Site search
sponsored by
News
ENLARGE
You just don't mess with lipstick. It's too important. It's the only thing that separates a hockey mom from a pit bull.
During the Great Depression, which may come to be known as Great Depression I, there was no consumption drop in lipstick. The “lipstick effect” is a common term used to describe the fact that even in times of extreme economic distress, people will find the money for small luxuries that make them feel better.
So imagine my astonishment when I opened my e-mail to find an alert from my cottage industry cosmetics trade organization that the Colorado legislature was considering a Draconian bill that would take away my lipstick.
House Bill 10-1248 would have banned the sale in Colorado of any personal care products that contained even one molecule of any substance that any one of thousands of governmental agencies or “groups recognized as authoritative” considered to be carcinogenic or cause “reproductive toxicity. Zero tolerance.
The proposed legislation included no public enforcement provisions. The bill just set up a platform for civil lawsuits. Further, it would have allowed “bounty hunter” lawsuits to be filed solely on the basis of listed ingredients. No harm to anyone need be proven. California Proposition 65, a similar measure passed a few years back, prompted starving California attorneys to troll the moisturizer section and create havoc with a rash of lawsuits.
Why, with all the challenges facing the State of Colorado, and in an atmosphere of daunting budget deficits, are legislative resources being expended on regulations to save us from our stupid selves and make it harder to do business in Colorado? We Coloradans believe we have a right to make bad choices. This state defeated a mandatory motorcycle helmet law.
Need I say more?
There is no doubt that many personal care products contain all manner of evil stuff that is not good for us. I make a lot of my own personal care products for this reason.
Not only is the shampoo aisle a potential deathtrap, the entire grocery store probably ought to be surrounded by yellow crime scene tape. Even organic apples still have cyanide-laced pits. It occurs naturally. Liquor stores, tobacco shops and tanning parlors are known menaces. Zero tolerance? Then don't drink the water. Don't breathe the air.
The natural radiation emanating from the geography of western Colorado from Aspen to Uravan would probably justify a protective fence around a good chunk of the state. Then there are the proven carcinogenic effects of solar radiation (much higher exposure at altitude), medical x-rays and wood dust. Second hand tobacco smoke, negative thought patterns, genetics and a plethora of other factors are thought to contribute to cancer and birth defects.
After I received the advisory e-mail from my trade group, I contacted three business associates who collectively contacted over one-hundred people.
A lot of other folks also mobilized the troops. One lawmaker reported she received 700 e-mails on the subject over a five day period prior to the Health and Human Services Committee hearing on the proposed bill. Some lawmakers unplugged their fax machines. HB 10-1248 was opposed by both small Colorado businesses and industry heavies like Mary Kay Cosmetics, Merle Norman and Target.
The bill was killed in committee. The committee noted that the bill lacked scientific rigor and did nothing to benefit consumers. Further, the committee was loathe to allow Colorado business to be regulated by such “authoritative groups” as the European Union, which already has its own regulatory nightmares.
I e-mailed four Colorado lawmakers to express my opposition to the bill. Two of them responded personally after the committee defeat.
Rep. Laura Bradford thanked me for my input and expressed her satisfaction that the bill died in committee. Rep. Dianne Primavera, co-sponsor of the defeated bill, contacted me with her publicized personal motivation for initiating the legislation. The lady has dealt with several bouts of cancer, and decided that daily doses of questionable chemicals in everything from deodorant to eyeliner were likely to blame.
I don't question Rep. Primavera's assessment of her situation. Her desire to prevent further injury is well-intentioned. However, the answer is in consumer education, not cumbersome regulation. Consumer awareness is quickly reducing use of high fructose corn syrup in grocery items. I suggested to Rep. Primavera that some cosmetics and pseudo-foods may warrant warning labels like those on tobacco and booze.
HB 10-1248 was just another battle in the ongoing war against overregulation. Maybe the bill would have died without concerned voters burning up lawmakers' FAX machines. Maybe not.
I have never been a hockey mom, but I most certainly house an inner pit bull; things can get very ugly when I feel compelled to unleash her. Do not, I repeat, do-not-mess with my lipstick.
During the Great Depression, which may come to be known as Great Depression I, there was no consumption drop in lipstick. The “lipstick effect” is a common term used to describe the fact that even in times of extreme economic distress, people will find the money for small luxuries that make them feel better.
So imagine my astonishment when I opened my e-mail to find an alert from my cottage industry cosmetics trade organization that the Colorado legislature was considering a Draconian bill that would take away my lipstick.
House Bill 10-1248 would have banned the sale in Colorado of any personal care products that contained even one molecule of any substance that any one of thousands of governmental agencies or “groups recognized as authoritative” considered to be carcinogenic or cause “reproductive toxicity. Zero tolerance.
The proposed legislation included no public enforcement provisions. The bill just set up a platform for civil lawsuits. Further, it would have allowed “bounty hunter” lawsuits to be filed solely on the basis of listed ingredients. No harm to anyone need be proven. California Proposition 65, a similar measure passed a few years back, prompted starving California attorneys to troll the moisturizer section and create havoc with a rash of lawsuits.
Why, with all the challenges facing the State of Colorado, and in an atmosphere of daunting budget deficits, are legislative resources being expended on regulations to save us from our stupid selves and make it harder to do business in Colorado? We Coloradans believe we have a right to make bad choices. This state defeated a mandatory motorcycle helmet law.
Need I say more?
There is no doubt that many personal care products contain all manner of evil stuff that is not good for us. I make a lot of my own personal care products for this reason.
Not only is the shampoo aisle a potential deathtrap, the entire grocery store probably ought to be surrounded by yellow crime scene tape. Even organic apples still have cyanide-laced pits. It occurs naturally. Liquor stores, tobacco shops and tanning parlors are known menaces. Zero tolerance? Then don't drink the water. Don't breathe the air.
The natural radiation emanating from the geography of western Colorado from Aspen to Uravan would probably justify a protective fence around a good chunk of the state. Then there are the proven carcinogenic effects of solar radiation (much higher exposure at altitude), medical x-rays and wood dust. Second hand tobacco smoke, negative thought patterns, genetics and a plethora of other factors are thought to contribute to cancer and birth defects.
After I received the advisory e-mail from my trade group, I contacted three business associates who collectively contacted over one-hundred people.
A lot of other folks also mobilized the troops. One lawmaker reported she received 700 e-mails on the subject over a five day period prior to the Health and Human Services Committee hearing on the proposed bill. Some lawmakers unplugged their fax machines. HB 10-1248 was opposed by both small Colorado businesses and industry heavies like Mary Kay Cosmetics, Merle Norman and Target.
The bill was killed in committee. The committee noted that the bill lacked scientific rigor and did nothing to benefit consumers. Further, the committee was loathe to allow Colorado business to be regulated by such “authoritative groups” as the European Union, which already has its own regulatory nightmares.
I e-mailed four Colorado lawmakers to express my opposition to the bill. Two of them responded personally after the committee defeat.
Rep. Laura Bradford thanked me for my input and expressed her satisfaction that the bill died in committee. Rep. Dianne Primavera, co-sponsor of the defeated bill, contacted me with her publicized personal motivation for initiating the legislation. The lady has dealt with several bouts of cancer, and decided that daily doses of questionable chemicals in everything from deodorant to eyeliner were likely to blame.
I don't question Rep. Primavera's assessment of her situation. Her desire to prevent further injury is well-intentioned. However, the answer is in consumer education, not cumbersome regulation. Consumer awareness is quickly reducing use of high fructose corn syrup in grocery items. I suggested to Rep. Primavera that some cosmetics and pseudo-foods may warrant warning labels like those on tobacco and booze.
HB 10-1248 was just another battle in the ongoing war against overregulation. Maybe the bill would have died without concerned voters burning up lawmakers' FAX machines. Maybe not.
I have never been a hockey mom, but I most certainly house an inner pit bull; things can get very ugly when I feel compelled to unleash her. Do not, I repeat, do-not-mess with my lipstick.
