Thursday, January 20, 2011
New Randoms-Labeling
I received pictures today of the new "Randoms" now being offered by GlitterSniffer Cosmetics.
The pigments came packaged together in a plastic bag, with an ingredients list affixed to it. The individual jars were not labeled with ingredients.
The ingredients list states it "may contain".
This does not appear to meet FDA labeling guidelines. When a fullsize product is sold it must contain ingredients, use, and place of manufacture/distributor statement on each individual jar. The stackers currently being sold by GS are exempt from this strict ingredient labeling, but not the manufacturer/distributor statement and use guidelines, as they are considered one full size product and cannot be individually labeled by color, hence the "may contain" ingredient labeling.
The order contained a sample which was labeled only with a GlitterSniffer sticker.
As this is a sample size, and not a fullsize product, the FDA labeling guidelines do not apply.
The order also contained a fullsize "Random", which has no label at all.
Suffice to say, this product meets none of the FDA labeling requirements and could therefore be called possibly misbranded and subject to FDA action.
The pigments came packaged together in a plastic bag, with an ingredients list affixed to it. The individual jars were not labeled with ingredients.
The ingredients list states it "may contain".
This does not appear to meet FDA labeling guidelines. When a fullsize product is sold it must contain ingredients, use, and place of manufacture/distributor statement on each individual jar. The stackers currently being sold by GS are exempt from this strict ingredient labeling, but not the manufacturer/distributor statement and use guidelines, as they are considered one full size product and cannot be individually labeled by color, hence the "may contain" ingredient labeling.
The order contained a sample which was labeled only with a GlitterSniffer sticker.
As this is a sample size, and not a fullsize product, the FDA labeling guidelines do not apply.
The order also contained a fullsize "Random", which has no label at all.
Suffice to say, this product meets none of the FDA labeling requirements and could therefore be called possibly misbranded and subject to FDA action.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You're Not Alone
Subscribe
Easy Access
ACE Books
Amazon Payments
Artfire
ASPCA
Attorney General
Bellasugar
Better Business Bureau
Big Cartel
Business Opportunity
Buyer Beware
Cellini Red
Charity
Child Safety
Closing
Coastal Scents
Complaints I Filed
Consumer Affairs
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Consumer Reports
Consumerist
Contact
Copyright
Cosmetic Safety
Craftzine.com
Craigslist
Cream Eyeliner
Dammit Pigment
Detroit Handmade
Detroit Urban Craft Fair
Disney
Double Labels
Ebay
Email
Etsy
Etsy Call Out Blog
Facebook
FDA
Federal Trade Commision
Flickr
Frankening
Freedom Of Information Act
FTC
Get Crafty
Gift Cards
Gift Certificates
Gift Exchange
GLAAD
Glam Rock Magazine
glittermail
GlitterSniffer
GlitterSniffer Bath
GlitterSniffer Cosmetics
GlitterSnifferCosmetics.highwire.com
Glow in the Dark
Google Checkout
Handmade
HBO
I Answer Your Questions
Ingredients
Internet Crime Complaint Center
Kids in Danger
Labeling
Lawsuit
Listia
Mail and Telephone Order Merchandise Rule
Maker City Faire
Mascara
Media
MedWatch
Mermaid Tail
Michigan Department of Agriculture
Michigan Radio
Mineral Makeup Class
My Story
New Products
News
Not Approved
OFT
Old Stock
Open Letter
Overview
Party
Paypal
Perfect Mint
Personally Identifying Information
PETA
Pigmentchick
PIRGIM
Pissed Consumer
Promises
Psycho Bath Co
PureLuxe
purpose
Randoms
Recall
Refund
Rep. John D. Dingell
Repackaging
RipOffReport.com
Sanrio
Seuss
Soap
Statement
Store Credit
Technorati
Terms of Service
The Conservatorie
The Princess Bride
The Spotted Box
Tim Burton
True Blood
TWLOHA
USPS
Vegan
Wayne County Health Department
Web
Wholesale
Women's Health
Working Girl Cosmetics
Your Story
Blog Archive
-
►
2012
(2)
- 05/06 - 05/13 (1)
- 01/08 - 01/15 (1)
-
▼
2011
(171)
- 12/25 - 01/01 (1)
- 11/20 - 11/27 (1)
- 11/13 - 11/20 (2)
- 11/06 - 11/13 (1)
- 09/04 - 09/11 (1)
- 08/21 - 08/28 (1)
- 08/14 - 08/21 (2)
- 07/31 - 08/07 (4)
- 07/24 - 07/31 (2)
- 07/17 - 07/24 (1)
- 07/10 - 07/17 (2)
- 07/03 - 07/10 (1)
- 06/26 - 07/03 (2)
- 06/19 - 06/26 (2)
- 06/05 - 06/12 (1)
- 05/29 - 06/05 (1)
- 05/22 - 05/29 (2)
- 05/15 - 05/22 (7)
- 05/08 - 05/15 (5)
- 05/01 - 05/08 (6)
- 04/24 - 05/01 (7)
- 04/17 - 04/24 (6)
- 04/10 - 04/17 (2)
- 03/13 - 03/20 (3)
- 03/06 - 03/13 (1)
- 02/27 - 03/06 (7)
- 02/20 - 02/27 (9)
- 02/13 - 02/20 (3)
- 02/06 - 02/13 (11)
- 01/30 - 02/06 (7)
- 01/23 - 01/30 (16)
- 01/16 - 01/23 (14)
- 01/09 - 01/16 (8)
- 01/02 - 01/09 (32)
-
►
2010
(53)
- 12/26 - 01/02 (53)
About Me
Powered by Blogger.
Why would anyone even want anymore of this crap considering.....
ReplyDeletePD
PD- The person who received thiese only ordered to get examples of the labeling.
ReplyDeleteNow that I'm looking back at this post.. that full sized random in the last picture looks a hell of a lot like the Seuss Gold she's now selling.. which would make no sense because didn't she 'create' that pigment after this post went up?
ReplyDelete