Organic Labels on Body Care Products Are Defrauding Consumers

ORGANIC BEAUTY IS ONLY SKIN DEEP

PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS DO NOT YET COMPLY WITH THE NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM

BY LACEY PHILLABAUM
Reprinted with permission from In Good Tilth, a publication of Oregon Tilth
http://www.tilth.org

Hotlinks in the article:

Conventional Beauty in America
Lifestyle or Method?
Down at the Chemical Lab
Cosmetic Regulatory Failings
Health Claims
Doesn't the NOP Already Take Care of This?
Draft Standards
Organic Water
Non Food Materials
"Preserving" the Environment
Tap Reviews

While most organic producers may see beauty care as marginally related to
their organic endeavors, the expansion of organic standards to cover the
sector will have profound conceptual and regulatory implications for the
whole organic industry.

Beauty care products are notoriously under-regulated. Any number of
dangerous chemical and synthetic additives are used in their processing. The
National Organic Program (NOP) has been vague about when and whether organic
personal care products will be held to the same standards as organic foods.
In the meantime, body care manufactures have seized on the label "organic"
as a marketing scheme, sometimes heralding a negligible amount of organic
ingredients while their bottles are filled with the same synthetic
chemicals.

Unwitting consumers pay premium prices for "organic" products under the
misconception that they are materially different than the non-organic
products on the shelf. New chemical scares and unverified claims about the
health benefits of organic personal care products will continue to drive
phenomenal sales growth.

Body care manufacturers have set out to develop their own standards for
organic processing. Many insist that their products simply cannot be made in
a manner compliant with existing organic standards and want to list hundreds
of synthetic processing ingredients as allowable for organic personal care.
Their draft standards have tended towards leniency in many regards.

Ultimately, the search for organic personal care standards may force the
organic industry to define its outer bounds. If organic is a concept
indicative of a lifestyle, organic personal care might be an important
element. But if organic is a strict agricultural standard, large commercial
processing of organic personal care products may not even be possible.

For now, organic personal care products making fraudulent claims, using
toxic ingredients and, at the very least, misleadingly labeled will continue
to crowd the shelves of natural food stores.

Conventional Beauty in America

The larger cosmetic industry increasingly looks to the organic niche as the
newest in a long series of "innovations" that drive the market, constantly
repackaging "hope in a bottle." North Americans spend $154 per year per
capita on cosmetics. The personal care industry in the US is about a $30
billion a year business. Of the $6.25 billion spent on cosmetics alone in
this country in 2000, $190 million was for natural and organic products.

The industry's hopes for eternal youth are validated by stunning 39 percent
growth in the natural and organic cosmetic sector annually. In one survey
conducted by Health, 83 percent of responding consumers indicated that they
would rather use all natural body products, though more than half could not
define "natural" or "organic."

The myth of beauty and veil of glamour shrouding the sophisticated world of
international cosmetics is the stuff of teenage pulp romance, underlain by a
global empire of Oz-like proportions, in legend. Liliane Bettencourt, the
daughter of L'Oreal founder Eugene Schueller, is the richest person in
Europe, with a fortune of $20 billion. But many cosmetic companies have
fallen prey to the global recession this past year. Estee Lauder posted a 22
percent drop in net profits in the first fiscal quarter of 2001, with its
stock value 34 percent lower for the year. Revlon has suffered nine straight
quarters of losses, and its stock is half of what it was a year ago. While
these giant cosmetic brands may seem a far cry from natural and organic
personal care products, they increasingly look to "organic" as a new
marketing concept. Global giant Unilever launched its own organic shampoo in
2000 to much hue and cry. Twenty-year industry leader Aveda was bought by
Estee Lauder in 1998.

Cosmetic houses feed on innovations; without them, the market stalls. The
industry has no place to go but up. The demand for their products must be
constantly remanufactured through "innovation." "One of the dilemmas facing
the industry at the moment is that penetration of many product sectors is
extremely high, leaving little scope for attracting new users," explains
trade journal Soap, Perfumery and Cosmetics. "Brand loyalty is extremely
strong for cosmetics and toiletries and new product development is the key
to keeping customers sweet." The journal quotes the PR manager for European
manufacturer, Mintel, asking, "How can we increase usage among European
consumers? Do we change consumer perception or make the product more
exciting so that they use more?" One database service for cosmetics logs 300
new products a day. "With penetration levels for many categories reaching an
all-time high, companies need to explore different ways of attracting new
users," says Soap, Perfumery and Cosmetics.

Many international manufacturers would very much like to subsume organic
within the category of natural. They may not even realize they are
different. "The natural trend now encompasses organic, food and aqua
ingredients," writes Soap, Perfumery and Cosmetics. A study of the natural
trend by business consultants Article 13 "revealed a new context for natural
based on consumers' increasing awareness of healthy eating, keeping fit,
looking after oneself and the benefits of 'me time.'" "Natural is a very
rich theme, but it is changing very quickly," said Jane Fiona Cumming of
Article 13.

The development of the "aqua" trend in cosmetics highlights the approach to
conceptual marketing that the myth-making cosmetic industry would like to
apply to organics. "Aqua is associated with moisture or moisturizing, and is
not always restricted to cosmetics and toiletries," said Mintel's David
Jago. The "aqua" product need only conjure hydrating images, not fulfill the
association with hydration.

Lifestyle or Method?

But organic is neither concept, theme, nor marketing ploy. It is, first and
foremost, an agricultural method. Unchecked, the proliferation of the
organic beauty market could redefine organic into the language of body care,
overwhelming organic agricultural products through sheer number of SKUs and
revenue size. With just $26 billion in global organic sales projected for
this year, the entire trade is dwarfed by the $30 billion US cosmetics
market. In fact the entire US organic market is just larger than the
wholesale market for cosmetic chemicals in the US, which themselves are just
one small part of product formulations.

While organic advocates have lamented the shift from community to industry,
a more important dialectic between lifestyle choice and agricultural method
has been neglected. The tension on the line between the community and the
industry has slipped unawares through the grasp of organic farmers and their
advocates. Organic personal care manufacturing will benefit four big
cosmetic chemical manufacturers unless rigorous processing standards are
developed and enforced. Only by tying organic beauty care closely to the
National Organic Program standards can the "lifestyle" marketed by the
manufacturers represent the values at the core of organic agriculture.

Down at the Chemical Lab

The growth of the natural body care industry has not slowed the market for
chemical additives for such products. In fact, the chemical companies expect
to profit from the trend. "The incorporation of active ingredients, such as
plant acids and enzymes, into toiletries and cosmetics has become a major
force behind growth in an otherwise mature industry," according to a
chemical industry analyst from the Freedonia Group. "These chemicals are
sold primarily on the basis of performance rather than price, with demand
driven by their substantial marketing value."

Dow Chemical is one of four big cosmetic chemical suppliers which
cumulatively claim more than 25 percent of US cosmetic and toiletry chemical
sales. They expect a five percent growth in sales to $5.6 billion this year..
Another of the large chemical suppliers, Cognis, recently introduced plant
extracts of three different purity levels for use in cosmetics. "We have
observed increased demand for these natural products in the cosmetics
market," a company spokeswoman said. The additional price premium to be
gained by using certified organic crops for the extracts has not gone
unnoticed. Even more profitably, these companies are eager to patent
technology to solve the processing dilemmas of organic products.

Numbers quantifying the potential ingredient market for organic growers are
harder to come by. Chemical Market Reporter noted the growth of the market
for botanical extracts: "Botanical extracts, including herbals that double
as food additives or nutritional supplements, are harvesting some of the
fastest sales gains among cosmetic chemical products." "We have observed
increased demand for these natural products in the cosmetics market," says
Ute Griesback, leader of the botanicals project at Cognis's care chemicals
business. "Green tea, aloe vera, chamomile and red clover are the front
runners in this area."

Body care manufacturers confirm that their use of organic ingredients has
increased dramatically in recent years. Mark Egide says three years ago his
company, Avalon, was buying "less than $10,000 in certified organic. In
2002, we will spend a million dollars on certified organic ingredients." He
sees that the demand for ingredients has helped build a market for organic
botanicals and ultimately made the organic body care ideal more accessible.
"Some of the key ingredients have come down in price significantly as our
volumes have gone up dramatically. Our increase in price has taken care of
itself somewhat."

Cosmetic Regulatory Failings

Teenage folklore holds that nail polish is sold in diminutive bottles
because the stuff is so toxic it wouldn't be legal in a bigger one, not
because nails are small. The folklore is right. The composition of many
personal care products includes toxic, carcinogenic and endocrine-disrupting
materials. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) classifies cosmetics into
13 categories, but it does not regulate them. According to the FDA, "A
cosmetic manufacturer may use any ingredient or raw material and market the
final product without government approval." Seven toxins are banned, but
many more known toxins and carcinogens are allowed in cosmetic formulations..
Less than one percent of the FDA's budget is for skin care.

Some body care products, like antiperspirants and deodorants, are actually
classified as over-the-counter drugs, not cosmetics, because they affect the
function of the body. The health implications of body care products are
numerous but, "The cosmetics industry is self regulated," says Gay Timmons,
an organic inspector and broker. "As long as you don't kill anybody, you can
formulate and produce a product."

A 1994 article in Science cites "reports on the discovery of toxic face
powder in a 3,000-year-old tomb in a Mycenean cemetery in Greece as proof
that lead has been eroding European women's skin for at least the same
period of time." Toxic makeup is nothing new, and at this rate, organic
makeup doesn't look likely to be the end of it, as the same dangerous
chemicals are allowed in organic personal care products. But recent cosmetic
safety scares could be used to market organic personal care as a safer
alternative.

The approximately six pounds of skin each human carries around is a porous
membrane one-twentieth of an inch thick, through which numerous
environmental toxins enter the body. Skin is a "more significant gateway for
toxins into your body than what you eat," says organic personal care product
manufacturer Diana Kaye of TerrEssentials. Traces of 700 different chemicals
can be found in the body. Positive Health cites a study showing 500
chemicals present in a single fat cell of a healthy 30-year-old British
female.

The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) found that
884 chemicals used in personal care products and cosmetics are known to be
toxic. A Canadian study in Pediatric Drugs cites cosmetic and personal care
products as the most common cause of unintentional poisonings of kids under
six.

In July, three consumer protection groups released independent test results
showing 52 of 72 consumer products like hair spray, perfume, nail polish,
food wrap and medical supplies contained a dangerous class of
endocrine-disrupting industrial solvents, called phthalates.

Pthalates are a softener mostly found in products like fragrances and nail
polish and not in organic personal care products. But the media attention to
phthalates prompted worried consumers to look for something safer. Other
toxic chemicals are being used in organic personal care. One of the most
common and notorious cosmetic toxins is sodium laurel sulfate. It has not
been reviewed for organic processing yet may be in organically labeled body
care products.

Another toxin used in organic personal care is methyl paraben. The majority
of skin lotions and creams use methyl paraben as a preservative. In the
past, worries over methyl paraben have centered on its low systemic
toxicity, which can cause allergic reactions. Now methyl-, ethyl-, propyl-
and butylparaben have been found to be weakly estrogenic. The European Union
has asked the European industry trade group about the implications for
breast cancer. While parabens are not potent estrogens, continuous topical
exposure may pose a danger. In fact, because the liver metabolizes most
ingested paraben, an article by Dr. Elizabeth Smith suggests you'd be better
off drinking the stuff than regularly slathering it on your skin.

Health Claims

None of this stops consumers from looking to organic personal care products
as a sop for worries about cosmetic materials. Numerous health claims are
already being made on behalf of these products.

"Why poison your skin when you can use natural remedies free from toxic
chemicals" asks Hilary Magazine, a web-based publication with some discrete
and some not-so-discrete product endorsements peppered throughout. "Would
you jeopardize your safety and the safety of your loved ones to save a mere
couple of dollars by purchasing generic personal care products at a local
drugstore? I hope not. I support and believe in all natural, organic
personal care products (90-day money back guarantee). Discover for
yourself!"

It is widely accepted in the industry that consumers buy organic beauty
products under the illusion that the products are held to organic food
standards. Despite this awareness, the word organic is used on the labels of
products that do include toxic processing materials and which do not comply
with the NOP.

"Customers may not realize that the organic label claims on nonfood
products doesn't necessarily represent the same standards as they do on
foods," acknowledged the organic trade publication Natural Food Merchandiser
in March.

"Nowhere do the terms 'natural' and 'organic' take more of a bruising than
in the cosmetic industry," according to New Vegetarian and Natural Health.
"Most cosmetics companies utilizing the term 'organic' on their label are
using the chemistry definition of organic-meaning a compound that contains
carbon... By using this definition they could say that a toxic petrochemical
preservative called methyl paraben is 'organic' because it was formed by
leaves that rotted over thousands of years to become oil."

"Right now, it's really a free for all," says Kerin Franklin of Frontier
Natural Brand, the manufacturer of the Aura Cacia line of personal care
products.

But most organic advocates are hesitant to call a spade a spade. The network
of certifiers, ingredient reviewers and consultants who monitor the
marketplace on behalf of organic farmers and producers, after all, have a
monetary interest in courting, not castigating, potential organic
manufacturers. English organic certifier, the Soil Association, refers
delicately to "a marketplace currently saturated with unverified claims" and
many products with "unsubstantiated or questionable organic claims."

"There is a great deal of abuse in the supplement and personal care industry
right now," says Gay Timmons, "well, not a great deal, but some. I think it
is a problem for growers if the word organic doesn't maintain its meaning."

"No one wants to stand up to these folks," agrees Brian Baker, a materials
reviewer for the Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI). (OMRI does not
have a policy on personal care products.) "Their products are full of
synthetic ingredients that are prohibited. Cosmetics are not subject to the
same scrutiny as food products."

Doesn't the NOP Already Take Care of This?

No one seems more confused about whether the National Organic Program
regulates these products, or at least their organic claims, than the NOP.

Language in the preamble to the 1990 Organic Food Production Act, the NOP's
authorizing legislation, says it is superceded by the Food, Drugs and
Cosmetics Act, the authorizing legislation of the FDA. Until May of this
year, both the organic and personal care industries assumed the NOP would
not effect the products. But on May 5, the NOP released a statement that
appears to claim these products fall under its scope. Since then, an
industry driven lobbying campaign has pressured the NOP to back off. While
no new public statement has been released by the NOP, the industry itself
feels confident that it will not fall under the purview of the National
Organic Program or be held accountable to the labeling laws come this
October. Fortunately, a few manufacturers are working to bring their labels
into compliance and a handful are releasing formulations meeting the
materials requirements of the NOP.

"We here in the Department of Agriculture deal with food and other products..
Personal care products, I would suggest that you check with the FDA,"
remarks NOP public affairs specialist George Chartier confidently. "I was
talking to people higher up in the USDA just the other day and they were
confirming that those products would not be covered."

Questioned about the NOP's May 5 statement, Chartier seems less sure, "I am
almost certain that we are not involved with personal care. Let me just
triple check... I'll call you back." The NOP statement reads, in part, "The
regulations under the NOP apply to the following products, classes of
products and production systems:... cosmetics, body care products..."

"I have researched the question of personal care products and the NOP and
this is how it was explained to me," Chartier continues. "[The NOP] is not
seeking at this time to focus the organic program on cosmetics. The
Department of Agriculture focuses its energy on agricultural products. If a
company wants to have the word 'organic' on its packaging it needs to find a
certifying agent that is willing to work with the company."

Chartier seemed unaware that many such uncertified products making organic
claims already exist.

Despite the NOP's confusion, the personal care sector believes it has
exempted itself from the NOP final rule via the fiat power of its trade
group-the personal care task force of the Organic Trade Association (OTA).
Some manufacturers even seem unaware that there is a difference between the
regulatory body overseeing organics and the OTA.

"I don't think anyone is going to change the labels until there is an actual
rule," says Avalon's CEO Mark Egide. "The October 21 statement only applies
to food. I don't believe the initial statement that they wanted compliance
will apply. The OTA has asked for an 18-month extension of that timeline...
There is no enforceable rule or regulation at this time for non-food
products."

"Our expectation is that you will continue to see labels of all different
kinds on the shelf for awhile," says OTA task force head Phil Margolis.

Some small companies like Australian manufacturer Organike have already
changed their labels. But chief financial officer Joe Borkovic acknowledges,
"I don't know any manufacturers who are seriously addressing the problems
with complying and labeling. We really haven't seen a movement in that
direction. Either we have underestimated the actuality of it being
implemented or no one is worried."

Draft Standards

Behind the scenes the personal care task force has attempted to heavily
influence NOP policy regarding personal care products. The task force has
already drafted its own personal care standards that it would very much like
to see used as the basis of the NOP's. While the task force is composed of a
wide variety of experts from all sizes of industry and private certifiers,
its track record is mixed and the draft standards have tended to err on the
side of industrial ease over organic integrity. If not monitored carefully
by farmers and consumers, the task force may become a force forestalling
stronger regulation.

Existing NOP regulations for organic foods establish four categories of
organic claims. The least significant category, products that use less than
70 percent organic ingredients, cannot make organic claims on the primary
display panel. The personal care task force first tried to dilute these
categories for organic personal care products by lowering the threshold for
"made with organic" to 50 percent. It has since given up the effort, but a
number of member manufacturers continue to label products with less than 70
percent organic ingredients as "made with organic."

Organic Water

The task force also considered the proposition that water should be included
in the calculation of organic ingredient percentages for personal care
products. Some manufacturers argued that a water infusion of certified
organic ingredients was a single ingredient and must be weighed and
calculated as one. This position is cheerfully acknowledged as ridiculous
now, and English organic certifier, the Soil Association, has since required
that certified components of all water-based ingredients be measured
separately. The draft task force standards, however, still recommend that
hydrosols with a small percentage of certified extracts be factored at their
weight with water.

"The task force had recommended for the purpose of calculating the
percentage of organic ingredients, a hydrosol is considered a single
ingredient. Also the task force determined that water infusions cannot be
counted as a single ingredient," says task force head Phil Margolis.

Coincidentally, Donna Bayliss, founder of the task force, manufactures all
of the lavender hydrosols that are at the foundation of many Avalon Organic
Botanicals "made with organic" products. Avalon Organic Botanicals web page
claims the task force "standards specifically address the issue of 'blends'
and 'infusions,' which are simply organic ingredients (typically herbs)
blended in added water." Though hydrosols are also water-based dilutions,
Avalon's organic products include "certified lavender hydrosol" in their
calculation of ingredient percentages.

"We guarantee that the certified organic percentage on all our product
labels is measured strictly with undiluted ingredients, and does not include
water, water-herbal blends, or aqua herbal infusions. We use only 100
percent certified organic ingredients, including our certified organic
lavender hyrosol, aloe vera, plant oils, herbal extracts." While the task
force and Avalon may be holding to a fine distinction between a hydrosol and
a water-based ingredient, the exclusion of water is carefully laid out in
the NOP's labeling guidelines. Any personal care product companies that do
include water in their calculations of organic ingredients in products
entering the stream of US commerce after October 21 will be flouting the
labeling guidelines of the National Organic Program.

Non Food Materials

Some organic personal care manufacturers argue that their products cannot be
held to the NOP standards because it is not possible to make the products
with only the ingredients allowed for food processing.

Organic consultant Peter Murray suggested that non food ingredients would
need to be allowed for personal care products, saying a materials list of
"all the ingredients that make things like shampoo and soap functional,
preservatives, carriers, solvents and things of that nature" should be
created. "Shampoo is not much good if it doesn't wash the hair, you can't
just do that with water and detergent and herbs." In particular, Murray
cited ingredients "that provide functionality" like "soil removal with
surfactants" as necessary. The most common surfactant in shampoo is sodium
lauryl sulfate.

Murray says FDA regulations require certain functional ingredients like
preservatives. To his way of thinking, the law requires the use of
chemicals. "Just like in food, you can't violate an additional regulation
just to be organic."

OTA's Tom Hutcheson made it clear that the trade group would lean towards
lenience in its proposed personal care product standards, suggesting to
Natural Foods Merchandiser that, "The biggest hurdle for the organic
personal care niche will be to convince the overall organic industry that
the synthetics it uses in processing products are as necessary as the
allowable synthetics in food."

Preservatives are one of the key ingredients that manufacturers claim are
necessary to produce shelf-stable organic products.

An article in Alive: Canadian Journal of Health and Nutrition explains,
"Every chemical cosmetic product on the market is formulated for shelf life
of over three years. Therefore, each contains a large amount of
preservatives (usually four synthetic parabens) to prevent spoilage. These
are cellular toxins; otherwise, they wouldn't kill microbes. They penetrate
the skin to a certain extent and many have been shown to cause allergic
reactions and dermatitis."

"When you buy a lotion it may sit on your shelf for years," says broker Gay
Timmons. "You would not buy any kind of food, open it and then leave it on
your shelf for two or three years. That is what people do with cosmetics.
That requires a rather important and profound use of preservatives because
of the pathogen concerns and fungal concerns. How do you balance that
preservative system need with an organic claim? Can we even do it?"

The notion that the FDA regulations require non-organic food ingredients is
more specious than the claim that the FDA regulates the cosmetics industry.
Materials expert Baker, who was briefly part of the OTA task force, points
out that the use of preservatives for shelf stability may not be compatible
with consumer expectations of the meaning of organic. "Consumers who buy
organic expect their food to be freshS without preservatives. Perhaps one
solution is to not claim that something is shelf stable and just put
instructions to refrigerate. You'd have to talk to the FDA. This is an
assertion that I've heard repeated, but no one has been able to give me a
reference to the legislation or the agency. Even if people are required by
law to use prohibited substances to make a product that does not entitle
them to label it organic," says Baker, reversing Murray's assertion that
"You can't violate an additional regulation just to be organic."

While some companies claim organic personal care products can't be made
without synthetic preservatives or with all-organic ingredients, others say
they are already doing it. Joe Borkovic of Australia's Organike says his
company makes personal care products without synthetics. American producer
TerrEssentials also claims to make a line of all organic personal care
products.

Jayne Ollin of Lakon Herbals wrote in June for the Organic Consumers
Association: "Many large health and beauty aide manufacturers have begun
lobbying USDA in an effort to convince officials that personal care products
cannot be made without the use of synthetic additives or that botanical
preparations or herbal essential oil cannot be extracted without the use of
toxic solvents such as hexane or petrolS This attempt to lower the standards
is not compelled by the science of botanical formulations."

British certifier the Soil Association released its own "developmental"
personal care standards in April, saying, "Our guiding principles have been
to ensure a maximum proportion of organic ingredients, minimum processing
and clear labeling." In explaining that their standards included non-food
materials, the Soil Association commented, "We have kept as far as possible
to the same principles that relate to organic food, where a very limited
list of additives and preservatives are permitted. Many beauty products are
complex and require complicated processes. For safety and hygiene reasons,
it is sensible to allow some preservatives."

"Preserving" the Environment

Organike's Joe Borkovic puts the question of synthetic and natural in
perspective, "I think it is possible to create products with completely
natural ingredients, not just naturally derived. The real question is are we
using principles of sustainability. If we continue to use ingredients that
are harmful to ourselves and the natural environment, we will continue to
denigrate this earthS We can find options and need to find options to move
in a direction where we can mitigate some of the harm for what we are doing
to the earth."

The effect of cosmetic chemicals on the environment is just beginning to be
understood. In March, a team of US Geological Survey scientists showed that
a variety of chemicals from personal care products were among 95 wastewater
contaminants found in US waterways. While clean water efforts historically
focused on obvious, point-sources of pollution like heavy industry, personal
care products and pharmaceuticals have posed a much more insidious and
serous threat to aquatic life. Every night when the daily share of that $30
billion in cosmetics is washed off, it is washed into the sewage system and
ultimately the waterways. An EPA report notes that these chemicals have a
devastating effect even when they are not "persistent" because they are
continuously replenished. "Their continual infusion into the aquatic
environment serves to sustain perpetual life-cycle exposure for aquatic
organisms." Similarly the anti-fungal and anti-microbial ingredients that
make personal care products shelf-stable retain their anti-microbial and
anti-fungal properties in microbe- and fungus-rich aquatic environments.
Ultimately, the result is a double exposure for humans, who drink the
chemicals they wash down the drain in their tap water.

Tap Reviews

The final determination about allowable ingredients in organic products lies
with the NOP. The National Organic Program already has a system in place to
assess the suitability of different materials: the technical advisory panel
(TAP) review. This process has shown itself to be highly deliberative and
fairly transparent in the past, with long and public debates at the NOSB
level about controversial materials like synthetic amino acids in livestock
feed and boiler chemicals containing volatile amines. The OTA task force is
arguing that the speed of the past TAP reviews is not sufficient to list
personal care processing materials quickly enough. The task force claims
only 150 TAP reviews have been done in the last three years and estimates
that, at the current rate, it would take many years to evaluate the
unapproved materials currently used in personal care processing. OTA
proposes that classes of materials be reviewed under single TAPs to speed
the process.

"The food industry had 12 years to develop the materials list, and there are
still some materials that need to be reviewed. If you assume that every
single ingredient would have to have a TAP review, instead of categories of
ingredients for personal care products, fiber and supplements, then there
are probably easily 1,000 ingredients that need TAP review. TAP reviews have
been occurring at the rate of 50 to 75 a year," says Phil Margolis.
"Categories would be an efficacious way to provide for appropriate
implementation."

Conversely, the industry's desire to approve 1,000 new ingredients for
organic processing might be viewed as the problem, not the speed of the
review process. At present, there are less than 100 synthetic materials
allowed in organic production. While it might be acceptable to approve a
class of benign materials or prohibit harmful ones in one fell swoop, many
ingredients will require individual TAPs. The recommendation for categories
of TAPs could be used by the industry to list ingredients that might not
otherwise qualify for approval.

California recently amended its state organic food production act to give
state regulatory agencies purview over personal care products. If signed by
the governor, the legislation will allow the California Department of
Agriculture and Health Services to enforce the NOP as a state organic
program. The law will ensure that, for Californian consumers at least,
personal care products will have to live up to the 70 percent standard of
processed organic foods.

Gay Timmons worked on the amendments and says, "All the state of California
has done is protected consumers and farmers so far. It is sort of the first
volley."

California Department of Agriculture organic program manager Ray Green
explains that the law would go into effect on January 1, 2003, "and we would
probably begin immediate enforcement, at least in terms of educating the
industry and notifying people and starting to get them to change their
formulas and change their labels."

California's approach makes clear that organic personal care regulations are
coming. Sooner or later, there will be a standard for processing organic
lipstick, lotion, shampoo and the like. But the strength of those standards
is still malleable.

Organics offers body care what amounts to gold in the language of the
industry of illusion: something new. If makeup is hope in a bottle, organic
ingredients in organic makeup should be the substance of that hope. The
acceptance of natural forces implicit in the work of an organic farm is in
tension with the mission of all things "cosmetic." "Natural products"
themselves are in tension with the nature we know of a farm. The organic
landscape is a diverse patchwork of sweeping pastures, double-stitched
vegetable rows, palettes for composting, greenhouses, barns, orchards and
home. It does not seek to force grand uniformity across the landscape
through tractor or pesticide. It does not seek to disguise disease of the
body or tame the unkempt earth with synthetic inputs and makeup. The
illusions and misconceptions at the base of cosmetics may be irreconcilable
with the transparent, uniform standards of the National Organic Program. The
NOP should begin challenging fraudulent organic labeling claims while
evaluating these questions. In one way, organic beauty can affirm the
acceptance of nature that organic farms seek-by accepting the meaning of the
word organic as legislated by the National Organic Program and mimicking the
spirit of organic farming, which does not endlessly seek to replicate the
world in its own image.

Reprinted with permission from In Good Tilth, a publication of Oregon Tilth..
Become a member of Oregon Tilth -- see http://www.tilth.org/MEMB.html for
details.

Oregon Tilth
470 Lancaster NE
Salem OR 97301
(503) 378-0690, 378-0809
organic@tilth.org