Saturday, February 12, 2011
What's in a Name?
I have debated this post for a few days. On the one hand it speaks specifically to the fact that GlitterSniffer Cosmetics does not practice what it preaches, on the other it catches a lot of innocent handmade sellers up in a situation not of their own making. I am very cognizant of the fact that the GlitterSniffer Cosmetics situation has cast a bad light not only on indie cosmetics in general, but could possibly effect handmade sellers negatively as a whole. Though I personally have no issue continuing to purchase handmade, and do so quite regularly still, I am well aware that this situation has made people gun shy. For that reason I will not be including supporting links to the products I mention though that has been my practice thus far. I will also be removing any identifying information for these sellers. These wonderful artisans do not deserve any further identification with GlitterSniffer Cosmetics, especially since they had nothing to do with the company's choice to sell unapproved products, and simply lent their names in good faith to a company they felt they could trust. They are just another in a long line of innocent victims and I do not wish to cause them any further issues.
And with that preamble out of the way, the following was posted to the GlitterSniffer Cosmetics Facebook Fan Page on February 4, 2011:
It does not seem to be the case that someone was trying to use GlitterSniffer Cosmetics name to make money. The crafter in question made it very clear via the GlitterSniffer Complaints FaceBook Page that she was no longer associated with GS, had forgotten about the listings, had edited them to remove the association, and that the original intent of the listings was to link to GS and help drive business to them.
But GlitterSniffer Cosmetics should know all about using links to drive business. It's something they have practiced themselves for years. From the Etsy forums, dated February 11, 2009:
There were 15 pages of responses to this offer, with much discussion of link trading. This shows that GlitterSniffer Cosmetics had no issues with soliciting others for marketing purposes, in effect using others names in order to make money. Some selected listings:
Please note that most of these colors were not "inspired" by these shops. They were already made and simply named for the sellers. For the most part GlitterSniffer Cosmetics did not know any of these sellers until soliciting them for the use of their names, despite their claims to the contrary in the listings. There are many others I have not listed.
At least three of these products have since been recalled as being unsafe for eye use.
It is debatable at this point if use of the GlitterSniffer Cosmetics name would be of any value to anyone currently selling handmade, but this certainly gives pause to the assertion that crafters use their name to increase sales, when cross promotion is not only something GlitterSniffer Cosmetics participated in, but actively sought out in the past.
This is, of course, in addition to the numerous trademarked names they have used, and are currently planning on using, to market their products.
And with that preamble out of the way, the following was posted to the GlitterSniffer Cosmetics Facebook Fan Page on February 4, 2011:
It does not seem to be the case that someone was trying to use GlitterSniffer Cosmetics name to make money. The crafter in question made it very clear via the GlitterSniffer Complaints FaceBook Page that she was no longer associated with GS, had forgotten about the listings, had edited them to remove the association, and that the original intent of the listings was to link to GS and help drive business to them.
But GlitterSniffer Cosmetics should know all about using links to drive business. It's something they have practiced themselves for years. From the Etsy forums, dated February 11, 2009:
There were 15 pages of responses to this offer, with much discussion of link trading. This shows that GlitterSniffer Cosmetics had no issues with soliciting others for marketing purposes, in effect using others names in order to make money. Some selected listings:
Please note that most of these colors were not "inspired" by these shops. They were already made and simply named for the sellers. For the most part GlitterSniffer Cosmetics did not know any of these sellers until soliciting them for the use of their names, despite their claims to the contrary in the listings. There are many others I have not listed.
At least three of these products have since been recalled as being unsafe for eye use.
It is debatable at this point if use of the GlitterSniffer Cosmetics name would be of any value to anyone currently selling handmade, but this certainly gives pause to the assertion that crafters use their name to increase sales, when cross promotion is not only something GlitterSniffer Cosmetics participated in, but actively sought out in the past.
This is, of course, in addition to the numerous trademarked names they have used, and are currently planning on using, to market their products.
Friday, February 11, 2011
GlitterSniffer Cosmetics and Artfire
GlitterSniffer Cosmetics is currently selling their products via Artfire. I wanted to take a closer look at what exactly the company is offering.
First of all, all their pigments are listed as 100% Pure Pigment. A quick look at their ingredients list shows that this is simply not the case.
Magnesium Stearate is a base additive used to aid in slip and adhesion. Its inclusion means these are not 100% Pure Pigment. It should be noted that per Artfire TOS any of these products can be flagged and removed for "Misleading Pic/Title".
According to GlitterSniffer Cosmetics own Artfire Policies all shipments include delivery confirmation.
There is also the issue of when exactly the company was founded. According to the Artfire Bio it was 2008, but the recall information is for products from 2006 and on. A full examination of this phenomena may be found here.
Then there is this listing, the Infamous Grab Bag Preorder. Besides the fact that it also violates Artfire TOS as it includes items which are not handmade (Nyx Bases and brushes) it is a preorder. It also violates Artfire TOS to sell items you do not currently have in hand. This item could also be flagged and removed.
Additionally, the Grab Bags have no stated turnaround time. Rather, customers are asked to be patient in waiting for delivery.
First of all, all their pigments are listed as 100% Pure Pigment. A quick look at their ingredients list shows that this is simply not the case.
Magnesium Stearate is a base additive used to aid in slip and adhesion. Its inclusion means these are not 100% Pure Pigment. It should be noted that per Artfire TOS any of these products can be flagged and removed for "Misleading Pic/Title".
According to GlitterSniffer Cosmetics own Artfire Policies all shipments include delivery confirmation.
However, in the individual listings it states they do not provide tracking information and if you wish to have this information you must email and specifically request it.
There is also the issue of when exactly the company was founded. According to the Artfire Bio it was 2008, but the recall information is for products from 2006 and on. A full examination of this phenomena may be found here.
Then there is this listing, the Infamous Grab Bag Preorder. Besides the fact that it also violates Artfire TOS as it includes items which are not handmade (Nyx Bases and brushes) it is a preorder. It also violates Artfire TOS to sell items you do not currently have in hand. This item could also be flagged and removed.
Additionally, the Grab Bags have no stated turnaround time. Rather, customers are asked to be patient in waiting for delivery.
This, despite their own stated policy that all orders would be shipped within 5 business days.
Just a quick glance at Artfire shows a multitude of contradictions and possible TOS violations, in addition to the labeling issues and sales of products that are not what they claim to be. One would think that given the company history they would be more apt to follow every rule to the letter and ensure that what they are advertising is what they are indeed selling but that would not appear to be the case.
Others Experiences
An update and more stories about GlitterSniffer Cosmetics from others. Again, all identifying information has been removed. Thank you to everyone for sharing.
This is an updated photo of the first story related here. She is still suffering effects months after discontinuing use of GlitterSniffer Cosmetics:
Another story detailing ill effects, including a hospital stay. Some of the effects were from usage of GlitterSniffer Cosmetics soap:
This is an updated photo of the first story related here. She is still suffering effects months after discontinuing use of GlitterSniffer Cosmetics:
Another story detailing ill effects, including a hospital stay. Some of the effects were from usage of GlitterSniffer Cosmetics soap:
I thought that I'd share what happened to my girlfriend and I concerning glittersniffer. My girlfriend was a fan of theirs for awhile before she bought a huge amount of colours, and when they arrived half of them were missing. I guess after everything we should be grateful for getting anything! Well, my girlfriend is allergic to carmine and is vegan, so therefor she asked beforehand if it contained any and if it was so, and she was told that no there was no carmine in the colors she was receiving and that they were indeed vegan and cruelty free. So she took her word on it and bought it. Immediately after applying her new eyeshadow, her eyes were swollen shut and her face was puffy, she ended up spending several days in the hospital being treated. The eyeshadow obviously did contain carmine to trigger such a severe reaction and obviously was not vegan. I myself had an infection after using glittersniffer cosmetics as well as a rash from one of their soaps. After complaining very politely I might add, and asking for a refund we were pretty much told no and that that was the risk we took of buying makeup offline and such. I can do my best to see if I can find the emails. The only good thing that I can say is that paypal has deemed in my favour of a refund.From an email January 24, 2011:
A refund denial:I just wanted to let you know that I have basically been a lurker of the fb page and the blog. Seeing all this go down made me contact paypal today regarding a possible refund from my November 7, 2010 purchase of the Pressure Sensitive Collection from Lela. I have had some issues with burning of my eyes, but nothing like some of the other women have experienced. You can also literally see the pieces of glitter in the pots. It kind of reminded me of glitter from a craft store that you use for art projects. Some of the pots are sealed with a sticky thing over them, some are not.The rep I spoke to was also named redacted. I called at 1:20pm eastern time to the (402) 935-2050 phone number. She had told me that they will definitely file my dispute/claim and if enough complaints were issued, there is a good chance everyone will be refunded.
On Dec 28, 2010, at 6:26 AM, redacted wrote:
i just want to know when i can get my refund for the items in the pictures.
From: Lela Warren <glittersniffercosmetics@gmail.com
To: redacted
Sent: Tue, December 28, 2010 1:44:22 PM
Subject: Re: picture of items that need to be refunded
redacted,
We are anticipating a 3-6 week time frame to complete the refund process.
XOXO
On Dec 28, 2010, at 3:32 PM, redacted wrote:
why was it last week i would have it by this week and now its 3-6 weeks?
______________________________
From: Lela Warren <glittersniffercosmetics@gmail.com>
To: redacted
Sent: Tue, December 28, 2010 4:34:00 PM
Subject: Re: picture of items that need to be refunded
redacted ,
If you would like an in depth explanation, please call me. I cannot refund
anyone until my PayPal is unlocked. That is not a process I can speed up.
Sent from my iPad
On Dec 28, 2010 6:55 PM, redacted wrote:
how can i call without a phone number? and i dont understand how you make so
much money off of the pigments that you sell but you cant refund anyone?? i know
how much it cost to make and distribute makeup.. i was looking into making my
own...
From: Lela Warren <glittersniffercosmetics@gmail.com>
To: redacted
Sent: Tue, December 28, 2010 6:58:39 PM
Subject: Re: picture of items that need to be refunded
Here is my number, call me.
3133034780
On Dec 28, 2010, at 7:23 PM, redacted wrote:when is the best time to call? im busy and cant stop my world to call why cant i just get an explanation on here?
From: Lela Warren <glittersniffercosmetics@gmail.com>
To: redacted
Sent: Tue, December 28, 2010 7:26:25 PM
Subject: Re: picture of items that need to be refunded
You can call now. I can take your call anytime tonight. If you want to talk about this, you can call me.
On Dec 28, 2010, at 8:05 PM, redacted wrote:i can not call... i dont have time i only have time to check my e-mail once a day im getting ready to have a baby in 3 weeks so im busy all day.
From: Lela Warren <glittersniffercosmetics@gmail.com>
To: redacted
Sent: Tue, December 28, 2010 8:13:36 PM
Subject: Re: picture of items that need to be refunded
If you don't have the time to call me I won't have time to investigate this any further and I'll have to deny your request for a refund.
Terms of Service
I contacted Ebay yesterday about GlitterSniffer Cosmetics sale of this listing. Ebay has strict terms about what may or may not be sold on the site. Per their Terms of Service recalled items may not be sold on the site.
Here is a screenshot of GlitterSniffer Cosmetics offsite linking in an Etsy feedback from late last year:
Per the Do's and Don'ts of Etsy:
Just to review, it appears that GlitterSniffer Cosmetics has violated Ebay Terms of Service with this listing. We also know that GlitterSniffer Cosmetics is no longer using Paypal due to a Terms of Service violation. GlitterSniffer Cosmetics clearly violated Etsy's offsite link policy. Two listings on Artfire, since flagged and removed, violated TOS.
Every site that GlitterSniffer Cosmetics utilizes has clear guidelines which must be followed. It would seem that in addition to FDA ingredients and labeling guidelines GlitterSniffer Cosmetics simply disregards this information, though it is readily available to them.
Products that are currently subject to a recall but the sale of the product is not prohibited by law or regulation, as long as the listing includes the recall information.The items sold in this lot contained ingredients for GlitterSniffer Cosmetics recalled items (from the listing: We are offering them in a bulk listing because we are currently not shipping orders while we play catch up and put some new company rules in place, along with colors we will no longer be selling.) in addition to others. No where in the listing is the recall listed. In fact the listing specifically states that it can be added to mascara or brow gel, and that the lot will perform as an eye shadow "in the sense that you may put them on your eyes".
Here is a screenshot of GlitterSniffer Cosmetics offsite linking in an Etsy feedback from late last year:
Per the Do's and Don'ts of Etsy:
You may not use Etsy to direct shoppers to another online selling venue to purchase the same items as listed in your Etsy shop, as this may constitute fee avoidance. This includes posting links/URLs or providing information sufficient to locate the other online venue(s).Per Artfire Terms of Service an Artisan may not sell:
Any item that which in whole or in part is subject to a recall.Glittersniffer Cosmetics unlabeled "Randoms" may fall into this catagory as they do not meet FDA regulations for labeling, could be called misbranded, and as such be subject to recall. The "Random" listing was flagged today and removed from Artfire. This is in addition to a listing flagged and earlier this week which was removed as it included brushes and NYX bases which are not Handmade and therefore violate Artfore TOS. The other listings on Artfire are also questionable because it does not appear as yet that GlitterSniffer Cosmetics is complying with FDA labeling guidelines.
Just to review, it appears that GlitterSniffer Cosmetics has violated Ebay Terms of Service with this listing. We also know that GlitterSniffer Cosmetics is no longer using Paypal due to a Terms of Service violation. GlitterSniffer Cosmetics clearly violated Etsy's offsite link policy. Two listings on Artfire, since flagged and removed, violated TOS.
Every site that GlitterSniffer Cosmetics utilizes has clear guidelines which must be followed. It would seem that in addition to FDA ingredients and labeling guidelines GlitterSniffer Cosmetics simply disregards this information, though it is readily available to them.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Little Girls Kit
It was brought to my attention today that despite all their other "Old School" colors and collections being listed GlitterSniffer Cosmetics has removed the pictures for the Little Girls Kit from their Facebook Fan Page which I originally posted about here. The Little Girls Kit was recalled in December 2010 as having been made with ingredients unapproved for eye use.
Here is the original screenshot as it appeared on the GlitterSniffer Cosmetics Fan Page as of 1/1/11, edited only to remove personally identifying information.
Here are product shots of the collection:
Here is the original screenshot as it appeared on the GlitterSniffer Cosmetics Fan Page as of 1/1/11, edited only to remove personally identifying information.
 |
| GlitterSniffer Cosmetics recommends this unsafe collection for use on a 4 year old |
2/10/11 ETA: Correct a typo in the GlitterSniffer Cosmetics name in the first paragraph.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Charity Followup-TWLOHA
Yesterday I contacted TWLOHA, ASPCA and GLAAD to followup on the promised charity donations by GlitterSniffer Cosmetics.
Briefly, the situation is thus: GlitterSniffer Cosmetics raised money for the charities and originally set a donation date of December 24, 2010. The money was not donated but was instead used to fund the recall of unsafe products sold by GlitterSniffer Cosmetics. Several of the GLAAD pigments were part of that recall. GlitterSniffer Cosmetics stated they would reraise the charity money. On January 4, 2011, TWLOHA confirmed that they expected the donation to be made within the month. The donation to TWLOHA still has not been made. All posts relating to charity, including screenshots of commitments made by GlitterSniffer Cosmetics, may be found here.
GlitterSniffer Cosmetics was recently asked about the money raised for charity and gave an amount totaling a little over $3,000.00 for all three charities.
Today I received the following email from TWLOHA.
Meanwhile, GlitterSniffer Cosmetics is having various sales (of unlabeled randoms which do not appear to meet FDA requirements for labeling and possibly violate Artfire's TOS as if they do not meet FDA labeling requirements they are subject to recall) and giving away free samples, postage paid.
One would think that donating money that was raised for charity and refunding customers for unusable products would be the company's first priority. That, however, does not appear to be the case.
I have not heard back from the ASPCA or GLAAD as yet, but will do a followup post as more information becomes available.
Briefly, the situation is thus: GlitterSniffer Cosmetics raised money for the charities and originally set a donation date of December 24, 2010. The money was not donated but was instead used to fund the recall of unsafe products sold by GlitterSniffer Cosmetics. Several of the GLAAD pigments were part of that recall. GlitterSniffer Cosmetics stated they would reraise the charity money. On January 4, 2011, TWLOHA confirmed that they expected the donation to be made within the month. The donation to TWLOHA still has not been made. All posts relating to charity, including screenshots of commitments made by GlitterSniffer Cosmetics, may be found here.
GlitterSniffer Cosmetics was recently asked about the money raised for charity and gave an amount totaling a little over $3,000.00 for all three charities.
Today I received the following email from TWLOHA.
Hey there,The timeline that was given originally to TWLOHA was December 24, 2010, which was then extended to within a month of January 4, 2011, which has now been extended to five months.
Thank you for writing to us and expressing your concerns about
Glittersniffer Cosmetics. We have been in contact with the people at
the GS company and have been aware of their fundraising efforts since
the beginning steps. They let us know that they were not able to make
the intended donation before the end of the year, but they are hoping
to have it to us within the next five months. We understand that
sometimes there are unexpected complications in running a business,
and we trust that GS Cosmetics will follow through on their intended
donation. Thanks for asking.
With Hope,
Team TWLOHA
Meanwhile, GlitterSniffer Cosmetics is having various sales (of unlabeled randoms which do not appear to meet FDA requirements for labeling and possibly violate Artfire's TOS as if they do not meet FDA labeling requirements they are subject to recall) and giving away free samples, postage paid.
One would think that donating money that was raised for charity and refunding customers for unusable products would be the company's first priority. That, however, does not appear to be the case.
I have not heard back from the ASPCA or GLAAD as yet, but will do a followup post as more information becomes available.
GlitterSniffer Cosmetics Mascara Followup and Questioning the Cream Eyeliner
I was sent some product shots of GlitterSniffer Cosmetics Mascara. Again, the neon pink mascara is not approved for eye use, a fact not disclosed by GlitterSniffer Cosmetics until 4 days ago. The information was only disclosed when GlitterSniffer Cosmetics was specifically asked about it. The mascara has not been recalled and no effort has been made on the part of the company to inform customers who may have purchased it that it is not approved for eye use as per the FDA. It is still unclear if the other mascara shown is eye approved.
Neon Pink:
A huge thank you to an anonymous emailer for the information.
This also begs the question what, exactly, was in GlitterSniffer Cosmetics Cream Eyeliners? The cream eyeliners pink #3 looks very similar to the mascara pink.
The cream eyeliners, like the mascara, have no ingredients listed so at this point it is hard to be sure if they are eye approved or not.
For comparison purposes here are examples of the soap dyes used by GlitterSniffer Cosmetics in some of their recalled products. On their official recall list it states that they are not eye approved, but the dyes clearly indicate they are not approved for cosmetic use at all.
Neon Pink:
A huge thank you to an anonymous emailer for the information.
Repackaging
GlitterSniffer Cosmetics has admitted in the past to "repackaging" their eye pigments. The company states this only happened when they first began selling cosmetics.
Repackaging is when no color blending occurs and sometimes not even a base is added. Bases are important as they aid in slip and adhesion. If a base is not used chances are you are going to end up smearing a clumpy mess all over your lids and suffering from fallout.
Here are the ingredients lists from the official site and from GlitterSniffer Cosmetics current offerings:
These ingredients lists do not match. It should be noted that the Artfire ingredients list Magnesium Stearate, which is a base additive used to aid in adhesion and slip.
There are many indie makeup sellers who repackage. Some don't admit it, others make it clear in their product listings. I am not going to debate the ethics of repackaging, but I will say that personally I prefer to spend my money on a unique color.
With that being said I would like to present to you a comparison of GlitterSniffer Cosmetics and some base micas. These micas are not finished products. They are ingredients used to make finished products. This is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as an endorsement of any company listed here.
Here is my own pot of GlitterSniffer Cosmetics Sammy Jo compared to Grape POP!.
I apologize for the lack of swatches. I refuse to use any GS products on my person. Sammy Jo swatches and Grape POP! swatches my be found here, in addition to others.
Other colors sold by GlitterSniffer Cosmetics that are comparable to pure mica:
Radiation is comparable to Tuarus Orion.
The Heavy Metals Quad is comparable to The Metallic Collection.
Marva is comparable to Capricorn Sea.
Prism Fingerprints Collection is comparable to The Interference Collection (top row only).
Carnivore Pressure Sensitive is comparable to The Sparks! Collection (fourth item, top row).
Peacock is comparable to Blueberry POP!
Mobster is comparable to Indian Blue.
Candy Collection Blue is comparable to True Blue.
Pillow Talk is comparable to Ocean Green.
Unicorn is comparable to Vintage Blue.
Cotton Candy is comparable to Cosmic Carolyn.
Lower East Side is comparable to Brilliant Glitter Red.
Pam is comparable to Aztec Gold.
Sam is comparable to True Yellow.
Doll Face Rice Powder/Veil is comparable to Rice Powder.
Porcelain Face Dust Primer is comparable to Kaolin Clay.
Please note that not all of these ingredients are eye approved. You can click on the"More Details" link below the pictures to be sure. This information has always been readily available on the site and is also available via the FDA site as well.
At least one of the micas, Brilliant Glitter Red, which appears to have been sold as Lower East Side via the Official GlitterSniffer Cosmetics site contains carmine, a nonvegan ingredient. The company states they never sold a nonvegan pigment through the official site.
Most of the sample sizes listed here can be had for as little as $1.50. The comparison picture above of Sammy Jo and Grape POP! shows a sample size bag. For further examples of sample sizes see here.
While I did not go through Glittersniffer Cosmetics complete current listings Pillow Talk and Unicorn are still being sold as of today.
You can find a complete list of Matte Tones, Base Powders and Additives, and Micas at various places online. Here are swatches of the 60 most repackaged colors for comparison.
Again, while I do not endorse any company in presenting this information it is easy to see that at least some of the pigments that can no longer be used from GlitterSniffer Cosmetics are replaceable with a minimum of effort at nearly 1/4 the cost.
If you are interested in GlitterSniffer Cosmetics newly announced product, a Nintendo video game controller soap scented with Mountain Dew, a comparable one can be found here, sold by its original inventors.
2/9/11 ETA:
Panties is comparable to Angel Wings. Angel Wings is not vegan as it contains carmine.
There are also many colors that appear to match the POP! micas.
I also added tags to the post as I had overlooked adding them earlier.
Same date, ETA:
I wanted to give a huge thank you to several people whose hard work went into this post. I was remiss in not mentioning this earlier. I did not do the research for most of this post, and had it not been for the help of several people who wish not to be identified the information would not have been posted. They have my sincerest gratitude and my utmost apology for not posting it sooner.
Same date, ETA:
Further comparisons to GlitterSniffer Cosmetics pigments and the POP! micas can be found here. A larger photo of the comparison is here.
Same date, ETA: Fixed the link for Vintage Blue.
Repackaging is when no color blending occurs and sometimes not even a base is added. Bases are important as they aid in slip and adhesion. If a base is not used chances are you are going to end up smearing a clumpy mess all over your lids and suffering from fallout.
Here are the ingredients lists from the official site and from GlitterSniffer Cosmetics current offerings:
 |
| Shown for illustrative purposes. All ingredients lists currently on Artfire are identical. |
There are many indie makeup sellers who repackage. Some don't admit it, others make it clear in their product listings. I am not going to debate the ethics of repackaging, but I will say that personally I prefer to spend my money on a unique color.
With that being said I would like to present to you a comparison of GlitterSniffer Cosmetics and some base micas. These micas are not finished products. They are ingredients used to make finished products. This is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as an endorsement of any company listed here.
Here is my own pot of GlitterSniffer Cosmetics Sammy Jo compared to Grape POP!.
I apologize for the lack of swatches. I refuse to use any GS products on my person. Sammy Jo swatches and Grape POP! swatches my be found here, in addition to others.
Other colors sold by GlitterSniffer Cosmetics that are comparable to pure mica:
Radiation is comparable to Tuarus Orion.
The Heavy Metals Quad is comparable to The Metallic Collection.
Marva is comparable to Capricorn Sea.
Prism Fingerprints Collection is comparable to The Interference Collection (top row only).
Carnivore Pressure Sensitive is comparable to The Sparks! Collection (fourth item, top row).
Peacock is comparable to Blueberry POP!
Mobster is comparable to Indian Blue.
Candy Collection Blue is comparable to True Blue.
Pillow Talk is comparable to Ocean Green.
Unicorn is comparable to Vintage Blue.
Cotton Candy is comparable to Cosmic Carolyn.
Lower East Side is comparable to Brilliant Glitter Red.
Pam is comparable to Aztec Gold.
Sam is comparable to True Yellow.
Doll Face Rice Powder/Veil is comparable to Rice Powder.
Porcelain Face Dust Primer is comparable to Kaolin Clay.
Please note that not all of these ingredients are eye approved. You can click on the"More Details" link below the pictures to be sure. This information has always been readily available on the site and is also available via the FDA site as well.
At least one of the micas, Brilliant Glitter Red, which appears to have been sold as Lower East Side via the Official GlitterSniffer Cosmetics site contains carmine, a nonvegan ingredient. The company states they never sold a nonvegan pigment through the official site.
Most of the sample sizes listed here can be had for as little as $1.50. The comparison picture above of Sammy Jo and Grape POP! shows a sample size bag. For further examples of sample sizes see here.
While I did not go through Glittersniffer Cosmetics complete current listings Pillow Talk and Unicorn are still being sold as of today.
You can find a complete list of Matte Tones, Base Powders and Additives, and Micas at various places online. Here are swatches of the 60 most repackaged colors for comparison.
Again, while I do not endorse any company in presenting this information it is easy to see that at least some of the pigments that can no longer be used from GlitterSniffer Cosmetics are replaceable with a minimum of effort at nearly 1/4 the cost.
If you are interested in GlitterSniffer Cosmetics newly announced product, a Nintendo video game controller soap scented with Mountain Dew, a comparable one can be found here, sold by its original inventors.
2/9/11 ETA:
Panties is comparable to Angel Wings. Angel Wings is not vegan as it contains carmine.
There are also many colors that appear to match the POP! micas.
I also added tags to the post as I had overlooked adding them earlier.
Same date, ETA:
I wanted to give a huge thank you to several people whose hard work went into this post. I was remiss in not mentioning this earlier. I did not do the research for most of this post, and had it not been for the help of several people who wish not to be identified the information would not have been posted. They have my sincerest gratitude and my utmost apology for not posting it sooner.
Same date, ETA:
Further comparisons to GlitterSniffer Cosmetics pigments and the POP! micas can be found here. A larger photo of the comparison is here.
Same date, ETA: Fixed the link for Vintage Blue.
Monday, February 7, 2011
Mail and Telephone Order Merchandise Rule/FTC
The Federal Trade Commission has different measures in place to ensure that the purchasing process goes smoothly for consumers. One of the measures is the Mail or Telephone Order Merchandise Trade Regulation Rule. This measure covers not only telephone and mail orders, but internet orders as well.
As per the FTC site:
Also from the site:
As per the FTC site:
It applies to most goods a customer orders from the seller by mail, telephone, fax, or on the Internet.
It does not matter how the merchandise is advertised, how the customer pays, or who initiates the contact.
The Rule requires that when you advertise merchandise, you must have a reasonable basis for stating or implying that you can ship within a certain time. If you make no shipment statement, you must have a reasonable basis for believing that you can ship within 30 days.
In a nutshell, if a customer has not received a shipment of an order placed with GlitterSniffer Cosmetics within the stated turnaround time or 30 days from the order placement date and does not give permission for further delay the company is required by the FTC to refund without the customer having to ask for a refund. This shipping expectation also appears to apply to anything purchased using the fee gift cards supplied by GS as it clearly states that it does not matter how the customer paid. The FTC is very consumer protection oriented and goes to great lengths to address consumer issues, especially those that may have violated any of the consumer protection rules.If, after taking the customer’s order, you learn that you cannot ship within the time you stated or within 30 days, you must seek the customer’s consent to the delayed shipment. If you cannot obtain the customer’s consent to the delay -- either because it is not a situation in which you are permitted to treat the customer’s silence as consent and the customer has not expressly consented to the delay, or because the customer has expressly refused to consent -- you must, without being asked, promptly refund all the money the customer paid you for the unshipped merchandise.
Also from the site:
For more information about the Mail or Telephone Order Merchandise Rule, call the Federal Trade Commission toll-free: 1-877-FTC-HELP; write: Federal Trade Commission, Consumer Response Center, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580; or visit: www.ftc.gov.
Personally Identifying Information/FTC
On Friday, February 4, 2011 GlitterSniffer Cosmetics posted to the Facebook Fan Page asking to hire someone for administrative duties. Those duties included accessing sensitive consumer information including names and addresses provided to GlitterSniffer Cosmetics by the consumer via Paypal and Artfire for the purposes of purchase only. The only qualifications were internet access, a few hours of time, and GlitterSniffer Cosmetics knowing the person "somewhat".
It is not clear what the purpose of this is, but I can confidently say that when I made my purchase with GlitterSniffer Cosmetics it was conducted in good faith with the understanding that my personally identifying information would be used for that purchase and that purchase alone. As I am no longer a customer of GS my information has no business being accessed by an unknown third party for an undisclosed reason.
I called the Federal Trade Commission at 1-877-382-4357 and filed a complaint. The FTC has a Bureau of Consumer Protection that is tasked with helping consumers know their rights in terms of purchasing and their secure information. I spoke with a representative and provided my personal information, GlitterSniffer Cosmetics contact information, and a brief summary of the issue. I was given a confirmation number and the telephone number for my states Consumer Protection Office to file a complaint as well. I will be making that phone call as soon as I post this entry.
Information about the FTC and Consumer Privacy and Security can be found here. Complaints may also be filed online.
2/7/11 ETA:
A concerned customer emailed GlitterSniffer Cosmetics and was told that the job had been given to an employee who had worked for the company for 4 years. GlitterSniffer Cosmetics declined to provide the name of the employee. There was also no information provided as to what purposes the information would be used.
According to the statement released by GlitterSniffer Cosmetics on December 23, 2010 the company had a new staff and a new Vice President. The information provided today in regards to the release of customers personally identifying information directly contradicts the statement the company released in December. While it is unknown at this time which of these statements are factual there is only one publicly identified employee of GlitterSniffer Cosmetics aside from Lela Warren:
2/20/2011 ETA: Please see the new information posted here. GlitterSniffer Cosmetics tasked a member of their fan page who is not an employee with retrieving customers personally identifying information.
It is not clear what the purpose of this is, but I can confidently say that when I made my purchase with GlitterSniffer Cosmetics it was conducted in good faith with the understanding that my personally identifying information would be used for that purchase and that purchase alone. As I am no longer a customer of GS my information has no business being accessed by an unknown third party for an undisclosed reason.
I called the Federal Trade Commission at 1-877-382-4357 and filed a complaint. The FTC has a Bureau of Consumer Protection that is tasked with helping consumers know their rights in terms of purchasing and their secure information. I spoke with a representative and provided my personal information, GlitterSniffer Cosmetics contact information, and a brief summary of the issue. I was given a confirmation number and the telephone number for my states Consumer Protection Office to file a complaint as well. I will be making that phone call as soon as I post this entry.
Information about the FTC and Consumer Privacy and Security can be found here. Complaints may also be filed online.
2/7/11 ETA:
A concerned customer emailed GlitterSniffer Cosmetics and was told that the job had been given to an employee who had worked for the company for 4 years. GlitterSniffer Cosmetics declined to provide the name of the employee. There was also no information provided as to what purposes the information would be used.
According to the statement released by GlitterSniffer Cosmetics on December 23, 2010 the company had a new staff and a new Vice President. The information provided today in regards to the release of customers personally identifying information directly contradicts the statement the company released in December. While it is unknown at this time which of these statements are factual there is only one publicly identified employee of GlitterSniffer Cosmetics aside from Lela Warren:
2/20/2011 ETA: Please see the new information posted here. GlitterSniffer Cosmetics tasked a member of their fan page who is not an employee with retrieving customers personally identifying information.
Sunday, February 6, 2011
GlitterSniffer Cosmetics Pigments Are Not FDA Approved for Lip Use
A fan posted to the GlitterSniffer Cosmetics Facebook page today about GlitterSniffer Cosmetics lip gloss. The fan had never tried the lip gloss and was interested. GlitterSniffer Cosmetics helpfully suggested that any of their pigments could be mixed with a clear lip gloss and used as a gloss.
Except that they shouldn't be mixed and used as a gloss because as per GlitterSniffer Cosmetics own ingredient lists NONE of their pigments are FDA approved for lip use.
Here are the current ingredient lists for GS products.
Harajuku Full Size:
Unicorn Collection:
An example of the catch all "May contain..." ingredient listing on all products sold through Artfire:
Except that they shouldn't be mixed and used as a gloss because as per GlitterSniffer Cosmetics own ingredient lists NONE of their pigments are FDA approved for lip use.
Here are the current ingredient lists for GS products.
Harajuku Full Size:
Harajuku Samples (which don't match the full size):
An example of the catch all "May contain..." ingredient listing on all products sold through Artfire:
Neither Ultramarines nor Chromium Oxide Green are FDA approved for lip use.
 |
| Ultramarine Violet shown for illustrative purposes. None of the three Ultramarines are lip approved. |
 |
| Chromium Oxide Green shown for illustrative purposes. Neither of the Chromium Oxide Greens are lip approved. |
Either one or both of these ingredients appear on every ingredients list for every product being sold by GlitterSniffer Cosmetics right now. To suggest that a customer use a product in a way that is not FDA approved has the potential for causing harm to the customer. GlitterSniffer Cosmetics, having been "rockin' out bright pigments since 2008" should know that.
This demonstrates that either Glittersniffer Cosmetics is knowingly giving misinformation about their products and their uses, or does not know itself how exactly their products may be utilized safely. Either way it leaves the consumer at risk.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
