Just read the GCI article re: "Two Views of Safety." Great job of spelling out the situation, along with the inconsistencies of pseudo-science.
Now if you could just broker a negotiation between the EWG, DfE, IFRA and RIFM – you might be able to change the industry from the contentious zealot-driven vs. the fanatic technically precise (but oblivious to popular perception) and come to some common ground, portraying – dare I say it – a united industry / regulatory body who’s interests are fact-based, but with an understanding of the emotive needs of those who are (in their own somewhat unusual way) attempting to save the planet, increase our quality of life and assure we do not poison our children.
Additionally, if you could get the guys from DfE to understand the necessity of publishing consumer friendly (read as – useful) information, that satisfies the needs for facts, delivered in a KISS [keep it simple] manner, you’re only challenge left would be world peace.
I just read your article in GCI on fragrance safety. One point is that of the 26 EU allergens, only eight are in the test patch called fragrance, used by dermatologist. The kits are made in Norway. I asked the president when the labeling went into effect, if they would change the patch to include all 26. He said NO, this was [ill advised].
Anyway, I think the fragrance industry should go on the offensive instead of trying to defend themselves from NGOs that couldn't care less about the truth. Just tell the governments, that if you lose your trade secret status the fragrances will come from [from other sources and] of unknown composition. Further, let's remove all fragrances and see what your life is like: You awake and take a shower using soap that smells like a piece of meat left unrefrigerated for 30 days, you shampoo your hair with something let smells like kerosene and than brush your teeth with toothpaste that taste and smells like hell. You haven't even started with a deodorant/AP, makeup, hair sprays, etc.
David C. Steinberg
Loved your article in GCI today; way to take EWG to task
My small handcrafted soap industry is very passionate about fragrance safety and EWG has long been troublesome to us, backing bills that would over regulate the industry and essentially put most of the teensy micro-producers out of business.
Your article is science based and accurately describes how EWG is fear mongering – but without making it sound like a personal attack.
"Steve Herman discusses initiatives in safety viewed from the EPA and EWG on fragrances. This is a very cogent presentation and points out the flaws in EWG which are well known in scientific circles since EWG is known for presenting pseudo-science with its bias as peer reviewed scientific opinion to condemn many personal care products as dangerous which in fact are not."