This blog has moved

This blog is now located at http://blog.ohohorganic.com/.
You will be automatically redirected in 30 seconds, or you may click here.

For feed subscribers, please update your feed subscriptions to
http://blog.ohohorganic.com/feeds/posts/default.

BONE RANT

Okay – I’ve just had it with the calcium/bone loss commercials.

I have a degree in both archeology and physiology –so I’ve looked at a lot of bones for a variety of reasons. For the moment, please ignore my whole organic cosmetic thing.

Human bodies are amazingly efficient. If you are not using your bones by pulling on them with your muscles, they really have no reason to lay down calcium and get stronger. SO – you can take all the calcium by mouth you want but if you are not using your muscles to pull on bones, the essential signal to your body to increase bones strength and density is not communicated. And why should it be?

One of the reasons we know this is true, is that when you look at skeletons you can almost tell their profession by the bumps on the bones where muscles attach: people who did a lot of physical labor had larger, denser bones with pronounced muscle attachment points. The wealthy (think nobles in Europe who had servants) tended to have finer, smoother bones with less density. And you should see the hand bones of pianist!

So when I see these dumb commercials selling calcium and drugs to reverse bones loss, I just want to scream. They don’t work well and many of them lay down a layer of a completely different mineral (not calcium) that is brittle and in no way protects you from breaking your hip or crushing a vertebra.

All humans, especially woman, should do 2 days a week of 20 minutes each session of weight training from 40 years on. It is the only way to ensure that you have safe bones as you age.

Why the US needs private organic cosmetics standard

This was originally published in CosmeticsDesign.com on March 8, 2010

Why the US needs private organic cosmetics standards


Organic certification creates an even playing field for the industry, it provides answers for consumers, and it supports credible exports; broadening the marketplace for both American-produced cosmetics and for organic raw materials.
It allows clear education and communication and is vital to the development of new ingredients and technologies. It provides a platform that supports investment in this industry sector.

However, in a recent survey by the Organic Trade Association, 26 percent of its personal care members were certified to any standard, while only 8 percent were certified organic to the USDA National Organic Program.

Meanwhile, over 60 percent of European companies making organic claims are certified. This means that American companies are at a disadvantage in international markets and in their ability to answer US consumers' questions about organic claims.

Why USDA-NOP is not good for certifying cosmetics

The existing USDA-NOP works well for food, not for cosmetics. Cosmetics require synthesized chemicals (surfactants, emulsifiers, preservatives) for functionality.

As a result, the NOP rule has been used to certify as organic, non-food synthetics like soap (potassium cocoate) and mono-and di-glycerides. Synthetics are not “bad”, but they are very different from organic food.

Separate standards for cosmetics will channel the creation of cosmetic ingredients to an appropriate industry sector and protect organic food while supporting increased use of organically farmed materials.

In addition, the NOP must reconcile with the FDA how to regulate ‘organic’ cosmetics. This process will take many years. We are wasting time if we wait for it to become final.

Furthermore, the NOP program never fully included “sustainability” in processing standards as they did in farming.

Farmers are required to prove that they improve their environment as a result of farming, but processors are not required to meet these criteria.

We can have a better standard that includes sustainable practices for manufacturers and drives sustainability throughout the supply chain.

Role of retailers

Retailers did a great job supporting organic food certifiers in the 1990’s, but have seriously dropped the ball for cosmetics claims. In the mid-90s, one could not sell a food product labeled “organic” to a retailer unless one was third party certified to a private standard.

Today, instead of requiring this in the US, retailers are making up their own ‘standards’ that are only lists of ‘allowed’ ingredients and are not focused on ‘organic’ but exclusively support ‘natural’ claims.

In the 90s, we had the perfect confluence of private certifiers, market demand, and retailers demanding third party certification. This drove organic market innovation, supported consumers, and increased the demand for organically farmed products.

During this time the infrastructure of the organic food industry grew to support the need for the NOP. This model gave us a great food program. Retailers should once again support certification, not unverified ingredient claims. They should be the gatekeepers for all of the stakeholders.

Get off the Fence!

The personal care industry needs a clear, sustainable future; that future should give better products and better information to consumers.

As long as we avoid the responsibility for certification of organic claims, we can do neither. Avoiding certification causes us to lose out in our efforts to ‘grow’ organic farming, and few will invest in the future of companies making self-professed ‘organic’ label claims.

The European companies exhibit a robust market for investing in ‘organic’ companies, using private certification.

American personal care companies need to make a choice and get certified - to any of the organic standards.

Choose a standard and go with it

All of the ‘organic’ personal care companies should stop ‘waiting for things to settle down’ and commit to a standard, and tell the National Organic Standards Board to back off; the industry needs to try private certification in the marketplace.

Likewise, retailers should recognize and support the important role they play. As a result, all the stakeholders would benefit.

Fear of lawsuits and lack of market incentives and consumer understanding has effectively stopped the conversation about what defines an ‘organic cosmetic’.

Until we allow this conversation to move forward in the US, we will continue to deal with ‘wishful’ organic labels, an uninformed public and ‘organic’ retailers who support ‘natural’ cosmetics.

This is a betrayal of the original goal of the organic movement: to nurture and grow the organic market place for farmers.

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