It can be done – Banning Personal Cosmetics at the Municipal Level could Save Lives

The Hudson Quebec Supreme Court Ruling against Pesticide Applicators in June 2001 allowed Municipalities to Ban anything it felt was not safe.  Without using science, so any reason would work.  A few examples could be, The health of my child, pregnant women, makeup ending up in the environment, killing the fish, frogs and so on… 

The following quote is best read by replacing the word "pesticide' with the word 'cosmetics'

 

The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the power of municipal governments to restrict the use of pesticides within their communities. The decision reinforced the ability of municipal governments to protect both the health of their citizens and their local environment.

Ecojustice successfully argued that municipalities have an important role to play in protecting the health of residents and the environment, and that pesticide reduction measures are within the bounds of their local powers.

The victory in the 'Hudson' case is having far reaching effects for municipalities across Canada. Since the decision, more than 125 communities, including Toronto and Ottawa have begun considering passing pesticide restriction by-laws.

http://www.ecojustice.ca/cases/hudson-pesticide-bylaw-supreme-court-decision

 

Health Canada has responded immediately to the claims of imminent danger by Fellow Activist Group (Environmental Defence)

Health Canada says metal impurities in makeup minimal, no cause for concern

That doesn't matter to Certain Groups of Concerned Citizens and Lawyers so Health Canada will come out with a position paper stating that Health Canada Approved products can be further restricted by the province or municipality.  Bylaws without justification can be legally created, you could make up what you want here and make it stick.

This is exactly the response from Health Canada regarding Safe to Use Pesticides.

Once again replace the word 'pesticide' with the word 'cosmetics'

 

Why are certain pesticides banned in some Canadian municipalities and provinces if Health Canada approved them for use?

While Health Canada has the authority to register pesticides, municipalities and provinces have the authority to further impose restrictions on the use of these products.

Pesticides must be registered before they can be imported, manufactured, sold or used in Canada. Health Canada's PMRA is responsible for administering the Pest Control Products Act (PCPA). Registration under the PCPA requires a thorough scientific evaluation to determine that new pesticides are acceptable for a specific use and that registered pesticides remain acceptable for use once on the market.

Provinces and territories may enact regulations to restrict or prohibit the use of products that are registered under the PCPA in their jurisdictions. Cities, towns and municipalities may be authorized by provincial/territorial legislation to further regulate pesticide use based on local considerations within their jurisdictions, including enacting by-laws.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pest/faq-eng.php#whya

 

Go for it concerned citizens of the earth, BAN PERSONAL COSMETICS NOW!

If it even saves 1 life it will be worth it. 

 


Health Canada says metal impurities in makeup minimal, no cause for concern

 

May 17, 2011

Health Canada is attempting to placate Canadians concerned about their cosmetics after a report suggested many popular makeup products contain heavy toxic metals.

The report from Environmental Defence called on the government to impose stricter regulations on cosmetics companies and make them list all metals — which occur as impurities, not ingredients — on product labels.

Health Canada responded Monday by saying the metals identified in the report are prohibited from being intentionally added to products and instead occur naturally in "very, very low amounts."

"Our objective as a government is to continue to lower those exposures as best we can at every turn. But I don't think these numbers are cause for immediate alarm for Canadians," said James Van Loon, director of Health Canada's consumer product risk management bureau.

The report tested 49 makeup products and found all of them contained varying amounts of heavy metals with one lip gloss carrying arsenic and lead exceeding limits recommended by Health Canada.

"The fact that virtually all the products tested had some levels of these chemicals is a concern," said Rick Smith, executive director of Environmental Defence. "Heavy metals are linked to quite serious human disease."

But Van Loon said a person would have to consume five tubes of lipstick every day to have metal levels of significant concern within their body.

Health Canada has a set of draft guidelines it published in 2009 listing recommended levels for metal impurities to guide cosmetics makers on what is acceptable in their products.

Environmental Defence has urged the tightening and finalization of those guidelines in the hopes cosmetics makers will consequently lower the amount of trace metals in their products.

Van Loon said the government expects to finalize that draft guidance this year, but the acceptable levels of metal impurities it suggests will not be much different than those already in the draft. He added that Health Canada isn't considering making the listing of metal impurities on product labels mandatory.

"For things like these impurities, our approach is to establish guidelines that we think are highly protective of human health and represent what is achievable in terms of getting those amounts as low as they can go," he said.

Van Loon pointed out that Canada is already one of only two countries in the world to have published any guidelines on acceptable levels of metal impurities in cosmetics.

The government can also already take action against manufacturers that exceed prohibited metal impurity levels, and plans to investigate the one company listed in the report with a lip gloss containing trace metal amounts above limits suggested by Health Canada.

"We continue to watch the evolving science on exposure to metals," said Van Loon. "It's important for us to continue to try to lower exposures to metals everywhere we can, so this guidance could in the future continue to go down."

The report published on Monday asked six women of various ages from across the country to identify five pieces of face makeup they used regularly to be tested. Environmental Defence chose five additional products and 49 different items which included powders, foundations, concealers, blushes, mascaras, eyeliners and lip glosses — were finally tested for the presence of heavy metals.

Tests found that all of the products tested contained trace amounts of nickel, lead and beryllium. On average, products contained four of eight "metals of concern." All but one of the products, however, contained metal amounts within Health Canada's draft guidelines.

The report is also being disputed by the Canadian Cosmetics, Toiletries and Fragrances Association, which argues the publication lacks context and unnecessarily scares Canadians.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/health-canada-says-metal-impurities-makeup-minimal-amounts-222527220.html


 

Failed Attempt to ban Personal Cosmetics in the USA (Colorado) :

5 March 2010

Colorado will not ban carcinogen substances in cosmetics

Colorado lawmakers have indefinitely postponed House Bill 1248 that would have prohibited shampoos, shaving creams and other personal products from containing substances known to cause cancer or to be toxic for the reproduction.

The House Judiciary Committee dismissed the bill that would have created the “Colorado safe personal care products act” with 7 votes to 4.

 
Colorado State Capitol, House of Representatives

Opponents, such as the Personal Care Products Council, the trade body representing US cosmetics makers, argued the bill was hardly substantiated by any scientific basis. According to them, a ban on cosmetics and personal care products containing substances listed as carcinogens or toxic for the reproduction, without consideration of the conditions of use and exposure, would be overreaching.

http://www.premiumbeautynews.com/Colorado-will-not-ban-carcinogen,1698


BONUS FOOTAGE:

 

Want to know more about the cosmetics you and your family use? Check out…

The Environmental Working Group’s Skin Deep Cosmetic Database is at cosmeticsdatabase.com. It has a hazardous ranking of 1-10 for each product based on ingredients.

GoodGuide is at goodguide.com. It includes 3 ranks: health, environment, and social. The health ranking is how it affects your personal health. While GoodGuide lists ingredients that are of concern, the “10″ ranking is based solely on carcinogens, and not on other controversial ingredients, such as endocrine disruptors

 


 
 
 
 
 
 
https://wp.me/p1jq40-1el