward the end of Wednesday's floor session, Migden, a San Francisco Democrat, pushed the voting button of a GOP assemblyman who was temporarily away from his desk.

    Her action violated Assembly rules and drew an angry response from Republicans.

    "That behavior cannot be tolerated," said Assembly Republican leader Kevin McCarthy of Bakersfield. "It's unheard of on this floor, it's against the rules, and it cannot be tolerated."

    Migden, chairwoman of the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee, declined to comment Thursday about her actions on the Assembly floor the previous day.

    "There's no story there," she said.

    Controversy erupted while Migden was lobbying for her Senate Bill 484, which would require manufacturers to inform the state about cancer-causing chemicals in cosmetics.

    Assembly Democratic and Republican leaders agree on the following chain of events: Migden was visiting the Assembly, seeking support for her bill, and she inappropriately pushed the electronic button of GOP Assemblyman Guy Houston.

    She later apologized for her actions, leaders of both parties said.

    Assemblyman Bob Huff, a Diamond Bar Republican who sits beside Houston, R-Livermore, said the incident occurred while votes were cast on SB 484 and the bill appeared to be one shy of passage.

    As the tally neared a close, threatening to kill her bill, Migden suddenly stepped up to Houston's vacant desk and voted yes, Huff said.

    Migden mentioned the name of Hector de la Torre, D-South Gate, and she apparently assumed the seat belonged to him, Huff said.

    After pushing Houston's button, which would have been the 41st vote needed for passage of SB 484, Migden called for the tally to end, saying, "Set the roll," Huff said.

    "I was shocked," Huff said. "I said, 'Wait you can't do that - that's Guy Houston's seat.' "

    Huff quickly erased Migden's vote before it became official.

    SB 484 thus failed on the first Assembly vote, but it passed by a bare-minimum 41 votes a short time later despite heavy opposition from Republicans.

    The bill now returns to the Senate for concurrence in amendments.

    Assembly Rule 104 prohibits any legislator from voting for any other Assembly member.

    The rule often is bent by colleagues of the same party who are desk mates and give each other permission to "ghost vote" on a particular bill if one or the other is indisposed.

    Migden's action was different: She came into a house where she does not serve and pushed the button of a legislator from an opposing party - to benefit her own bill.

    Huff said Migden carries a lot of weight in the Legislature because her committee can sidetrack major bills.

    "People give a lot of deference to Carole because she chairs a very powerful committee," he said. "Bills die in her committee, so the implied threat is, if you don't get along with her, then you're going to get bills tanked."

    Upon learning of Migden's rules violation, McCarthy said he complained to Assembly Speaker Fabian Nez, who quickly approached Migden, who then apologized to Houston.

    Assembly Majority Leader Dario Frommer, D-Los Angeles, characterized Migden's aborted vote as inappropriate but added, "I believe it was a mistake and hopefully it will not be repeated again."

    McCarthy said he plans to speak again with Nez about the possibility of additional actions to ensure enforcement of Assembly rules.

    "You've got to talk about whether the senator can be allowed on the floor again," he said. "You cannot have this type of activity going on."

  16. #16
    Explorator Dumpsterorum
    Ezhno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    338

    Default Re: Pending legislation in California

    God. I swear -- we sure come up with some lulu's in California?! Just when you think it can't get any more weird...

    Looks like Our Lady of the Corrupted Cosmetic will do just about anything short of dignity to pass that damn bill!

    The minute I read this follow-up post I had a horrible flashback to another lame Cali politician that ended up in the Senate!! Remember Mill Valley's own S.I. Hayakawa in the early 80's?? His term was quite undistinguished -- since he was also slipping into senility! After an episode where he fell asleep at his desk on the Senate floor, he became known by the unflattering nickname of "Sleeping Sam." (Understandably he wasn't re-elected.) [smiley=grin.gif]

    Can't you just imagine Migden would have been in there pressin' his buttons with both hands while he slept! [smiley=rolleyes.gif]

  17. #17

    Default Re: Pending legislation in California

    LOLLLLL Ezhno [smiley=laugh.gif] [smiley=laugh.gif]
    "Too much of a good thing is wonderful." -- Mae West

  18. #18

    Default Re: Pending legislation in California

    I'm a Minister....A Rev....you know what I mean.
    We live in an over sensitive Society. You talk about a bunch of Sissy's. We are raising a spineless weak sissyfied generation. We have become a bunch of worry warts. Man...the stuff makes me sick....I'm sick of the gov't trying to be my BIG MOMMY watching over me so I don't fall down and get a boo boo. Bleeding heart stinking liberals are going to destroy this nation.
    Get off my back and stay out of my life...That's what I say to Washington........Just Back Off.
    Gary

  19. #19
    Ladylonestar
    Guest

    Default Re: Pending legislation in California

    Reminder of Basenotes Rules:

    2. Posts which may be considered offensive are not permitted.

    11. You are strongly advised to avoid the discussion of politics and religion.


    This is clearly a heated issue and a sensitive subject for many of us. Let's discuss it but let's be mindful of the Rules, okay? [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

  20. #20

    Default Re: Pending legislation in California

    Quote Originally Posted by G.303
    I'm a Minister....A Rev....you know what I mean.
    We live in an over sensitive Society. You talk about a bunch of Sissy's. We are raising a spineless weak sissyfied generation. We have become a bunch of worry warts. Man...the stuff makes me sick....I'm sick of the gov't trying to be my BIG MOMMY watching over me so I don't fall down and get a boo boo. Bleeding heart stinking liberals are going to destroy this nation.
    Get off my back and stay out of my life...That's what I say to Washington........Just Back Off.
    Gary
    Rev. Gary, what exactly is a sissy? Please define!
    Lovesick the wind that carries it

  21. #21

    Default Re: Pending legislation in California

    I have written to my state representatives regarding this bill and also about my opinion about Sen Miglin's behaviour. I'd love to hear some positive, constructive comments about other methods to help improve the situation. There are so many smart people on this board. Does anyone have a creative idea?

  22. #22

    Default Re: Pending legislation in California

    So, I'm slightly confused. What does this legislation target? One of the news stories said it targets certain chemicals that may cause cancer. Is it that, or just certain chemicals that some people may be allergic to, or trigger an asthma attack? Maybe we do live in an overly sensitive society, but I think a lot of people would appreciate a label warning them that it causes cancer. I smoke the occasional cigarette, but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate knowing exactly what the risks involved are, you know?

  23. #23

    Default Re: Pending legislation in California

    You can read the bill in its entirety here:
    http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/s...ended_asm.html

  24. #24
    Ladylonestar
    Guest

    Default Re: Pending legislation in California

    Could someone point me to the section where the Senator defines "cosmetics" or "cosmetic products"? I've read the bill several times and scanned it several times as well and I do find definitions, but I can't seem to find where the Senator defines cosmetics or cosmetic products or incorporates existing definitions for purposes of the bill. Are we supposed to look to Chapter 7 of Part 5 of Division 104 of the Health and Safety Code relating to cosmetics? Or to the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act? Or Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations?

    I'm not at all clear on what constitutes cosmetics or cosmetic products. Are they hair products, skin care products, fragrances, makeup, nail products? All of them? I'm also not clear what she seeks to accomplish: protecting workers (cosmetologists and manicurists) in the work place who handle these cosmetics and cosmetic products or consumers who buy and wear the cosmetics and cosmetic products? Help, please. [smiley=undecided.gif]

  25. #25
    Explorator Dumpsterorum
    Ezhno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    338

    Default Re: Pending legislation in California

    Quote Originally Posted by Ladylonestar
    Could someone point me to the section where the Senator defines "cosmetics" or "cosmetic products"? I've read the bill several times and scanned it several times as well and I do find definitions, but I can't seem to find where the Senator defines cosmetics or cosmetic products or incorporates existing definitions for purposes of the bill. Are we supposed to look to Chapter 7 of Part 5 of Division 104 of the Health and Safety Code relating to cosmetics? Or to the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act? Or Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations?

    I'm not at all clear on what constitutes cosmetics or cosmetic products. Are they hair products, skin care products, fragrances, makeup, nail products? All of them? I'm also not clear what she seeks to accomplish: protecting workers (cosmetologists and manicurists) in the work place who handle these cosmetics and cosmetic products or consumers who buy and wear the cosmetics and cosmetic products? Help, please. [smiley=undecided.gif]
    I'm no help at all...

    The only verbiage I could find by way of defining "cosmetics" (for the purpose of this Bill) is "...any cosmetic product subject to regulation by the federal Food and Drug Administration that is sold in the state..."

    So then, if you segue to the FDA site -- they define cosmetics by quoting yet another source, the FD&C Act, Sec. 201 (i): "The term ''cosmetic'' means (1) articles intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or sprayed on, introduced into, or otherwise applied to the human body or any part thereof for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance, and (2) articles intended for use as a component of any such articles; except that such term shall not include soap." [smiley=undecided.gif]

    Sooooo, it sounds like "all of them?!"

    Oh, and what does she seek to accomplish?? I could give you my opinion. But it would be political. And that would be wrong. And you would have to ban me. [smiley=cry.gif]

    Anyway, the present location of the Bill is "Pending on the Governor's Desk" so hopefully Arnold won't be swayed by her months of lobbying his office on this one?! Ewg.org posted an article dated Sept. 2nd that said: "According to the governor's office, as of this afternoon Schwarzenegger had not taken a position on the bill. The governor now has some time until the end of September to either sign or veto the bill..."

    Guess I'll send him an e-mail.

  26. #26
    Ladylonestar
    Guest

    Default Re: Pending legislation in California

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezhno
    The only verbiage I could find by way of defining "cosmetics" (for the purpose of this Bill) is "...any cosmetic product subject to regulation by the federal Food and Drug Administration that is sold in the state..."

    So then, if you segue to the FDA site -- they define cosmetics by quoting yet another source, the FD&C Act, Sec. 201 (i): "The term ''cosmetic'' means (1) articles intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or sprayed on, introduced into, or otherwise applied to the human body or any part thereof for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance, and (2) articles intended for use as a component of any such articles; except that such term shall not include soap." *[smiley=undecided.gif]

    Sooooo, it sounds like "all of them?!"
    Yep, sounds like all of them (except soap, of course). Thanks for the research, Ezhno! [smiley=thumbsup.gif] Well, I wonder how many members of congress are familiar with that definition or how many actually took the time to look into it. I would hope all of them, of course, but... you never know.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezhno
    Oh, and what does she seek to accomplish?? * I could give you my opinion. *But it would be political. *And that would be wrong. *And you would have to ban me. * [smiley=cry.gif]
    Ban you? Never! [smiley=wink.gif] And thank you for respecting Basenotes rules. I don't live in California, as you know, but I don't like this broad, bold, aggressive, ambitious bill either and I especially don't like the unethical behavior of Senator Migden. I want to pay close attention to this because if it passes in California then the issue could be next up in any of our states here in the US (maybe it already is?). For all I know, there may be a similar bill here in Texas, and I should look into that.

    But the reason I asked what she hopes to accomplish is because the bill is so broad and there's the inclusion of OSHA as well. Does she simply seek warning labels or what?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezhno
    Anyway, the present location of the Bill is "Pending on the Governor's Desk" so hopefully Arnold won't be swayed by her months of lobbying his office on this one?! * Ewg.org posted an article dated Sept. 2nd that said: "According to the governor's office, as of this afternoon Schwarzenegger had not taken a position on the bill. *The governor now has some time until the end of September to either sign or veto the bill..."

    Guess I'll send him an e-mail.
    I think that's a GREAT idea!

Similar Threads

  1. California North
    By scentophile in forum Male Fragrance Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 18th January 2006, 10:43 PM
  2. Pending Legislation in California
    By dcampen in forum Male Fragrance Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 29th June 2005, 12:46 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  



Loving perfume on the Internet since 2000