Tag: deceptive

Ulta Beauty Starting To Make Headline For The Wrong.

Ulta, Ulta, Ulta. Is in existence because the professionals of the Beauty Industry never took a stand. And a lot of the “Riff Raff”, in the Beauty is because of the complacent professionals.  Worry about there craft and not there industry. Not learning the politics and letting the wolves lead them. That is what happens when you are a sheep and not educated in the Art Of Deceptive Practices.  My Grandfather always said, “Be as sweet as a sheep, But as slick as a snake”. And right he was. The only reason ULTA is in existence is because of US.  No one else, just US. They sell our tools, products, they have a salon who will do work for very cheap cheap. They too away our retail edge and basically all you have is a craft left.

I could go on for hours, and hours and hours. Enlightening you of the “Dark Force”, in our industry. But to no avail the only interest is balayage, ombre etc, etc, etc. So here we go with some news.

A woman who claims she used to work for Ulta Beauty is calling out the chain for unsanitary practices. Twitter user @fatinamxo is using the platform to “warn” other beauty lovers about the safety of their makeup. In a series of tweets, the ex-employee alleged that her managers at the retailer would tell her to “clean” and repackage used items to be sold again. “So I was a former employee at ULTA and whenever a customer would return a product, we were told by managers to repackage/reseal the item and put it back on the shelf,” she wrote on Twitter. “They would resell EVERYTHING. (makeup , hair care , skincare, fragrance ,hair tools, etc.),” she said in a follow-up tweet.

She then posted images of new makeup and makeup she claimed was returned used, repackaged and resold. “For example this foundation (even-sticks) they would clean it with a q-tip to make it look new. I’ll attach a photo of a NEW foundation vs. the one they repackaged and put back on the shelf. ( NOT SANITIZED ),” she captioned the photo.

The Twitter user said her managers would “clean [products] with alcohol” as a way to make them look new.  Her allegations have earned thousands of likes on Twitter, as well as several people coming forward with their own similar stories about Ulta Beauty’s unhygienic practices. “Can 100% confirm this is true. Shopping at any ULTA in Frisco, Mckinney, Denton, Sherman, Allen, basically the entire Dallas area and around they train every single employee to do this. All the stores in the area do this,” one wrote. One ex-employee offered a reason for the “disgusting” action, writing “I worked at Ulta too…and they did that too. They wanted their shrinkage to be low so that’s why but it was so disgusting.” Some Ulta Beauty employees have shared different accounts, stating that their stores never cleaned and resold used make-up. The beauty store released a statement to TODAY regarding the allegations, saying that used products are supposed to be thrown out.

They even put back a USED liquid lipstick, the manager said she would “clean it with alcohol” ( that was the last straw for me ) here is a photo of a lip palette ( exclusive online only ) that was returned and mangers put it back on the shelf to resell (CLEARLY NOT SANITIZED).

 

“We do not allow the resale of used or damaged products,” an Ulta Beauty spokesperson told TODAY.

Here comes the “BULLSHIT” everyone.

“Our store associates are trained to catalog and then properly dispose of any used or damaged items. If associates have concerns that this or any Ulta Beauty policy is not being followed, they can anonymously report it through our third-party hotline. Our policies, training and procedures are aimed at ensuring that only the highest-quality products are sold in our stores and online. “We take any concern of this nature very seriously and if we find that there is any deviation from our policies, we will take appropriate actions to ensure we continue providing a consistently high-quality product,” the statement continued. “The health and safety of Ulta Beauty guests is a top priority and we strive to deliver an optimal experience every time they shop with us.” The woman said she took to Twitter not because she dislikes Ulta, but wanted to warn others against buying used makeup. Good Job!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

Real Hair Truth L’Oreal to Shelve ‘Salon Only’ Tag for Products!

WASHINGTON (CN) – L’Oreal can settle false advertising claims over supposedly salon-only products that are sold in stores by changing its labels, a federal judge ruled.
Alexis Richardson had led a class against the cosmetics company on behalf of consumers who purchased L’Oreal’s Matrix Biolage, Redken, Kerastase and Pureology products after August 30, 2008.
The April 2013 complaint alleged that L’Oreal deceptively labeled the products as “available only in salons” while nevertheless stocking them in Target, Kmart and other non-salon retail establishments.
“Plaintiffs allege that the salon-only label implies a superior quality product and builds a cachet that allows L’Oréal to demand a premium price,” according to the settlement-approval ruling filed Thursday.
The plaintiffs had filed the suit in Washington, D.C., after resolving related claims from an earlier action in the Northern District of California.
“In the course of those negotiations, L’Oréal provided plaintiffs with extensive documents and information relating to its anti-diversion and labeling practices,” U.S. District Judge John Bates wrote.
“But plaintiffs allege that, despite L’Orèal’s efforts, the products are available in non-salon establishments, and argue that L’Orèal’s labeling and advertising for these products is hence deceptive and misleading.”
As part of the settlement, class representatives can petition for no more than $1,000 each, and L’Oréal will pay up to $950,000 in attorney fees, costs and expenses. The settlement otherwise provides only injunctive relief.
In his approval order, Bates explained the class’s reasons for not trying to certify a damages class.
“First, assessing the value of the salon-only claims to consumers would be difficult, and L’Oréal has never attempted to do so,” the ruling states. “Second, assessing damages on a class-wide basis would be even more difficult – the information provided during the negotiation process revealed substantial price variations among retailers and in different regions, and indicated that non-salon retailers often sell the products at a lower price than do salon retailers, making damages to those purchasing the product in non-salon establishments difficult to analyze.”
Bates said he would defer to counsel’s assessment.
“And class members will retain their right to seek damages in individual actions, dispelling many concerns about foregone payments,” he added. “In these circumstances, an equitable-relief-only settlement may be approved.”
If the settlement wins final approval, L’Oreal will remove the “salon only” label from all of its U.S. advertising and labeling on products distributed in the states.
It will also discontinue manufacturing the labels for its U.S. products, and it will remove the “salon-only” claims from its websites and from any promotion materials.
Both parties have agreed to publish legal notices in USA Today for one week, referring class members to a website that contains a copy of the proposed agreement. Any objections to the settlement must be filed before the Fairness Hearing on October 11, 2013, when the final settlement will be approved.  It seems L’Oreal will get off easy for all the damages they have done to the so-called professional beauty industry.  Their anti- diversion rhetoric is a bunch of bullshit. And always has been.  Too late, Too little the damage has already been done!

Manufacturers finally getting there due in court!

 

Three of the cosmetics industry’s biggest companies, Mary Kay, Avon, and Estee Lauder (and all the brands under them!) have been named in a class action lawsuit filed in California on behalf of American consumers. The lawsuit sites that these companies fraudulently claimed not to be doing animal testing when in fact they were, misleading the American public. Defendants later purported to disclose, at least on their websites, that they in fact were animal testing, but the disclosures were wholly inadequate and deceptive, the lawsuit states. As a result of their claims of no animal testing, Avon, Estee Lauder and Mary Kay gained and held onto a spot on the much coveted, “Do Not Test” list compiled by PETA. This list indicates which companies do not test products on live animals. Until recently, Estee Lauder, Avon and Mary Kay were among the largest mainstream corporations to be included on PETA’s cruelty-free lists. Specifically, the lawsuit states “As a result of being included on the list, as well as many similar lists, defendants enjoyed the support of PETA and millions of consumers who buy cosmetics only from companies that do not conduct animal testing.  And hence, the commercial success of defendants’ products during the class period was positively influenced by their direct representations regarding animal testing. Simply put, defendants reaped hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue from US consumers who otherwise would not have purchased defendants’ products. Filed in October, and entitled Marina Beltran et al. v. Avon Products Inc., Case No. 12-cv-02502, this amended class action lawsuit is the third filed against Avon, and has two new named plaintiffs that are alleging claims of fraud and violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The Plaintiffs allege that Avon is required to disclose its animal testing practices.

The “minerals” in Bare Minerals are a patented blend of 72 minerals (containing Mercury, Arsenic, and many more). Animal research is actually cited in the patent (held by Roger Blotsky and Leslie Blodgett). Fun fact: it’s also sold as a supplement for animals. Biokool is the company that produces it. Google away!

This lawsuit comes after the news in February that PETA was removing these companies from their cruelty free list. The reason that these companies were removed is they are sold in China. China requires cosmetics to be tested on animals, so there isn’t any way these companies could truly be cruelty free. The lawsuit seeks more than $100,000,000 in punitive and compensatory damages for a class of more than 1,000,000 consumers.

I hope this makes them wake up and pay attention!

I am actually really happy to hear about this. Whether or not you are a cruelty free beauty user exclusively, I like the idea of these corporations being held responsible. I hate that companies are able to get away with being vague about their practices, and maybe this lawsuit will help encourage other companies (okay, scare them) to be more transparent and forthcoming with information to consumers. Maybe it will also make them think twice about this whole thing, and flex their power and influence to get China’s animal testing policies changed. Cosmetics are a multi billion dollar industry. Surely there’s something someone can do?

US District Judge Cormac J. Carney ruled that the plaintiffs sufficiently pled their causes of action that Avon fraudulently concealed that it tests on animals.

I hope they win. How dare these companies lie to their consumers, THE ONES WHO PUT THEM IN BUSINESS. I wished I had known about this lawsuit & been able to be apart of it. I TOO had spent money on these companies with the impression that they were cruelty-free.

The technology is already out there to test cosmetic products without the use of animals. Usually these matters all come down to one thing: money. And that is why I hope the lawsuit not only goes forward, but that they win. You can’t teach a large company anything unless you hit them where they will feel it: their bottom line. Whether or not you are worried about animal testing, we simply cannot allow companies to lie to consumers, even by omission.

Avon lied to customers by claiming its products are cruelty free. For years, Defendants marketed and advertised their companies and their cosmetic products as not being tested on animals, when in fact Avon, Mary Kay, Estee Lauder were testing their cosmetic products on animals so that they could sell products in China and other foreign countries, thereby reaping hundreds of millions in sales.

Blog courtesy of The Gloss Managerie.com

Real Hair Truth – L’Oreal Paris’s Pervasive and Misleading National Marketing Campaign

The search for the elusive waters of the “Fountain of Youth” has tempted those seeking to restore youth and beauty for ages. Indeed, as the story goes, in 1513, the great explorer Juan Ponce De Leon searched high and low for the “Fountain of Youth” – only to find Florida instead. In the 1800s, “snake oil” salesmen infamously ranged the West selling tonics that claimed to cure every ill, including signs of aging. Today, the search for a youth potion continues and, like modern-day snake oil salesmen. .

L’Oreal USA, Inc. and or and also including L’Oreal Paris Brand Division,  consumers’ fundamental fear of aging and their eternal hope that products exist that can eliminate the signs of aging and effectively turn back time. In fact, L’Oreal profits handsomely by making misleading claims that the L’Oreal Paris Youth Code line of wrinkle creams, specifically Youth Code Serum Intense, Youth Code Eye Cream, and Youth Code Day/Night Cream, (collectively “Youth Code” or “Youth Code Products”) have age-negating effects on human skin.

For example, among other affirmations, L’Oreal Paris specifically promises the following age-negating benefits of using Youth Code: Immediate wrinkle reduction, Skin’s natural regeneration powers are boosted, Breakthrough GenActiv Technology helps stimulate recovery, Boosts skin’s natural powers of regeneration, Skin regains the qualities of young skin, Lines and wrinkles are visibly reduced, Boosts cell turnover. 

 And L’Oreal promises consumers that Youth Code is able to provide such age-negating benefits because of L’Oreal’s claimed scientific breakthroughs and discovery including, but not limited to, the following:

After 10 years of research L’Oreal scientists unlock the code of skin’s youth by discovering a specific set of genes¹ that are responsible for skin’s natural powers of regeneration.

¹in-vivo study

An innovation derived from gene science

L’Oreal’s breakthrough GenActiv Technology™

²Patented in Germany, Spain, France, UK, Italy, and Japan; US Pat. Pending

5. Unfortunately, these claims (and the others detailed below) are false, deceptive, and misleading.

6. As explained more fully herein, L’Oreal Paris has made, and continues to make, deceptive and misleading claims and promises to consumers about the efficacy of Youth Code in a pervasive, nation-wide marketing scheme that confuses and misleads consumers about the true nature of the product. In reality, the Youth Code products do not live up to the claims made by L’Oreal Paris.

7. As a result, L’Oreal Paris’s marketing and advertising campaign is the same as that of the quintessential snake-oil salesman – L’Oreal Paris dupes consumers with false and misleading promises of results it knows it cannot deliver, and does so with one goal in mind – reaping enormous profits.

8. Indeed, the only reason a consumer would purchase Youth Code sold by L’Oreal Paris instead of lower-priced moisturizers, which are readily available, is to obtain the unique results that L’Oreal Paris promises. Upon information and belief, other, lower-priced brands contain substantially the same ingredients or provide substantially the same results as those touted by L’Oreal Paris – the only difference being the false and misleading efficacy claims made by L’Oreal Paris to deceive consumers into paying significantly more for their higher priced Youth Code.

9. A direct result of this pervasive and deceptive marketing campaign is that consumers across the country, including Plaintiffs and the proposed Class, International Patent²

²Patented in Germany, Spain, France, UK, Italy, and Japan; US Pat. Pending

5. Unfortunately, these claims (and the others detailed below) are false, deceptive, and misleading.

6. As explained more fully herein, L’Oreal Paris has made, and continues to make, deceptive and misleading claims and promises to consumers about the efficacy of Youth Code in a pervasive, nation-wide marketing scheme that confuses and misleads consumers about the true nature of the product. In reality, the Youth Code products do not live up to the claims made by L’Oreal Paris.

7. As a result, L’Oreal Paris’s marketing and advertising campaign is the same as that of the quintessential snake-oil salesman – L’Oreal Paris dupes consumers with false and misleading promises of results it knows it cannot deliver, and does so with one goal in mind – reaping enormous profits.

8. Indeed, the only reason a consumer would purchase Youth Code sold by L’Oreal Paris instead of lower-priced moisturizers, which are readily available, is to obtain the unique results that L’Oreal Paris promises. Upon information and belief, other, lower-priced brands contain substantially the same ingredients or provide substantially the same results as those touted by L’Oreal Paris – the only difference being the false and misleading efficacy claims made by L’Oreal Paris to deceive consumers into paying significantly more for their higher priced Youth Code. A direct result of this pervasive and deceptive marketing campaign is that consumers across the country, including Plaintiffs and the proposed Class,purchased skin-care products for higher prices that do not provide the results promised.

10. Moreover, because the Youth Code Products do not provide the promised results, Plaintiffs and the proposed Class did not receive what they paid for.

11. L’Oreal Paris’s deceptive statements about the efficacy of Youth Code are equally applicable to each of the Youth Code Products because those deceptive and misleading statements appear uniformly on all Youth Code product advertisements and packaging.

12. Plaintiffs seek relief in this action individually and as a class action on behalf of all purchasers in the United States of at least one of the Youth Code Products (“the Class”) at any time from the date of product launch to the present (the “Class Period”) for violation of consumer protections laws including Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A, Sections 349 and 350 of the New York General Business Laws and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. § 58:8-1.

So basically they are suing Loreal for Deception. L’Oreal Paris’s pervasive false and misleading national marketing campaign includes the dissemination of deceptive advertising through a variety of mediums including, but not limited to, internet, television, and print media. Many of the same deceptive and misleading statements are also printed on the Youth Code product boxes. A central theme of L’Oreal Paris’s deceptive and misleading national marketing campaign, which permeates throughout its print, television and web-based advertisements and product literature, is that Youth Code, and the results promised by L’Oreal Paris, are the result of vigorous scientific research. In fact, while such claims of scientific research and discovery provide L’Oreal Paris with an increased level of credibility among unsuspecting consumers, and therefore increased sales, the scientific “discoveries” are simply part and parcel of L’Oreal Paris’s deceptive and misleading advertising campaign. Despite L’Oreal’s admission in its Code of Business Ethics (2007) that “overselling our products by making inflated or exaggerated claims for them is dishonest,” L’Oreal nonetheless turns a blind eye to its own policy for the sake of increased profits. By making specific promises regarding the efficacy of Youth Code, L’Oreal Paris’s advertising transcends the realm of mere puffery and becomes actionable as deceptive and misleading.

Regardless of where Plaintiffs and the Class purchased the Youth Code products (i.e., on-line, in a drugstore, or from third-party retailers), they were exposed to L’Oreal Paris’s pervasive, deceptive and misleading advertising messages and material omissions regarding the efficacy promises of Youth Code. Indeed, no reasonable consumer would purchase a $24.99 jar of wrinkle cream without some “knowledge” of what the product claims to do.

 L’Oreal Paris’s advertising and marketing for Youth Code is misleading in several ways. L’Oreal Paris claims that the Youth Code products are protected by an “INTERNATIONAL PATENT.” This patent claim is found on the product boxes themselves and is printed directly below the claim “YOUTH GENERATING DISCOVERY – Innovation derived from GENE Science.” The proximity of the patent claim to the “YOUTH GENERATING DISCOVERY” claim misleadingly conveys to consumers that the patent somehow involves the purported “10 years of research” leading to the “discover[y]” of a “specific set of genes.” However, upon information and belief, none of the actual patents listed on any of the Youth Code products relate to any such gene innovation or the discovery of a “specific set of genes that are responsible for the skin’s natural powers of regeneration.” Instead, upon information and belief, the patents identified on the Youth Code packaging relate to: “novel compounds having an improved power to moisturize skin and/or hair”; “a new family of thickening or gelling polymers making it possible to obtain stable thickened cosmetic and dermatological formulations”; “a novel family of thickening and/or gelling polymers which makes it possible to obtain a very large number of cosmetic and dermatological formulations which may contain supports of different nature”; and a “photostable cosmetic composition intended for protecting the skin against UV-radiation.” Falsely touting that its research has led to a discovery of a specific set of genes that is protected by patents is part and parcel of L’Oreal Paris’s deceptive scheme to convince consumers that its products will provide unique skin regeneration benefits based on the promised and patented “gene science” discovery and are therefore worth their price tag. L’Oreal Paris heavily markets its Youth Code in print media, including the placing of advertisements in such widely circulated magazines as Glamour, Vogue, and Vanity Fair, among others. L’Oreal Paris’s print media advertising contains the same false and deceptive claims as its other forms of advertising detailed herein. L’Oreal Paris touts the benefits of its skin-care products using models and celebrity spokespersons who claim to exemplify the results of the products. What L’Oreal Paris fails to disclose is that the images of the celebrities it uses are airbrushed, digitized, embellished, “Photo-shopped” or otherwise altered and, therefore, contrary to the claims made by Lancôme, cannot and do not illustrate the effectiveness of its products. In sum, the images used by L’Oreal Paris to sell Youth Code have nothing to do with the effectiveness of the products themselves.

 julia roberts lancome Fake images banned for misleading consumers.

Most recently, the National Advertising Division in the United States has taken a stance against the use of Photoshop in cosmetics advertising, noting that “advertising self-regulatory authorities recognize the need to avoid photoshopping in cosmetics advertisements where there is a clear exaggeration of potential product benefits.”

L’Oreal Paris uses statistics to mislead consumers into believing that the promised results are virtually guaranteed. For example, in the above print advertisement, L’Oreal Paris claims that “95% of women saw results.**” Any reasonable consumer would associate that claim with the foregoing specific efficacy promises that “One Drop instantly improves skin quality; One Week skin looks visibly younger; and One Month skin acts dramatically younger.*” However, in virtually unreadable, microscopically small print at the very bottom of the advertisement, L’Oreal Paris clarifies the results and promises. The single asterisk indicates that after use of the product for one month, “*Skin is firmer and cell renewal increases.” However, underneath that, L’Oreal Paris attempts to clarify that the results that 95% of women saw were not for firmer skin, cell renewal or visibly younger skin – but rather for “One or more of these benefits: feels restored, rested, smoothness.” This nonsensical (and nearly invisible) disclaimer has nothing to do with the claims that Youth Code makes as to its gene science, gene research and skin regenerating powers in the primary marketing message. Thus, the attempted disclaimer does nothing to cure the misleading nature of the use of the statistical “95%” claim. L’Oreal Paris’s false and misleading claims are the crux of its marketing campaign for Youth Code, therefore leading to increased sales and profits for L’Oreal Paris that it otherwise would not have enjoyed without resorting to such deception. L’Oreal Paris’s promises of specific results and scientific discoveries that enable such results cannot be defended as mere puffery. Indeed, L’Oreal admits in its 2011 annual report that the “close interaction between science and marketing . . . is a key advantage to L’Oreal’s innovation approach.” L’Oreal Paris relies on such a “close interaction” because it knows that consumers are more likely to believe its empty promises, and therefore more likely to purchase it products, when indicia of scientific research are present. To perpetuate its deceptive scheme, L’Oreal Paris has a short product cycle, releasing new products every couple of years based upon some new “research” or purported “scientific discovery.” L’Oreal Paris does so in order to falsely tout its new products via a re-imagined marketing campaign in order to keep driving sales and profits that would otherwise stagnate once consumers used the products and realized that they do not perform as promised. This scheme is evident by the fact that L’Oreal Paris discontinues sales and production of its older products once new products are introduced to the market, despite the fact that the claims made on the discontinued products are purportedly designed based on amazing scientific breakthroughs. For example, L’Oreal Paris discontinued its Wrinkle Defense product, for which it made the following promises: combats the emergence of new lines and surface wrinkles, reduce the appearance of fine lines and wrinkles, skin-resiliency booster, L’Oreal Paris discontinued this product from the market despite its promised efficacy. L’Oreal Paris’s removal of the purportedly effective product, Wrinkle Defense, from the market demonstrates that L’Oreal Paris’s promised discoveries and benefits are illusory and nothing more than clever marketing. Basically they are always in court. Remember read the labels on your products everyone. If you cannot pronounce it don’t use it!

 

The Real Hair Truth:Solving the Problem of Mislabeled Organic Personal Care Products

Every professional should know about the diction and definitions of organic products within our industry. The language of ingredients can be very vague at times and also very confusing. At no time would I personally take the information from a manufacturer and believe it. Go outside of your industry to chemists or your local state college to get the proper information on the ingredients listed in your salon products. If an individual sends you products without proper labeling and is just wrapped in tissue, BEWARE! How do you know if the product is “SAFE”. There are a lot of “MOM&POP” businesses who will start-up in their own homes and will visit a MICHAEL arts and craft store to purchase wax, scents, soaps and “WELLAH”, you have a supposedly ORGANIC PRODUCT”. Beware what you buy in the Beauty Industry and have it tested. You can go to your state college and the college will test the products you received for little to nothing. You can also hire a chemist and have a ingrediant  test done on the products. Below this is the official information from the USDA on Labeling of Organic Hair Care. You should know this take the time to educate yourself of the information the USDA offers us in the Beauty Industry. Look for the USDA organic seal on shampoos that claim to be organic. Although there are multiple “organic” and “natural” standards, each with its own varying criteria, the USDA Organic Standards are the “gold standard “for personal care products”.

The Certification, Accreditation, and Compliance Committee (CACC) recommends that organic personal care products be recognized explicitly by the National Organic Program (NOP) to ensure consumers and businesses alike that the products have an unquestioned home in the USDA National Organic Program.

Background: The policy statement of the USDA on August 23, 2005 extended the USDA regulations to cover the organic claims made by personal care products which meet the composition requirements for organic food. With this recognition has come the full force of certification and enforcement. While this is an improvement over what previously existed, an ever-increasing stream of personal care products making organic claims continues to flow in to the market place. In an April 2008 news bulletin, the NOP further explained USDA organic certification of cosmetics, body care products, and personal care products. Most recently, in July 2009, the NOP published a “DRAFT FOR COMMENT ONLY: Certification and Labeling of Soap Products Made From Agricultural Ingredients.” The Appendix contains these 3 NOP statements. None of these statements were developed through the Federal Rulemaking process, neither is it certain how durable these various statements will be at NOP.

Cosmetics, Body Care Products, and Personal Care Products

The Problem of Mislabeled Personal Care Products

The USDA is responsible for product organic claims but is not currently enforcing this in the area of personal care products. Consumers are not assured that organic claims are consistently reviewed and applied to the class of products known as personal care products. For instance, at a given retailer, one may find personal care products such as shampoos and lotions labeled as “organic” with no clear standards or regulatory underpinning for the organic claim–and unless the product is specifically labeled as “USDA Organic,” the word “organic” may be used with impunity. Manufacturers of personal care products that contain organic ingredients are hindered by a thicket of competing private standards and confusion regarding the applicability of the NOP to their products. Transactions lack the regulatory clarity that applies under the NOP to food products that contain organic ingredients.

Given the pace of development of this marketplace, and the important but uneven development of private standards, the NOP should take the necessary initial steps to bring this product class into a coordinated existence with organic food products under the regulation.

This recommendation takes the initial steps toward:

3) assuring consumers that the federal government is policing organic claims on personal care products

4) allowing for the development of a complete federal organic personal care product program

Recommendation

To facilitate the development of a single national standard for this product class, and to ensure consumers that organic personal care products meet a consistent standard, the CACC recommends that the following amendments be made to 7 CFR Part 205. Underlined text is to be added to the current rule.

1. §205.102. Add Definition of Personal Care Products:

(1) An article intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or sprayed on, introduced into, or otherwise applied to the human body or any part thereof for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance

2. §205.100(a) Add words “including personal care products”

Except for operations exempt or excluded in § 205.101, each production or handling operation or specified portion of a production or handling operation that produces or handles crops, livestock, livestock products, or other agricultural products including personal care

products that are intended to be sold, labeled, or represented as “100 percent organic,” “organic,” or “made with organic (specified ingredients or food group(s))” must be certified according to the provisions of subpart E of this part and must meet all other applicable requirements of this part.

3. §205.102 Use of the term “organic.”

Any agricultural product, including personal care products, that is sold, labeled or represented as “100 percent organic,” “organic,” or “made with organic (specified ingredients or food group(s))must be: * * *

4. §205.300 Use of the term, “organic.”

(a) The term, “organic” may only be used on labels and in labeling of raw or processed agricultural products, including ingredients of any product, without regard to the end use of the product, that is sold, labeled or represented as “100 percent organic,” “organic,” or “made with organic (specified ingredients or food group(s))must be: * * *

5. §205.311 USDA Seal

(a) The USDA seal described in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section may be used only for farm or processed agricultural products, including personal care products, described in paragraphs * * *

The National Organic Program (NOP) has received numerous inquiries regarding its current thinking on the issue of products that meet the NOP program standards for organic products based on content, irrespective of the end use of the product. This statement is intended to clarify the NOP’s position with respect to this issue, and will be provided to all of our accredited certifying agents.

Agricultural commodities or products that meet the NOP standards for certification under the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, 7 U.S.C. §§ 6501- 6522, can be certified under the NOP and be labeled as “organic” or “made with organic” pursuant to the NOP regulations, 7 C.F.R. part 205.300 et seq. To qualify for certification, the producer or handler must comply with all applicable NOP production, handling, and labeling regulations.

Operations currently certified under the NOP that produce agricultural products that meet the NOP standards to be labeled as “organic” and to carry the USDA organic seal, or which meet NOP standards to be labeled as “made with organic,” may continue to be so labeled as long as they continue to meet the NOP standards. Such certification may only be suspended or revoked after notice and opportunity for hearing.

There are agricultural products, including personal care products, that, by virtue of their organic agricultural product content, may meet the NOP standards and be labeled as “100 percent organic,” “organic” or “made with organic” pursuant to the NOP regulations. Businesses that manufacture and distribute such products may be certified under the NOP, and such products may be labeled as “100 percent organic,” “organic” or “made with organic” so long as they meet NOP requirements. Additionally, products that may be labeled “100 percent organic” or “organic” may also carry the USDA organic seal. If additional rule making is required for such products to address additional labeling issues or the use of synthetics in such products, the NOP will pursue such rule making as expeditiously as possible.

2) Cosmetics, Body Care Products, and Personal Care Products, April 2008

● FDA does not define or regulate the term “organic,” as it applies to cosmetics, body care, or personal care products.

● USDA regulates the term “organic” as it applies to agricultural products through its National Organic Program (NOP) regulation, 7 CFR Part 205.

● If a cosmetic, body care product, or personal care product contains or is made up of agricultural ingredients, and can meet the USDA/NOP organic production, handling, processing and labeling standards, it may be eligible to be certified under the NOP regulations.

● The operations which produce the organic agricultural ingredients, the handlers of these agricultural ingredients, and the manufacturer of the final product must all be certified by a USDA-accredited organic certifying agent.

● Once certified, cosmetics, personal care products, and body care products are eligible for the same 4 organic labeling categories as all other agricultural products, based on their organic content and other factors:

 “100 percent organic”–Product must contain (excluding water and salt) only organically produced ingredients. Products may display the USDA Organic Seal and must display the certifying agent’s name and address.

 “Organic”–Product must contain at least 95 percent organically produced ingredients (excluding water and salt). Remaining product ingredients must consist of nonagricultural substances approved on the National List or nonorganically produced agricultural products that are not commercially available in organic form, also on the National List. Products may display the USDA Organic Seal and must display the certifying agent’s name and address.

“Made with organic ingredients”– Products contain at least 70 percent organic ingredients and product label can list up to three of the organic ingredients or “food” groups on the principal display panel. For example, body lotion made with at least 70 percent organic ingredients (excluding water and salt) and only organic herbs may be labeled either “body lotion made with organic lavender, rosemary, and chamomile,” or “body lotion made with organic herbs.” Products may not display the USDA Organic Seal and must display the certifying agent’s name and address.

Less than 70 percent organic ingredients–Products cannot use the term “organic” anywhere on the principal display panel. However, they may identify the specific ingredients that are USDA-certified as being organically produced on the ingredients statement on the information panel. Products may

not display the USDA Organic Seal and may not display a certifying agent’s name and address. (Water and salt are also excluded here.)

● Any cosmetic, body care product, or personal care product that does not meet the production, handling, processing, labeling, and certification standards described above, may not state, imply, or convey in any way that the product is USDA-certified organic or meets the USDA organic standards.

● USDA has no authority over the production and labeling of cosmetics, body care products, and personal care products that are not made up of agricultural ingredients, or do not make any claims to meeting USDA organic standards.

● Cosmetics, body care products, and personal care products may be certified to other, private standards and be marketed to those private standards in the United States. These standards might include foreign organic standards, eco-labels, earth friendly, etc. USDA’s NOP does not regulate these labels at this time.

Certification and Labeling of Soap Products Made From Agricultural Ingredients

The Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA), 7 U.S.C. Section 6501, et. seq ., as amended, and implemented in 7 CFR Part 205, National Organic Program (NOP) Final Rule, regulates the production, handling, processing, and labeling of all raw or processed agricultural products to be sold, labeled, or represented as organic in the United States. In an August 23, 2005 policy statement issued by the NOP, the Program clarified that agricultural products may be certified and labeled in accordance with the Act and its implementing regulations regardless of end use. The statement allows for certain products, such as soaps, to be certified under the NOP, providing they comply with 7 CFR 205.

This document describes the interim procedures to be used by certified operations and certifying agents accredited by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to certify and label soap products as “organic” or “made with organic [specified ingredients]”, referred to throughout this document as “made with” products.

Soap is produced by a process called saponification, whereby oils are hydrolyzed by the addition of an alkali, yielding soap, glycerin, water and other byproducts. Glycerin is produced by this process and has been determined by the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) to be a synthetic and appears on the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances as such. (Insecticidal soaps are permitted under 205.601 for crop production.)

The NOP has been asked to provide guidance on the labeling of soap that has been formulated and produced in accordance with the NOP regulations.

Some in the industry have expressed concern that allowing certification and labeling of soap as organic is a violation of OFPA. We disagree. The processing of agricultural products in accordance with NOP regulations often results in chemical or physical changes, many of which may involve the synthesis of new compounds. For example, the processes of baking bread or cooking meat create changes in the products that may involve the creation of new compounds. However, neither of these common products are viewed as synthetic under the regulations. Our interest is to create a consistent, fair policy that can be applied uniformly in a variety of situations. Therefore, we base our analysis of the process on the NOP regulations. The NOP regulations describe the inputs and processing which take place in the formulation and

manufacturing of a finished product; they do not prescribe the nature of the finished product itself. This allows agricultural products and allowed synthetics to be used to create a wide variety of products which may be eligible for certification, regardless of end use. Further, identification of products produced in compliance with the NOP regulations, and the percentage of organic products that they contain, allows for subsequent formulation into products which retain their eligibility for labeling as organic or “made with” organic products, depending upon the percentage of organic ingredients used to create the product. This allows producers to retain the added value of organic products throughout the production process and provides consumers with a choice when searching for products that contain organically produced ingredients.

In general, products that have been formulated in compliance with the NOP regulations may be eligible for certification as “organic” or “made with” products. Further, products produced in compliance with the regulations should be eligible for further processing and certification based on their true organic component content. Thus, a formulated product produced using 75% organic ingredients and 25% allowed synthetics is eligible for certification as a “made with” product. In addition, the “made with” products should carry a certified organic content of 75% when used in subsequent down-stream processing, under the condition that full disclosure of its organic content and other ingredients is provided by the manufacture. If a soap is produced using 80% certified organic oil and 20% sodium hydroxide, the soap would be eligible for certification as a soap “made with organic oils.” Further, the soap “made with organic oils” may be processed downstream into other products using 80% as the organic content for those calculations.

Labeling of these products should be consistent with labeling done for any other certified organic processed product, with full disclosure of the ingredients in the ingredient statement on the information panel. This should include all certified organic ingredients and any synthetics used to produce the product. Although Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations allow downstream processors to list “saponified organic oils” in the ingredient statement, FDA does not prohibit full disclosure of the organic and synthetic ingredients, consistent with NOP regulations. Therefore, ingredient statements for products containing saponified oils must include the name of the actual organic ingredient and the synthetic ingredients used to create the soap. If the saponified oils are produced as a part of a separate process, they may be listed as a parenthetical statement, such as “saponified organic oils (organic coconut oil, potassium hydroxide), water, glycerin, beet juice color.”

Guidance: Soap products formulated using certified organic oils and materials included on the National List may be certified and labeled as “organic” or “made with organic [specified ingredients].” Further, when manufacturers of saponified organic oils produce such products in compliance with the regulations and provide certified formulations to downstream processors, they may be further processed into “organic” or “made with” products.

When saponified oils are produced by a certified organic handler and are to be sold as “made with organic oils” for further processing into certified “organic” or “made with” products, they must be accompanied by a complete ingredient statement which gives the actual percentage of the organic ingredients contained in the “made with” product. When labeling products produced with saponified oil, the ingredient statement of the further processed product must include the ingredients used to produce the saponified oil. As an option, the saponified organic oil may be stated on the ingredient statement followed by a parenthetical statement. Listing the saponified oils without listing the ingredients used to produce the saponified oils is not sufficient.

Procedures: As always, certifiers must review and approve all organic handling plans for products produced with saponified oils, including the ingredient statements for the saponified oils themselves, prior to issuing certification for handling operations producing these products. Producers of saponified oils to be further processed into other personal care products must provide statements of the type and percent of all ingredients used to produce the saponified oils so that this information may be included in the ingredient statement of the finished product. All labels for certified organic soaps and products containing saponified oils must be reviewed and approved by the certifying agent prior to printing and labeling.