Showing posts with label Buyer Beware. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Buyer Beware. Show all posts
Monday, June 27, 2011
Buyer Beware- Coastal Scents Followup
I posted on June 22, 2011 regarding Coastal Scents and the issue of the safe usage of Cellini Red. Since that post there have been several new developments.
Coastal Scents (CS) has now posted the MSDS for Cellini Red (CR) and all the Cellini colors. This information was not previously available at the time of the initial post.
At least one of the formulators who had to recall shades that contacted Coastal Scents was issued a refund. The company admits that at one point in time it was listed as safe for eye use, but again gives no timeline for when the usage change occurred. The message also states the issue was corrected immediately, though as shown in the original post CS states they changed it on February 23, 2011, but were still shipping jars out marked eye safe as late as May 2011. The formulator was refunded for two full size jars and a sample.
At this point a sixth indie MMU company has issued a recall and another has had to push back their launch date to reformulate shades made with Cellini Red. Coastal Scents has ceased contact with the original formulator and refuses to answer her email.
Mistakes happen. When it comes down to it it is the handling of those mistakes that makes the difference. As I previously noted the formulators affected by the Cellini Red usage change have handled this beautifully, being forthcoming and correcting the issue, despite the inherent pitfalls of having to issue a recall. They all responded quickly, pulling the affected shades, notifying customers, and making the situation right.
I wish I could say that the Cellini Red issue was an isolated one. Though CS has issued at least one refund for this issue this is not the first time an issue like this has happened with Coastal Scents.
Late last year these micas were offered for sale on the Coastal Scents site, advertised as for use on eyes, lips, nails, and face.
Here are the individual listings for Perfect Mint and Mermaid Tail shown in the home screen above, advertised as safe for eye use.
Both of these micas contain Pigment Green 7 which is not approved for eye use. Upon being contacted about the issue by an alert formulator CS immediately pulled them from sale, but again, there was no communication to customers that may have purchased the micas that they were not safe to be used as they were advertised and sold.
This now makes two instances where CS has mismarked ingredients sold on their site. Though in each case corrections were made going forward (though as we saw with CR not in as timely a manner as CS would have us believe) the past issues were apparently not corrected. It is unknown at this point how many people were affected by these mismarked micas, or if there are any other issues with any other ingredients listed now or previously on the CS site.
The plain fact of the matter is that it is incumbent upon anyone who sells ingredients that they are aware will be used for formulating products to be as transparent as possible regarding any changes or issues that may occur. As illustrated by the fact that CS can send out a newsletter advertising their sales it is well within their means to make these changes abundantly clear to their customers. That they have yet to do so, and have seemingly not done so in the past, is a business practice that perhaps Coastal Scents should take a good hard look at.
**I would like to make it unequivocally clear that I have no knowledge that GlitterSniffer Cosmetics ever purchased Cellini Red from Coastal Scents. This post is about an ingredient supplier and it's effect on several MMU companies and is being posted for informational purposes as Coastal Scents has not made the information public. If you are a formulator or a person who purchased Cellini Red for personal use please take a moment to check the approved uses. Though the company is not publicly acknowledging a usage change there is a chance that what you have been sold may not be used for what you intended.**
Coastal Scents (CS) has now posted the MSDS for Cellini Red (CR) and all the Cellini colors. This information was not previously available at the time of the initial post.
At least one of the formulators who had to recall shades that contacted Coastal Scents was issued a refund. The company admits that at one point in time it was listed as safe for eye use, but again gives no timeline for when the usage change occurred. The message also states the issue was corrected immediately, though as shown in the original post CS states they changed it on February 23, 2011, but were still shipping jars out marked eye safe as late as May 2011. The formulator was refunded for two full size jars and a sample.
To date there has been no indication the CS has contacted customers that purchased the Cellini Red to advise them of the change. There has been no announcement posted on their website nor communication sent via their newsletter. The last newsletter I received from Coastal Scents was on June 24, 2011, two days after the post (and one day after the MSDS sheets for the Cellinis were finally posted) and it contained info about their sales, nothing more.
At this point a sixth indie MMU company has issued a recall and another has had to push back their launch date to reformulate shades made with Cellini Red. Coastal Scents has ceased contact with the original formulator and refuses to answer her email.
Mistakes happen. When it comes down to it it is the handling of those mistakes that makes the difference. As I previously noted the formulators affected by the Cellini Red usage change have handled this beautifully, being forthcoming and correcting the issue, despite the inherent pitfalls of having to issue a recall. They all responded quickly, pulling the affected shades, notifying customers, and making the situation right.
I wish I could say that the Cellini Red issue was an isolated one. Though CS has issued at least one refund for this issue this is not the first time an issue like this has happened with Coastal Scents.
Late last year these micas were offered for sale on the Coastal Scents site, advertised as for use on eyes, lips, nails, and face.
Here are the individual listings for Perfect Mint and Mermaid Tail shown in the home screen above, advertised as safe for eye use.
Both of these micas contain Pigment Green 7 which is not approved for eye use. Upon being contacted about the issue by an alert formulator CS immediately pulled them from sale, but again, there was no communication to customers that may have purchased the micas that they were not safe to be used as they were advertised and sold.
This now makes two instances where CS has mismarked ingredients sold on their site. Though in each case corrections were made going forward (though as we saw with CR not in as timely a manner as CS would have us believe) the past issues were apparently not corrected. It is unknown at this point how many people were affected by these mismarked micas, or if there are any other issues with any other ingredients listed now or previously on the CS site.
The plain fact of the matter is that it is incumbent upon anyone who sells ingredients that they are aware will be used for formulating products to be as transparent as possible regarding any changes or issues that may occur. As illustrated by the fact that CS can send out a newsletter advertising their sales it is well within their means to make these changes abundantly clear to their customers. That they have yet to do so, and have seemingly not done so in the past, is a business practice that perhaps Coastal Scents should take a good hard look at.
**I would like to make it unequivocally clear that I have no knowledge that GlitterSniffer Cosmetics ever purchased Cellini Red from Coastal Scents. This post is about an ingredient supplier and it's effect on several MMU companies and is being posted for informational purposes as Coastal Scents has not made the information public. If you are a formulator or a person who purchased Cellini Red for personal use please take a moment to check the approved uses. Though the company is not publicly acknowledging a usage change there is a chance that what you have been sold may not be used for what you intended.**
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Buyer Beware- Coastal Scents Cellini Red
**I would like to make it unequivocally clear that I have no knowledge that GlitterSniffer Cosmetics ever purchased Cellini Red from Coastal Scents. This post is about an ingredient supplier and it's effect on several MMU companies and is being posted for informational purposes as Coastal Scents has not made the information public. If you are a formulator or a person who purchased Cellini Red for personal use please take a moment to check the approved uses. Though the company is not publicly acknowledging a usage change there is a chance that what you have been sold may not be used for what you intended.**
Coastal Scents Cellini Red listing has changed on their site. Once listed as safe for eye use, it is now only listed as approved for lips, face, and nails.There has been no effort on the part of CS to notify customers of this change and the issue was only brought to light by the diligence of a formulator. In the last five days five indie companies have had to issue recalls due to the use of Cellini Red in eye products. These companies were not contacted by CS themselves, but instead discovered the issue themselves, were notifed by me, or shared the information with each other. As of this post the only usage change that was found was with Cellini Red.
I emailed Coastal Scents last week to find out if Cellini Red had been reformulated and when the safe usage had changed. Here was their response:
The formulator who originally contacted CS about Cellini Red did so back in February 2011. She was concerned as she had placed an order for a full jar of Cellini Red and the ingredients on the jar did not match the sample she had previously been sent. The jar listed Red 7 Lake, which is not approved for eye use. The label on the jar clearly states that the Cellini Red she was sent not only contains Red 7 Lake, but is approved for eye use:
Prior to contacting CS she looked for a Material Data Safety Sheet but there was not one available. As of this post there is still no MSDS sheet on the Coastal Scents site for Cellini Red (or any of the Cellini's for that matter).
The formulator then contacted Coastal Scents for the information. Their correspondence is as follows (edited only to remove personally identifying information:
According to this correspondence and the MSDS sheet that Coastal Scents sent (which can be viewed here) Cellini Red did not contain Red 7 Lake and it was a labeling issue that was corrected as of February 23, 2011. Cellini Red actually contains Pigment Red 57, a derivative of Red 7. Pigment Red 57 is also not approved for eye use. What appeared to be a swift response and a correction from Coastal Scents was not all that is was cracked up to be.
The formulator ordered another jar of Cellini Red on February 25, 2011 to check the revised labeling.
The labels had been updated to change the ingredient list to include Pigment Red 57 instead of Red 7 Lake, but still indicated that it was approved for eyes, lips, face, and nails. Here is a photo of both jars together.
Unfortunately I was unable to locate the previous listings for Cellini Red using Google cache, but in checking out CS reviews for CR I found that initially it was not sold as eye safe, a fact that changed around March 5, 2010.
It is unknown at this point when, exactly, the approved uses were actually updated on the CS site. We know that Pigment Red 57 was changed from Red 7 Lake on the label as of late February (as evidenced by the photos), but the label still lists it as approved for eyes. This continued until at least May 2011, as per the photo from the other formulator. The issue of the safe usage of Cellini Red was brought to CS attention almost 4 months ago, but no customers who actually purchased CR were alerted as to any changes in those uses by the company, and when questioned about it this week by myself the company simply stated it wasn't eye approved, glossing over the fact that it was (and continued to be as of May 2011) sold as such. If the change was made on the CS site as of February 23, 2011, why do the labels still say approved for eye use? Why didn't CS alert any of their customers who purchased Cellini Red that the usage had changed? Why is there no MSDS sheet for CR on the Coastal Scents site even now?
It is extremely important to note that this issue stems from Coastal Scents handling of the approved usage changes, and not any formulator or Indie MMU company. Had it not been for the original formulators diligence in checking and double checking uses and ingredients the issue would never have been brought to light. In an attempt to give Coastal Scents the chance to inform customers themselves (though they've already had 4 months to do so) I held off on this post. I did reach out to as many formulators as I knew to let them know of the change. Each and every one of them immediately pulled their affected shades, contacted customers, and issued a recall. With the climate being what it is today in Indie MMU I feel it is imperative that people know not only about the Cellini Red issue, but about the professional, swift, and safe way these formulators handled the situation.
At this point it is unknown how, or even if, Coastal Scents will address the Cellini Red issue. When I contacted them they did not offer to make any sort of correction for the CR previously being sold as eye safe, though I told them it had been used to formulate eye products. The original formulator was not offered any sort of corrective measures either. A third formulator is still awaiting a response. Their Return Policy only covers products purchased within 30 days, and even then the product must be returned to CS for refund, an impossibility when it has already been distributed. Here is the disclaimer Coastal Scents currently has posted on the MSDS page. Whether or not this disclaimer will hold true for Cellini Red, which is not listed in the MSDS page, remains to be seen.
Coastal Scents Cellini Red listing has changed on their site. Once listed as safe for eye use, it is now only listed as approved for lips, face, and nails.There has been no effort on the part of CS to notify customers of this change and the issue was only brought to light by the diligence of a formulator. In the last five days five indie companies have had to issue recalls due to the use of Cellini Red in eye products. These companies were not contacted by CS themselves, but instead discovered the issue themselves, were notifed by me, or shared the information with each other. As of this post the only usage change that was found was with Cellini Red.
I emailed Coastal Scents last week to find out if Cellini Red had been reformulated and when the safe usage had changed. Here was their response:
Dear FrancesAs you can see while the question of reformulation was answered, the timeframe for when the safe usage changes occurred was not.
Thank you for your inquiry. As stated on our website the Cellini Red Mica (MP-024) is only approved for use on lips, face, and nails. We have not reformulated this product and it is not safe for use on the eyes due to Pigment Red 57. We trust this information was helpful and any further questions please advise.
Best regards
Coastal Scents
www.coastalscents.com
The formulator who originally contacted CS about Cellini Red did so back in February 2011. She was concerned as she had placed an order for a full jar of Cellini Red and the ingredients on the jar did not match the sample she had previously been sent. The jar listed Red 7 Lake, which is not approved for eye use. The label on the jar clearly states that the Cellini Red she was sent not only contains Red 7 Lake, but is approved for eye use:
Prior to contacting CS she looked for a Material Data Safety Sheet but there was not one available. As of this post there is still no MSDS sheet on the Coastal Scents site for Cellini Red (or any of the Cellini's for that matter).
The formulator then contacted Coastal Scents for the information. Their correspondence is as follows (edited only to remove personally identifying information:
The formulator ordered another jar of Cellini Red on February 25, 2011 to check the revised labeling.
The labels had been updated to change the ingredient list to include Pigment Red 57 instead of Red 7 Lake, but still indicated that it was approved for eyes, lips, face, and nails. Here is a photo of both jars together.
Even after the issue was brought to CS attention in February the labels were still incorrect, listing CR as safe for eyes when it wasn't. The site, however, still listed it as safe for eye use. The formulator at that point shelved Cellini Red until she could determine what exactly the safe uses were.
The formulator contacted CS again last week after reviewing her recipes and was assured on July 20, 2011 that the labeling and usage issue had been corrected as of February 23, 2011. Cellini Red was not approved for eye use. The information at that point had also been updated on the CS site.
Here is a jar purchased by another formulator in early May 2011.
The label clearly states it contains Pigment Red 57 but also states it is approved for eye use.
It is unknown at this point when, exactly, the approved uses were actually updated on the CS site. We know that Pigment Red 57 was changed from Red 7 Lake on the label as of late February (as evidenced by the photos), but the label still lists it as approved for eyes. This continued until at least May 2011, as per the photo from the other formulator. The issue of the safe usage of Cellini Red was brought to CS attention almost 4 months ago, but no customers who actually purchased CR were alerted as to any changes in those uses by the company, and when questioned about it this week by myself the company simply stated it wasn't eye approved, glossing over the fact that it was (and continued to be as of May 2011) sold as such. If the change was made on the CS site as of February 23, 2011, why do the labels still say approved for eye use? Why didn't CS alert any of their customers who purchased Cellini Red that the usage had changed? Why is there no MSDS sheet for CR on the Coastal Scents site even now?
It is extremely important to note that this issue stems from Coastal Scents handling of the approved usage changes, and not any formulator or Indie MMU company. Had it not been for the original formulators diligence in checking and double checking uses and ingredients the issue would never have been brought to light. In an attempt to give Coastal Scents the chance to inform customers themselves (though they've already had 4 months to do so) I held off on this post. I did reach out to as many formulators as I knew to let them know of the change. Each and every one of them immediately pulled their affected shades, contacted customers, and issued a recall. With the climate being what it is today in Indie MMU I feel it is imperative that people know not only about the Cellini Red issue, but about the professional, swift, and safe way these formulators handled the situation.
At this point it is unknown how, or even if, Coastal Scents will address the Cellini Red issue. When I contacted them they did not offer to make any sort of correction for the CR previously being sold as eye safe, though I told them it had been used to formulate eye products. The original formulator was not offered any sort of corrective measures either. A third formulator is still awaiting a response. Their Return Policy only covers products purchased within 30 days, and even then the product must be returned to CS for refund, an impossibility when it has already been distributed. Here is the disclaimer Coastal Scents currently has posted on the MSDS page. Whether or not this disclaimer will hold true for Cellini Red, which is not listed in the MSDS page, remains to be seen.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Buyer Beware: The Conservatorie and the Personal Use Policy
This post is a followup to the two previous posts regarding The Consevatorie. These two posts were focused on the ingredient mislabeling issue, but did not address the "for personal use only" policy that was in question.
The Conservatorie sent an email on 5/4/11 and posted to their Facebook Info tab regarding the "for personal use only" policy. In regards to the "for personal use only" policy the email had this to say:
The email states that the "for personal use policy" was never on The Conservatorie site itself. This is true, as far as can be determined through searches of Google cache and The WayBack Machine.
Here is the current information, taken from The Conservatorie Facebook Info tab as it appears right now:
If indeed this had never been a policy of TC then why did the Facebook Info tab show this information as late as 5/4/11?
The "for personal use only" policy that TC states they never had is clearly shown listed as a policy of the company. In a nutshell should TC state that the products they sell are "for personal use only" they can then release themselves from any liability should the ingredients be used in formulating products for resale and an issue arise with the use of those ingredients.
With the new policy/disclaimer the company states that there has never been a "for personal use only" policy, which can be shown to be incorrect. Couple this development with the mislabeling issue which the company was less than forthcoming about and one is left to wonder what, exactly, consumers can expect when purchasing from The Conservatorie.
Note: There is one thing I'd like to clear up from my previous post regarding the notification of the mislabeling issue. I published that the mislabeling was addressed on 5/4/11 via email and The Conservatorie Facebook page. I was remiss in posting this information. The mislabeling issue was not addressed or announced on the Facebook page. It is not currently on The Conservatorie site either. The only announcement of the mislabeling issue was via email. I regret the error and have updated the post to reflect this information.
The Conservatorie sent an email on 5/4/11 and posted to their Facebook Info tab regarding the "for personal use only" policy. In regards to the "for personal use only" policy the email had this to say:
The email states that the "for personal use policy" was never on The Conservatorie site itself. This is true, as far as can be determined through searches of Google cache and The WayBack Machine.
Here is the current information, taken from The Conservatorie Facebook Info tab as it appears right now:
Disclaimer:
The most common question we’ve been getting lately is about our "personal use" policy. There has never been any such policy; we do however, sell without warranties.
 | |||
| Cropped for the relevant "for personal use only" statement |
If indeed this had never been a policy of TC then why did the Facebook Info tab show this information as late as 5/4/11?
The "for personal use only" policy that TC states they never had is clearly shown listed as a policy of the company. In a nutshell should TC state that the products they sell are "for personal use only" they can then release themselves from any liability should the ingredients be used in formulating products for resale and an issue arise with the use of those ingredients.
With the new policy/disclaimer the company states that there has never been a "for personal use only" policy, which can be shown to be incorrect. Couple this development with the mislabeling issue which the company was less than forthcoming about and one is left to wonder what, exactly, consumers can expect when purchasing from The Conservatorie.
Note: There is one thing I'd like to clear up from my previous post regarding the notification of the mislabeling issue. I published that the mislabeling was addressed on 5/4/11 via email and The Conservatorie Facebook page. I was remiss in posting this information. The mislabeling issue was not addressed or announced on the Facebook page. It is not currently on The Conservatorie site either. The only announcement of the mislabeling issue was via email. I regret the error and have updated the post to reflect this information.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Buyer Beware: The Conservatorie Followup
The Conservatorie sent out a mass email today and updated their Facebook page addressing concern about their warranty statement and the mislabeling issue. I was forwarded the email by several people and am publishing it in full, edited only to remove personally identifying information of the recipient and the direct link to The Conservatorie site.
While it is admirable that The Conservatorie is now being forthcoming regarding the mislabeling issue, as someone who was personally affected by both of these recalls as a consumer I can tell you that the information they are now releasing is not altogether correct.
The RockABetty Beauty recall occurred on or around January 19, 2011. That was the date I personally contacted RABB regarding some of my shades with glitter after seeing the recall notice. At that point TC had already been in contact with RABB and indicated that these glitters were not eye approved, despite being sold as such, which resulted in the RABB recall. In the case of the glitter TC knew the product was mislabeled three months ago but did not make anyone aware about the glitters safe use. As the company was demonstrably aware there was an issue with the use of the glitters to the point that the site was updated with that information there should have been no delay in notification. The company knew and their customers should have been informed in a much more timely manner.
The Morgana Cryptoria lipstick recall occurred on 3/17/2011. The issues with mislabeling that impacted MC were that the ingredients that were sold were either not safe for lip use in the United States, or were not vegan. As these products were sold as vegan lipsticks the labeling change had a detrimental effect on the business, causing the recall of nine shades of lipstick. When these ingredients were originally purchased carmine, chromium oxide green, and ferric ferrocyanide were not listed by The Conservatorie. It was only due to the diligence of MC in researching prior to reordering that the formulator discovered the change. These changes were on the TC site at least a month and a half ago but again, no effort was made to announce the change on their site (except to update the product excel sheet) or via contact with their customers until today.
Additionally, there is this:
I cannot speak as to the personal use issue. As stated in my previous post there was no official word as to why The Conservatorie did not make these changes more readily accessible to the public.
In sum, while it appears The Conservatorie is making strides in correcting the mislabeling issue, at least in terms of publicity, it can be shown that they were well aware of the issue at least three months ago and that whatever delay in announcing it today was not due to obtaining the correct information, as they had updated their site with that information during that period. The company knew, made the changes, but did nothing to notify their customers so they could make an informed decision until it was announced publicly by a third party. Even then it took The Conservatorie sixteen days to formulate this announcement, an announcement that is still not listed on their site, and, as in the case of Morgana Cryptoria, the information regarding refunds and replacement is not correct.
5/5/11 ETA: I published in this post that the mislabeling issue was addressed on 5/4/11 via email and The Conservatorie Facebook page. I was remiss in posting this information. The mislabeling issue was not addressed or announced on the Facebook page. It is still not currently on The Conservatorie site either. The only announcement of the mislabeling issue was via email.
Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 03:07:40 -0500Please note that as of the publication of this post this announcement is nowhere to be found on The Conservatorie site.
To: redacted
Subject: Product Warranties and Mislabeling
From: info@theconservatorie.com
Date: May 4, 2011
From: Katie Voquy (Owner- The Conservatorie, Inc)
To: The Conservatorie community
There have been some questions lately about a policy specifying that our products are sold for personal use only. We have never stated that it is for “personal use only” anywhere on www.theconservatorie.com. We have and have always stated that “The information contained in this website is for general information purposes only. Although the information at this website is presented in good faith and believed to be correct, The Conservatorie makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the website for any purpose. Use of this site and the information therein is at the user's sole risk”.
We make no warranties on products not produced directly by The Conservatorie for this reason:
Any product ordered direct from a manufacturer is always accompanied with a Certificate of Analysis, as required by the FDA. Once we open that batch to break down into smaller, more manageable sizes for our customers, that certificate is no longer valid, and can only be warrantied if it is recertified by an independent lab – a cost prohibitive option for those who are purchasing a few ounces of an item. Because we are selling you a product without a valid Certificate of Analysis, we cannot warranty the ingredient; should you use for resale, we will not be held liable should there ever be an issue with a product you’ve created. For those who do want a Certificate of Analysis and backed with our warranty, these can be provided for an extra charge to cover the re-certification with a minimum purchase of 500 grams.
We will be happy to provide the MSDS for any product we sell upon request. If you’re unsure if a particular ingredient is the same as another from another company, please feel free to ask - we will be happy to provide you with the name of the supplier and any corresponding trademarked name to prevent you from accidentally ordering duplicates.
Any product produced by The Conservatorie (including private label) in our lab is certified and is 100% warrantied with no fee for the certification on purchases of 500 grams or more. Products directly manufactured by us will be marked as a “TC Exclusive” product. You may buy any “TC Exclusive” material with the assurance that they are covered by guarantees and warranties without having to pay for a recertification fee.
Lastly, we apologize for the delay in making the public aware of the changes we made in the information provided on our labels and on our website. This delay is partly due to the time-consuming process in obtaining the correct information before sharing them to our customers and the public. With assistance of information obtained from the FDA, we will address the rules and regulations in the latter portion of this response. To set the records straight, all product information prior to Oct 2010 and after March 20, 2011 are, in fact, correct. Since Oct 2010, we have switched suppliers and have been updating our website to reflect that. Along the way, we have failed to keep our product information and labeling updated. We understand that this has had negative effects to our customers’ businesses, and we sincerely apologize. We have taken corrective measures to share this burden with our customers, and for those that have contacted us, we have either refunded or replaced the items in question. For those who have purchased any mislabeled product(s) from The Conservatorie between October 2010 and March 2011, we will be glad to work with you. Please contact our customer service department during working hours (8 am – 5 pm, PST) Monday to Friday at 1-877- 998-2462 for assistance.
Best Regards,
Katie Voquy
Owner & CEO
The Conservatorie, Inc
10955 Arrow Route Suite 103
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
(909) 989-1888
http://theconservatorie.com/
http://www.facebook.com/theconservatorie
http://twitter.com/ConservatorieCo
To be unsubscribe click here :redacted
Thank you
While it is admirable that The Conservatorie is now being forthcoming regarding the mislabeling issue, as someone who was personally affected by both of these recalls as a consumer I can tell you that the information they are now releasing is not altogether correct.
The RockABetty Beauty recall occurred on or around January 19, 2011. That was the date I personally contacted RABB regarding some of my shades with glitter after seeing the recall notice. At that point TC had already been in contact with RABB and indicated that these glitters were not eye approved, despite being sold as such, which resulted in the RABB recall. In the case of the glitter TC knew the product was mislabeled three months ago but did not make anyone aware about the glitters safe use. As the company was demonstrably aware there was an issue with the use of the glitters to the point that the site was updated with that information there should have been no delay in notification. The company knew and their customers should have been informed in a much more timely manner.
The Morgana Cryptoria lipstick recall occurred on 3/17/2011. The issues with mislabeling that impacted MC were that the ingredients that were sold were either not safe for lip use in the United States, or were not vegan. As these products were sold as vegan lipsticks the labeling change had a detrimental effect on the business, causing the recall of nine shades of lipstick. When these ingredients were originally purchased carmine, chromium oxide green, and ferric ferrocyanide were not listed by The Conservatorie. It was only due to the diligence of MC in researching prior to reordering that the formulator discovered the change. These changes were on the TC site at least a month and a half ago but again, no effort was made to announce the change on their site (except to update the product excel sheet) or via contact with their customers until today.
Additionally, there is this:
We have taken corrective measures to share this burden with our customers, and for those that have contacted us, we have either refunded or replaced the items in question.Though The Conservatorie initially worked with Morgana Cryptoria a refund request as it relates to the mislabeling issue made a few weeks ago was denied, citing the "at your own risk" policies shown in the email sent today.This refund denial runs counter to TC assertion today that they have either refunded or replaced the items.
I cannot speak as to the personal use issue. As stated in my previous post there was no official word as to why The Conservatorie did not make these changes more readily accessible to the public.
In sum, while it appears The Conservatorie is making strides in correcting the mislabeling issue, at least in terms of publicity, it can be shown that they were well aware of the issue at least three months ago and that whatever delay in announcing it today was not due to obtaining the correct information, as they had updated their site with that information during that period. The company knew, made the changes, but did nothing to notify their customers so they could make an informed decision until it was announced publicly by a third party. Even then it took The Conservatorie sixteen days to formulate this announcement, an announcement that is still not listed on their site, and, as in the case of Morgana Cryptoria, the information regarding refunds and replacement is not correct.
5/5/11 ETA: I published in this post that the mislabeling issue was addressed on 5/4/11 via email and The Conservatorie Facebook page. I was remiss in posting this information. The mislabeling issue was not addressed or announced on the Facebook page. It is still not currently on The Conservatorie site either. The only announcement of the mislabeling issue was via email.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Buyer Beware: The Conservatorie
**I would like to make it unequivocally clear that I have no knowledge that GlitterSniffer Cosmetics ever purchased from The Conservatorie. This post is about an ingredient supplier and it's effect on several MMU companies and is being posted for informational purposes as The Conservatorie has not made the information public. If you are a formulator or a person who purchased from The Conservatorie for personal use please take a moment to check your ingredients. Though the company is not publicly releasing this information there is a chance that what you have been sold may not be used for what you intended.**
Over the last few months safety of Indie MMU has been in the spotlight. I am very cognizant of the fact that there are people who are now shying away from Indie makeup due in part to this blog. This is very unfortunate, as most Indie MMU sellers are safe and put out amazing, unique products, and, for the most part, this blog is here to illustrate the business practices of one company. GlitterSniffer Cosmetics is not representative of Indie MMU as a whole. Most Indie MMU companies take safety seriously and the health of their customers is their first concern.
Recently two of these companies were faced with the unfortunate task of recalling products. RockABetty Beauty and Morgana Cryptoria initiated recalls after discovering that their ingredient supplier The Conservatorie (first link on the google search) had changed their ingredient information and what they had previously purchased as either eye or lip safe or vegan was, in actuality, not.
In the case of RABB the company responded to customer concerns about glitter fallout by checking the ingredients on The Conservatorie site, only to find that the listings had changed and none of the glitter they had purchased was eye safe. The company immediately pulled all of their shades containing glitter and posted about the recall. They offered several options to their customers, including reformulated shades, trades for other shades, refund, or store credit. They then followed through on all their commitments.
Morgana Cryptoria discovered the ingredient changes in their own research. As a matter of course they research ingredients even if they have previously purchased them. As soon as the company realized the ingredients had been changed they issued a recall on some of their lipsticks, offering store credit, refund, or exchange. In all nine shades were recalled, some as containing carmine (the lipsticks were sold as vegan) and some not approved for lip use in the US as they contained Chromium Oxide Green or Ferric Ferrocyanide. Morgana Cryptoria has also followed through on their commitments.
A third company, whose line has yet to be launched, has had to reformulate at least 4 shades as they contain carmine, an ingredient change that affects this particular company as they will sell strictly vegan product. Due to issues with the INCI listing on The Conservatorie site they may have to reformulate several more.
There has been no effort on the part of The Conservatorie to notify customers that they changed their ingredients. Had it not been for the diligence of the above mentioned formulators the issue would still be unknown.
There was another change to The Conservatorie site as well. If you click the first link in the google search linked here, scroll to the bottom, and click on the Policies link you can read the suppliers' revised policy. This policy is what prevents me from linking directly to the site. Another change is that it, in effect, releases the company from any liability whatsoever. It states that they do not guarantee that any of their information is correct and that everything on the site is used 'at your own risk'.The company has made an all out effort to protect themselves, but no effort to communicate the ingredients changes to their customers.
At this time there is no official word as to why The Conservatorie has not made public these changes which have already resulted in 2 recalls. All three of the formulators I've written about in this post have been in contact with the company and they are aware that the changes have resulted in recalls and reformulation.
So what changes were made? Some of their products are now listed as containing carmine, Ferric Ferrocyanide, Chromium Green Oxide, and Chromium Hydroxy Green. Some glitters, previously listed as eye safe, are no longer listed as eye safe. You can review their updated ingredients list by accessing any of their micas and clicking on the Info Chart, which opens a PDF. Below I will post screenshots of Google cached versions of some of their affected previous ingredients for comparison.
A note about Chromium Green Oxide and Chromium Hydroxy Green as The Conservatorie now has them listed. It seems that The Conservatorie is referring to Chromium Oxide Green and Chromium Hydroxide Green, neither of which are lip safe. Even with the updated list the ingredients are not correctly listed. These names are not INCI compliant. Anyone going off this list to label would still be labeling incorrectly as the INCI is incorrect. As per the FDA ingredients on cosmetics must be listed in descending order of predominance by INCI. The correct INCI for these are Chromium Oxide Green (CI 77288) and Chromium Hydroxide Green (CI 77289).
Here are the screenshots for the previous ingredients for some of the affected ingredients, as of 3/7/11 per Google cache.
And from The Conservatorie Twitter, dated 2/3, an answer about the safe use of their glitters:
I present this information for a couple of reasons. As consumers we have a right to know that what we are purchasing, be it from a commercial cosmetics company, an Indie company, or a supplier is what it claims to be. The Conservatorie is not being forthcoming and the extent of the reach of these ingredients is unknown. These recalls do not lie at the feet of the Indie MMU companies who purchased these ingredients and people should know that. I also wanted to show that not all recalls have to be handled in the manner that GS' is.
I would like to thank RockABetty Beauty and Morgana Cryptoria not only for their permission to publish, but for the manner in which their recalls were handled. They could have easily pulled their products and reformulated, but they did not. They researched and did what was best for their customers. Both companies were transparent and apologetic. Though unfortunate, the recalls for these companies only serve to illustrate that diligence in research, concern for the customer, and simply doing what is right goes much farther than the fact that a product had to be recalled ever could. That both companies stepped up to the plate, not only in terms of their recalls, but in answering my inquiries and wanting first and foremost for others to be informed by this publication speaks volumes. It is a horrible situation to be in, but both handled it with grace and a business acumen geared toward the customer.
Again, if you purchased from The Conservatorie please check your ingredients. Be Safe. Be informed. Be well.
Over the last few months safety of Indie MMU has been in the spotlight. I am very cognizant of the fact that there are people who are now shying away from Indie makeup due in part to this blog. This is very unfortunate, as most Indie MMU sellers are safe and put out amazing, unique products, and, for the most part, this blog is here to illustrate the business practices of one company. GlitterSniffer Cosmetics is not representative of Indie MMU as a whole. Most Indie MMU companies take safety seriously and the health of their customers is their first concern.
Recently two of these companies were faced with the unfortunate task of recalling products. RockABetty Beauty and Morgana Cryptoria initiated recalls after discovering that their ingredient supplier The Conservatorie (first link on the google search) had changed their ingredient information and what they had previously purchased as either eye or lip safe or vegan was, in actuality, not.
In the case of RABB the company responded to customer concerns about glitter fallout by checking the ingredients on The Conservatorie site, only to find that the listings had changed and none of the glitter they had purchased was eye safe. The company immediately pulled all of their shades containing glitter and posted about the recall. They offered several options to their customers, including reformulated shades, trades for other shades, refund, or store credit. They then followed through on all their commitments.
Morgana Cryptoria discovered the ingredient changes in their own research. As a matter of course they research ingredients even if they have previously purchased them. As soon as the company realized the ingredients had been changed they issued a recall on some of their lipsticks, offering store credit, refund, or exchange. In all nine shades were recalled, some as containing carmine (the lipsticks were sold as vegan) and some not approved for lip use in the US as they contained Chromium Oxide Green or Ferric Ferrocyanide. Morgana Cryptoria has also followed through on their commitments.
A third company, whose line has yet to be launched, has had to reformulate at least 4 shades as they contain carmine, an ingredient change that affects this particular company as they will sell strictly vegan product. Due to issues with the INCI listing on The Conservatorie site they may have to reformulate several more.
There has been no effort on the part of The Conservatorie to notify customers that they changed their ingredients. Had it not been for the diligence of the above mentioned formulators the issue would still be unknown.
There was another change to The Conservatorie site as well. If you click the first link in the google search linked here, scroll to the bottom, and click on the Policies link you can read the suppliers' revised policy. This policy is what prevents me from linking directly to the site. Another change is that it, in effect, releases the company from any liability whatsoever. It states that they do not guarantee that any of their information is correct and that everything on the site is used 'at your own risk'.The company has made an all out effort to protect themselves, but no effort to communicate the ingredients changes to their customers.
At this time there is no official word as to why The Conservatorie has not made public these changes which have already resulted in 2 recalls. All three of the formulators I've written about in this post have been in contact with the company and they are aware that the changes have resulted in recalls and reformulation.
So what changes were made? Some of their products are now listed as containing carmine, Ferric Ferrocyanide, Chromium Green Oxide, and Chromium Hydroxy Green. Some glitters, previously listed as eye safe, are no longer listed as eye safe. You can review their updated ingredients list by accessing any of their micas and clicking on the Info Chart, which opens a PDF. Below I will post screenshots of Google cached versions of some of their affected previous ingredients for comparison.
A note about Chromium Green Oxide and Chromium Hydroxy Green as The Conservatorie now has them listed. It seems that The Conservatorie is referring to Chromium Oxide Green and Chromium Hydroxide Green, neither of which are lip safe. Even with the updated list the ingredients are not correctly listed. These names are not INCI compliant. Anyone going off this list to label would still be labeling incorrectly as the INCI is incorrect. As per the FDA ingredients on cosmetics must be listed in descending order of predominance by INCI. The correct INCI for these are Chromium Oxide Green (CI 77288) and Chromium Hydroxide Green (CI 77289).
Here are the screenshots for the previous ingredients for some of the affected ingredients, as of 3/7/11 per Google cache.
And from The Conservatorie Twitter, dated 2/3, an answer about the safe use of their glitters:
I present this information for a couple of reasons. As consumers we have a right to know that what we are purchasing, be it from a commercial cosmetics company, an Indie company, or a supplier is what it claims to be. The Conservatorie is not being forthcoming and the extent of the reach of these ingredients is unknown. These recalls do not lie at the feet of the Indie MMU companies who purchased these ingredients and people should know that. I also wanted to show that not all recalls have to be handled in the manner that GS' is.
I would like to thank RockABetty Beauty and Morgana Cryptoria not only for their permission to publish, but for the manner in which their recalls were handled. They could have easily pulled their products and reformulated, but they did not. They researched and did what was best for their customers. Both companies were transparent and apologetic. Though unfortunate, the recalls for these companies only serve to illustrate that diligence in research, concern for the customer, and simply doing what is right goes much farther than the fact that a product had to be recalled ever could. That both companies stepped up to the plate, not only in terms of their recalls, but in answering my inquiries and wanting first and foremost for others to be informed by this publication speaks volumes. It is a horrible situation to be in, but both handled it with grace and a business acumen geared toward the customer.
Again, if you purchased from The Conservatorie please check your ingredients. Be Safe. Be informed. Be well.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Buyer Beware: Pure Luxe Followup
Although I have not heard back from them I visited the Pure Luxe site today.
I am happy to report that the ingredients list now states that the Blacklight and Glow in the Dark collections are not FDA approved for eyes.
The product is now listed under "Specialty Color Items" instead of being designated for eyes and contains the following disclaimer:
I am happy to report that the ingredients list now states that the Blacklight and Glow in the Dark collections are not FDA approved for eyes.
The product is now listed under "Specialty Color Items" instead of being designated for eyes and contains the following disclaimer:
Can be used on face and body. Add to hair gel for a bright color strip.While I applaud these changes it should be noted that there is nothing on the site to alert customers who have previously purchased the product that they should discontinue use around the eye area. I will be following up with PureLuxe in an effort to determine whether they have notified their customers or not.
See ingredients for exclusions.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Buyer Beware: Pure Luxe
I have debated this post as it's not related to GlitterSniffer. I seriously thought about it for about an hour, weighing whether or not I wanted to post this and open up another can of worms. In the end I realized I just could not let this go because it's the same issue.
I was doing some research this evening and I happened upon a site selling blacklight and glow in the dark pigments. The ingredient list on the PureLuxe site says, depending on color, they may contain Orange 5, Polyester-3, Red 28, yellow 7, Red 22, yellow 11. Many of these are not approved for eye use.
I have screenshots of both the ingredient list and the product. I used this list from the FDA for research. At this point I am only uploading the shot of the ingredient list as this seller has a history of threatened litigiousness in terms of photos of PL products being used when they are not portrayed in a flattering light.
I have used the contact form on the site to request immediate removal of the products. I also informed them that I would be notifying the FDA if they were not removed. I was so shocked to find these I wasn't thinking it through and forgot to request that they contact everyone they sold to in order to inform them of their unsafe nature. I will accompany that with a followup.
I know, I know-Who died and made me guardian of the Mineral Makeup Gate? Well, if there is one thing I've learned from this GlitterSniffer debacle it's that I cannot look the other way. I refuse, as a person who cares about other people, to allow something as widespread, destructive, and pervasive as what happened with GS to happen again.
1/1/11 ETA: Please see the followup for the resolution here.
I was doing some research this evening and I happened upon a site selling blacklight and glow in the dark pigments. The ingredient list on the PureLuxe site says, depending on color, they may contain Orange 5, Polyester-3, Red 28, yellow 7, Red 22, yellow 11. Many of these are not approved for eye use.
I have screenshots of both the ingredient list and the product. I used this list from the FDA for research. At this point I am only uploading the shot of the ingredient list as this seller has a history of threatened litigiousness in terms of photos of PL products being used when they are not portrayed in a flattering light.
I have used the contact form on the site to request immediate removal of the products. I also informed them that I would be notifying the FDA if they were not removed. I was so shocked to find these I wasn't thinking it through and forgot to request that they contact everyone they sold to in order to inform them of their unsafe nature. I will accompany that with a followup.
 |
| My cropping skills could use some work. |
I know, I know-Who died and made me guardian of the Mineral Makeup Gate? Well, if there is one thing I've learned from this GlitterSniffer debacle it's that I cannot look the other way. I refuse, as a person who cares about other people, to allow something as widespread, destructive, and pervasive as what happened with GS to happen again.
1/1/11 ETA: Please see the followup for the resolution here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
