Debate Over Organic Standards
for Health & Beauty Aid Products

[Part two in an opinion series addressing organic standards
in the Health and Beauty Aid Industry]

"ORGANIC" Skin Care to Go "UN" Regulated

("but grandma, what big teeth you have")

August 6th 2002
By jayne ollin <jollin@sover.net>

When purchasing certain products labeled ORGANIC, or CERTIFIED
ORGANIC, customers will have to shop with a very sharp eye. Recent pressure
on the USDA to honor an exemption clause in the National Organic Policy
(NOPS) with regard to skin care products, cotton and dietary supplements has
been successful which will leave these industries unregulated with regard to
the term organic. In the Preamble on Applicability and Clarification - The
ultimate labeling of cosmetics, body care products, and dietary supplements,
however, is outside the scope of these regulations.

For the record, the National Organic Standards as they apply to food
are very clear ­ a product containing 100% certified organic ingredients
might be labeled "Certified Organic" with no synthetic ingredients. A
product containing 95% organic ingredients may be labeled Organic with no
synthetic ingredients. Anything less then 95% may use the term with regard
to the specific ingredient only.

Many large and influential Health and Beauty Aid Co.'s have been
lobbying USDA to relax or completely exempt these standards for personal
care. Their main complaints are that they weren't given enough time to get
ready, even though members of the trade association have been intimately
involved in the evolution of the policy statement drafted in 1990; as well,
they maintain that skin care products cannot be made without synthetics,
enhancers, and/or chemical stabilizers and preservatives (even though
Grandma's been doing it for years). The Quality assurance director of the
OTA (Organic Trade Association) made the following statement in March of
2002: " 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
processing". ­T.H (Natural Foods Merchandiser 3/2002)

The recent reports of the USDA being shackled by the exemption clause
in the Federal regulations for skin care products has already resulted in a
virtual free for all as products powdering themselves as organic and
certified organic have begun to flood the market. Ads for certified organic
products are already appearing in mainstream magazines whose ad deadlines
closed months ago. Many of these products have as little as 50% organic
ingredients, and an alarming number have only a tiny percentage of organic
ingredients or none at all. Some companies are claiming that all of their
ingredients are certified organic including the controversial class of
synthetic parabens and glycols such as methylpropylparaben and propylene
glycol, along with other chemically derived botanical extracts.

One leading manufacturer recently published the following statement on
their website: "(blank) is the only brand in the industry that lists the
percentage of certified organic ingredients on their labels and that each of
their products contains at least 50% certified organic ingredients."

On the same site the following endorsement of the NOPS is posted but
with a confusing and contradictory twist of facts regarding the policy
standards for the food industry.

The OTA has officially recognized the PSOSC (OTA Committee of corporate
members) as a task force, and is now providing the leadership, funding, and
direction for the group.' While the PCOSG was considering a 50% level
minimum as previously accepted for food standards, the PCSOG has voted to
follow the 70% standard for personal care products"

Already confusion and mayhem are brewing in the HABA industry with
regard to what the standards for organic are for food, what they should be
for personal care, and who can use the word as part of their company name or
on the front of their label. It looks a lot like the fox guarding the
henhouse explaining that he'll eat only 5% of the chickens.

However, the true victims in this new chapter will be the customers
that trust the "organic" label, who expects (rightfully so), that Skin Care
manufacturers are held accountable by regulations that apply to food. Many
will be led to believe these products are better, healthier and therefore
may cost more. There is also a growing awareness among the health care
industry and consumers that regulations for organic skin care products
should be stricter then that of food due to the skins absorbency rate, which
is ten times greater. The bottom line should not be determined by the gross
profit margin for manufacturers but by the health and well being of the
customer, because that which we lather on our skin should be as pure if not
purer of synthetics and chemicals then the food we eat.

Given the situation it is painfully clear that we cannot leave the
regulation of organic for skin care, supplements and cotton products up to
the trade industry. Until adequate regulations are strictly enforced the old
rule of thumb still applies, Obelieve only ½ of what you see and none of
what you hear'. .