How To Learn To Use Chopsticks

Can’t talk about organic all the time! So the other evening my daughters and I were smiling while watching someone in a restaurant struggle with chop sticks. My youngest (13 yrs.) was rather smug about her skill with said sticks. Then we remembered how they learned to use them. It was not from growing up in a family that used them nightly.

When it came to teaching my kids here is what I did:
- Gave them a big bowl of popcorn and each a set of chop sticks,
- Told them they could only eat what they got in their mouths with the chop sticks.
- Then they graduated down to some sort of cereal that was roughly the size and shape of Trix.

They were around 6 and 8 at the time and they really did master the skill.

That is one way to learn how to use chop sticks.

Scones

There is a big difference between "organic" and great cooks. It would be amazing if I could get the great cooks I know to use organic ingredients; I'll keep working on it. That is just my disclaimer - now I'm going to tell you about some wonderful products I've found lately. Not cosmetics.

As some of you know, my brother had a stroke. Lately he has had some other issues. As children of Southern parents (Georgia and Tennessee), there are certain foods we just love. Biscuits are a form of high art in Southern Cuisine. So when I was looking for something to cheer my brother, it was natural for my eyes to fall on scones, a special biscuit with "stuff" added.

So here is the best scone I have ever eaten in my whole life: "Charmed Scones". I found them at the Los Feliz Farmer's market on Vermont on Sunday mornings. Or you can buy them at: http://www.etsy.com/view_listing.php?listing_id=34670624 (use this address - I went to Etsy.com and couldn't get the company to come up by writing "charmed scones" in the search box. Weird??).

I never push products but these were so good that she deserves loud and abundant praise. Scones are hard to make well. They are usually heavy and crumby an not awe inspiring. These Charmed Scones are awe inspiring.

Then go over to the Hollywood and Vine (really Hollywood and Ivar Street) Farmer's Market on Sunday morning and try the organic coffee in the food aisle. Amazing - especially the latte. Again, awe inspiring if you are a person who loves the taste of coffee (not just the effects).

I love Farmer's Markets and I've been in LA a lot lately. If you are ever there on a weekend, check these out. Support organic farmers and these markets. Experience artisanal, lovingly grown and made food. At home it is the Campbell Market for me, but there are many good markets. Buy produce from producers! Not grocery men. They can have all the other money.

Here's to scones and coffee!

If you own a company that makes personal care products and uses organic claims on your products, you may want to seriously study the issues in the recent complaint filed with the USDA- NOP by OCA and Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soap, and Essential Organics against personal care brands that use “organic” claims.

Complaint:
The “Complainers” are saying that the “Defendants” are “cheating” because, regardless of the amount of organic content these companies use, they are not certified to the USDA-NOP. The "complainers" hold the view that the defendants, should not have the right to use the word "organic" unless they are certified to the USDA-NOP.

Background:
The USDA-NOP is an agricultural agency dedicated to supporting American farmers and ranchers. The NOP (Nat’l Organic Program) was originally conceived (in 1991) as a labeling program to create an “even playing field” for organic products in interstate commerce and on the international market. Throughout the law it refers to “food”, 35 times in fact. There is no reference to personal care. If you can make it and label it as though it were a food, then you may get certified. The NOP has published a document on their web site that states that a personal care product MAY be certified to the NOP but it may also get certified to a private standard. They also state that they have no jurisdiction over cosmetic labels, as that is the job of the FDA.

What Ifs:
IF this complaint were to be acted on by the NOP, IF they could because they had jurisdiction and IF there were laws that any of these companies had violated, what would happen?* NOP would begin to mandate that all personal care companies be certified to the NOP.

What Is NOP Organic?
In order to make an “organic” claim, ALL of your ingredients, except for the few that are listed in the law as “allowed non-organic” must be certified organic to the NOP. The “allowed” list includes non-organic glycerin and tocopherol and a few other things. These must be used in less than 5%. That means, no, you may not use just a couple of drops of non-organic jasmine or sandalwood oil because they are NOT on the “allowed list”. You could not add a little bit of ANY non-organic emulsifier. Your only preservation option would be org. alcohol. You’d need to have a current certificate for every single organic ingredient you use and it would probably cost around 1800.00 per year or more to get and stay certified.

In the complaint Bronner, et al, includes the Stella McCartney products - this line is certified to the EcoCert Organic Cosmetic Standard. In France law requires that they include water when calculating any label claim. Their label laws wants consumers to know the actual percentage of a package that makes any claim. Under the U.S. organic law we exclude water. So here someone can make a product that is water, salt and a few drops of lavender oil and call it “95% organic” - even though it is actual less than 1% organic in total. In France and under EcoCert it is the actual percentage of the total. International laws make this type of labeling complicated so the OCA complaint about that product line may be wrong - if they calculated it the same way we do, they may well meet the threshold of 95% for certain products. If you were to apply the same principle as the French use to “made with organic” soap, the label would have to claim around 5% of the total as “organic” content. Liquid soap would not meet the EcoCert standard for skin care, for example. They make an exception for soap and allow it to be 5% and use the claim. I think that may be the more honest approach.

That leaves the big question of how we create credibility for organic claims? In the food industry, the organic farmers and food processors worked for over 40 years to get their standard made and passed into law. We don’t use preservatives in food because we cook it or refrigerate it, and then we use it up or feed it to the dog. It doesn’t stay on the bathroom shelf for 4 years. As to emulsifiers, egg yolks and mustard are dandy emulsifiers - again for food. Not a good idea for skin care.

How do we get a standard that recognizes the unique challenges of cosmetic formulation and product shelf life? Do we use a food standard? Is that a smart thing?

I continue to be struck by the fact that no one will buy a product that does not perform to meet a consumers expectation. I suspect that the reason I never see USDA shampoos, lotions and conditioners in the stores is because they do not sell well. (Frankly, I am well over 50 and darned if I will use alcohol on my skin).

Personally, I want to see strong standards that are credible. I think the EcoCert Standard and the OASIS Standard are both valid standards that will evolve into the future of “organic” cosmetics. I know from the history of the organic food movement that we need a solution to a problem that includes some real challenges:
Thousands of small businesses, all of whom have (sort of) made their own rules about what their “organic” claim means.
Insufficient organic ingredients to emulsify and preserve products that perform.
International legal labeling issues that should be integrated into any standard.
And a lack of clarity due to both deliberate and unintentional misinformation.

I would like to see all of the non-certified personal care companies make the effort to understand the NOP rules (call me - happy go over your ingredient statement and explain where you fit) and to work together to create a plan to serve all these small businesses and their very specific needs. The food regulations were never intended to do this and soap is certainly not food.

* A judge has already examined the charges in the complaint and ruled that there was no violation of law. Actually, 2 judges.

No Growth Blues for Greens

This morning the TABS Group, a U.S. based consumer analysis firm announced a study finding that there was little or no growth in “organic” personal care product sales in the U.S.. Recently Organic Monitor, out of the UK, announced that double digit growth in “organic” personal care continues in European markets.

What is up with that?

I think it has to do with certification. In the EU over 60% of the products making organic and natural claims are certified. The Europeans have used various standards for many years. BDIH, a natural standard, has been around since 1951, certifying “natural” since 1996. Soil Association and EcoCert both put out organic and natural standards in the early 2000s. The Europeans are not allowed by law to certify cosmetics to a agricultural standard so they use private standards. As a result:
Manufacturers get educated through the certification process
- They educate their consumers
- Consumers can look up the standards on line and hold someone accountable
- Retailers know they are getting a product that has been vetted by a third party
- Organic farmers continue to be supported
- Sustainable production is increasing as a result of this work

Man, I hate it when the Europeans are ahead of us.

On our side of the pond, things are a mess. Yep, you read it, a mess. “Organic” cosmetic companies are not getting certified nor are they compelled or encouraged to get certified. Why?

- A litigious party brought a law suit and made many people paranoid that they might be sued too. So they just keep doing what they are doing hoping that no one will notice them.
- Whole Foods made their own “list” which they call a “standard” but there is no third party certification, just people saying they meet it. So, what is that all about? It has nothing to do w/ organic!
- OCA (who only ever prints half of any story, because if you knew the full story they wouldn’t be able to scare you into making a contribution), has done their level best to support the use of the organic food laws to certify synthetics!! Why? I wonder if it is because of who they get money from?
- No one seems to remember the 90s, when we all bought privately certified food products because we were working out what processed organic food was. It took 12 years! Cosmetics needs the same thing.
- Finally; why would anyone use a food law to certify cosmetic chemicals? Why?

Another opinion, although one supported by consumer research; people buy products that work, they want “performance”. So the challenge to the “organic” cosmetic industry is to make products that perform AND that are made from organic materials. In order to do this, we have to use organic raw materials, like coconut and palm oil and react them in similar ways to conventional products, using environmentally safe processes and technologies. This will make “organic” ingredients that perform (under a separate standard). Again, the EU is far ahead on this path.

What can you do? Write the National Organic Program Director, miles.mcevoy@ams.usda.gov and tell him you don’t want the USDA to regulate personal care products until private standards have been developed enough to give us the ingredients and standards that are appropriate for personal care. Twisting the organic food regulation in order to certify synthesized chemicals is simply hurting the organic food community. Further more, it s a statement by a very few that consumers are not smart enough to tell the difference between a food standard and a cosmetic standard. Consumers are smart enough and they deserve respect and certified products that work. Not some lousy “shampoo” that you have to follow with a lemon juice rise so that you don’t completely destroy your hair. Yes, it will take a couple years but the Europeans are already providing the model for good and functional standards that will, eventually, vastly increase the market for organic raw materials. Time for a few people to check their egos at the door and do what is right to promote more organic agriculture in a time when our planet desperately needs it.

Copyright G. Timmons 12/14/09

Progress Or Backslide?

Two weeks ago the Advisory Board (the NOSB) to the USDA-NOP passed a “recommendation” that the Dept. of Agriculture should regulate organic claims on cosmetics. Currently, the FDA regulates cosmetics labels, not the USDA-NOP. Then a bunch of “natural” food stores sent out policies or letters telling their vendors that, if they make an organic claim on a personal care item, they needed to get certified to the NOP. Spare me.

There are thousands of small companies all over the US and Canada that make uncertified “organic” claims on personal care items. Most of them do not follow the NOSB. Even in OTA, an organization that one assumes attracts dedicated “organic” businesses, in a recent survey discovered that only 9% of their personal care members are certified to the USDA-NOP. Again: nine percent!!!!

Why?

Cosmetics depend on synthetic ingredients to function well. There are simply not enough of the functional ingredients necessary to make a personal care product that performs well, which assures repeat sales. This means that conventional synthetics must be used.

How did we get to a regulation for organic food? The effort included 40-plus private certifiers serving the “organic” community from the 1960s until 2002 which created the momentum and infra-structure necessary to arrive at and support USDA-NOP certified food. It takes time to create a market and all the parts of the market necessary to make it work. (A factoid: Whole Foods profited for 24 years on non-NOP “organic” claims.)

Organic food contains certified agricultural ingredients. In cosmetics the “organic” certification of potassium cocoate, mono and di glycerides, and sucrose palmate is certification of non-agricultural ingredients. Is it best for all “organic” stakeholders to include the certification of “synthetics” under the Dept. of Agriculture?

This is what I see: people want the “organic” label to mean the same on all product categories, but it doesn’t and it can’t. I don’t want certified organic synthetic ingredients in my food. I want organic food to stay pure. I also want certified organic personal care products, but I know they need to be made using synthesized ingredients, and I want those ingredients to be synthesized out of organic raw materials. I also know putting this in place will take years.

The FDA and the NOP, under ideal conditions, cannot “enforce” a law until they have a law. First they have to agree to do this type of enforcement (remember, cosmetic labels are not currently reviewed). Then they have to either amend the Organic Food Production Law or pass a new law. Then they have to write the standard. I'd guess this could take 5 to 8 years. The NOSB seems to imply that they want enforcement now. It simply cannot happen - what do we do in the meantime?

We do what they did with food: use private standards. This could support the NOSB recommendation to the NOP and help make organic certification of cosmetics a reality. To tell companies that they “have to” get certified to the NOP when there are no safe preservatives, no mild surfactants, and no non-slimy emulsifiers is literally throwing the baby out with the bath water. We will end up back in the 1980s with an array of “natural” products and a very few “organic” products. Why can’t the NOSB support private organic cosmetic standards for now? At least people could be certified to something!

The Organic Food Production Act of 1990 was written expressly to certify AGRICULTURAL products. Personal care items are not food, I don’t want to eat them; I want them to work to clean my hair, sooth my skin, and keep my children from getting sunburned. That will not happen using a food paradigm. I want a strategic plan to get us from where we are now to that ideal certified organic cosmetic. The fact is that a number of people have made NOP PC shampoos and lotions and they do not seem to sell well. I suspect this is why we don’t see these products in Whole Foods and other “natural” stores. If we can’t get repeat sales, we can’t “grow” organic agriculture. And why would a store carry something that does not sell?

Isn’t that what this is all about? Increasing the market for organic ingredients? It won’t happen just because of the NOP seal. It will only happen if the products are good enough to create repeat sales. Shampoo is not an apple or cookies. The production of an organic apple cleans up the planet but it pretty much tastes and looks like a conventional apple. “Organic” shampoo under the NOP dries out my hair and I can’t use the lotion due to the alcohol preservative. They are not comparable to the more functional conventional versions. Darn it, I want organic versions.

Get real folks - we have a lot of work to do and it is important to do it but let’s use our brains and apply history. The NOSB’s message is well intended but poorly executed. As leaders of the industry, they should be able to supply a timeline, and a plan that will take us from 91% non-certified to 100% of players certified. Their recommendation does not do that. It just further confuses things and seems to be encouraging the removal of some pretty nice “organic” products that are not certified from the shelves. This move by the NOSB and some of the “natural” stores is a shame and diminishes the use of organic ingredients. I think we are backsliding, not making progress. What do you think?

Gay Timmons

NOSB

It is unwise to take the recent Personal Care Recommendation by the NOSB (Nat’l Organic Standards Board, an advisory board to the NOP) out of the context of the whole meeting and even out of the context of the NOSB's history.

On the NOP web site, there are 10 pages listing the titles of Recommendations (that go back 9 years) by the NOSB to the NOP (this does not include those recommendations that go back to 1994, prior to implementation nor the recommendations passed this latest meeting). Many of these are for materials, which the NOSB does a a really good job at handling. Reportedly, 65 different policy recommendations are still unresolved between the NOSB and the NOP; we still do not have standards for pet foods, textiles, or aquaculture. This is not a criticism, it is an observation about how government works. There are issues of priority, regulatory complexity, expertise within the department to deal with a particular problem that all influence the forward motion of any recommendation.

If you look at the Livestock committee, for example, you see that the first recommendation on pasture access policy was in 2001. I think I read in the "Tweets" that this was finally adopted as policy by the NOP at the meeting last week - but I may be wrong on that. Am sure someone in the know will correct me. Just an example of why you should take the OCA “news” report with more than a grain of salt. It took from 2001 to now to get agreement on "Pasture Access" between all the members of the NOSB and then all of the departments within the USDA. This “high priority” issue took 9 years to get from “Recommendation” to “Policy”. (This is good - it took the FDA 11 years to agree on the legal definition of peanut butter).

We need uniform standards for organic cosmetics. It is also imperative that we continue to support the use of as many organic ingredients in cosmetics as possible. I just don’t think it will happen in the next few years as the result of the NOP. I believe that the NOP’s clear message that personal care is not a priority, as was stated during the meeting:

1. did not come from the program director but rather, represents the position of the Department of AGRICULTURE,
2. is a message to the industry to move forward with private standards which will only help any future efforts to write either an FDA or an NOP PC Standard,
3. is also a message to the cosmetic industry to make some of it’s own progress instead of waiting for the wheels of government to grind down their slow path.

The issues that need to be resolved in the NOP are highly complex and may start with this: that until the NOSB has submitted and the NOP has agreed to final, working definitions of "synthetic”, “non-synthetic”, and “non-agricultural", we cannot make ANY progress on a standard that depends on synthesis chemistry.

Then we need to define what we are certifying - I realize that NOSB set a proposed definition of "personal care" in their recommendation but it may be in conflict with FDA law - which includes things like brushes, candles, neti pots, nail clippers, and anything else sold for "personal" "care" in their legal view of that phrase.

Of course then there is the issue of safety - I would never use a product preserved with 15% alcohol, not on my body and especially not on a child. We have to deal with this. Alcohol is one of the few things that really can act as a transdermal carrier.

So - yes Mr. Bronner and the folks at OCA, after these and many other issues have been resolved, we may be able to move towards enforcement and standards writing, but this will take years. It is impossible to enforce laws that don’t exist;

In the meantime, we still have do not have retailers requiring any sort of certification (except "Natural - which does us no good). There are years of work facing the NOP and the NOSB needs to decide if animal cruelty, existing standards recommendations, certifier training, bio-diversity and food safety should be prioritized before or after personal care.

Folks - this is not going to happen any time soon. 74% of OTA members in the PC biz are not even certified and many of them would not meet the requirements and probably could not sustain their businesses if they did. And that is only OTA members. So let's add this question: in the worst recession we have seen since the “Great Depression” (why do they call it “great”?), is the NOP going to tell thousands of small businesses that they cannot do what they have been doing without some sort of long term lead up (like we did with food)?

We need a strategic path to get people into the fold of certification. This was the first volley across the bow by the NOSB and, as they even stated, it is intended to start a conversation, one that will go through the multi-year process of analyzing the industry. There is a lot of work to be done here. And most of us already have jobs. I continue to believe that we are all responsible for creating and enacting a long term strategic plan that will allow people to get certified, develop the necessary supporting infrastructure and do this thoughtfully. Sorry - it just takes a long time. It took organic food 40 years. It does not have to take the cosmetics industry that long but with the continued barriers being thrown up, it may.

Even Government Committees Need to Do Their Homework

Secret Codes: (okay - so they are just acronyms . . .)

NOP = National Organic Program

USDA = Untied States Department of AGRICULTURE (Farms!!)

NOSB = the National Organic Standards Board

(They are supposed to represent “us” to the NOP).

CACC = The Compliance, Accreditation and Certification Committee

(A committee of the NOSB).

FDA = Food and Drug Administration

The CACC has made a recommendation to the NOSB that ALL organic personal care products must be certified to the NOP. The recommendation, if implemented the way it is written, would mean that if you have a product that is not certified, you could not call it “organic” - even if it were all organic unless you are certified to a food standard. So let’s get this straight:

1 - An organization that does not have a single member representing the cosmetic industry on it’s board is making this recommendation.

2 - The CACC has not even discussed that fact that there are THOUSANDS of companies in the US that have high content organic personal care items that are not certified (I confirmed this with the Chair person of the CACC). They have no strategy to addres this issue.

3 - In spite of the fact that they were sensibly asked to form a Task Force by OTA to look at the issue, they refused and just made the recommendation without input from the industry.

The really dumb thing about this is that they have no idea if it can even legally be done. The FDA has authority over cosmetic labels. It is unlikely that the USDA can mandate label authority. Even if the FDA and the USDA agreed to some sort of memorandum of understanding, the necessary regulations will take years to first be agreed upon and then to move through the regulatory process (3 years, 5 year, who knows).

Summary - this does not solve the existing problems:

• Retailers do not make it a point to carry certified products; where is the incentive?
• Even if you get certified to a standard, you might be sued by OCA or he who shall remain nameless.
• There are thousands of people making products, they need to be “brought into the tent” of organic and there needs to be a reasonable strategy that will achieve this. This is not a reasonable strategy.

The NOSB is asking for comments on the recommendation. I am going to write them that they should not waste all of our time without doing the necessary work. NOSB, CACC - do your homework! Don't spin everyone’s wheels by asking for comments on a completely irresponsible recommendation. We need standards for organic cosmetics, but this is not the way to achieve them. You need to understand who the players are, what the barriers are, and come up with a sane solution. Just writing a law that puts thousands out of business is not a solution, it is a nightmare.

Go to the link below to read the recommendation and comment to the NOSB, then send them a note.

http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5079488&acct=nosb

Gay Timmons 09/28/09 Copyright