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.

Hey there,

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

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.

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.

 

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 Orange:

 

Neon Blue:

Neon Green:

Neon Yellow:

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:

Shown for illustrative purposes. All ingredients lists currently on Artfire are identical.

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.

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:

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.

 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.

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.

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.

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:

  

Harajuku Samples (which don't match the full size):

Harajuku Artfire:

Unicorn Collection:

 

Unicorn Collection Artfire:

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. 

 

Listings for Ultramarines (powder form) can be found here, here, and here.

Ultramarine Violet shown for illustrative purposes. None of the three Ultramarines are lip approved.

Listings for Chromium Oxide Green can be found here and here.

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.

Glittersniffer Cosmetics Mascara- NOT APPROVED FOR EYE USE

I have been made aware that at least one of the mascaras sold by GlitterSniffer Cosmetics is not approved for eye use. Specifically, it is the neon pink included in this sample listing.

An email was sent to GlitterSniffer Cosmetics today regarding the neon pink sold in the listing. The response from GlitterSniffer Cosmetics was that the mascara that was purchased is cosmetically approved, but not eye approved. It is not clear if this applies to all the mascaras in the sample listing or just the pink.

There are no mascaras on the recall list. Here is what GlitterSniffer Cosmetics had to say about nonrecalled product safety:

 

The email sent to GlitterSniffer Cosmetics today requested ingredients for the mascara but none were provided. 

This discovery calls into question GlitterSniffer Cosmetics assertion that nonrecalled products are safe. There has been no effort on the part of the company to publicize the mascara as not approved for eye use, and the issue is only now coming to light because someone asked. People should not have to double check if what they were sold for use on the eyes is indeed meant for use on the eyes. At this point, unless there is an announcement about all ingredients specific to each product (for pigments by shade or color) and uses for every product sold by GlitterSniffer Cosmetics from 2006-Present, it might be safer to assume that none of them can be used as they were originally intended.

I contacted a cosmetics maker with 12 years formulating experience and was advised of the following in regards to mascara:

Because of the water content and preservative issue, it is a product I don't even make because of the potential for bacteria. You have to add a preservative and do testing to ensure no bacteria/molds growing...The open clamshell containers present a HUGE potential for contamination. Aside from the bacterial safety issue...the pink color looks quite similar to the reaction of the neon pink when added to a silicone gel.

Here is a test done in a clean lab. It shows a non eye approved neon pink added to a silicone gel with no preservative, which looks strikingly similar to the pink in the listing.

Without specific ingredients it is not known if there was a preservative added to inhibit bacterial growth in any of GlitterSniffer Cosmetics mascaras.

I present the information here so that anyone who purchased these products can make an informed decision about using the non eye approved pink mascara, and about the possibility of product safety issues with GS mascaras in general.

Old Stock and the Vegan Question

There has been much speculation as to what happened to all the old stock that GlitterSniffer Cosmetics committed to disposing of on December 23, 2010.

This lot was sold by GlitterSniffer Cosmetics 7 days after making that commitment. It was originally listed on December 25, 2010, TWO DAYS after GS promised it would dispose of their old stock. 

 

The listing contains 106 reds/pinks. All pink products were recalled by Glittersniffer Cosmetics two days previous to this listing as being possibly unsafe for eye use. There is no mention of the recall nor the possibility that any of the items may be unsafe. Here is all the information it provides:

The listing clearly states that although this is not eyeshadow per se it can be used on the eyes.

Though we know this lot was bought by someone who was well aware of the issues surrounding the use of these products this lot was listed on a publicly available website with absolutely no information in regards to the safety of the products. Anyone could have bought this listing. It was just luck that it went to someone who was fully informed. Once again, GlitterSniffer Cosmetics leaves out vital information for the purchasing public at large and fails to meet one of their many commitments.

This piece of the listing is also of interest:

Not all are vegan, most reds and pinks contain carmine.

This, despite the assertion that the only 3 pigments ever sold by GlitterSniffer Cosmetics that were not vegan/contained carmine were Ariel, Seuss Red, and Ruby Red Slippers. GlitterSniffer Cosmetics has never stated that ANY pink contained carmine. *Note that the official answer contained in the screenshot below was changed after a post to this blog that the company had overlooked Ruby Red Slippers as being nonvegan and links showing that although the official answer stated all nonvegan reds were specifically noted that way in the Etsy listings there was, in fact, no such information listed. That original post with screenshots of GS original answers can be found here.

If we go by the Ebay listing then the majority of the reds/pinks sold by GlitterSniffer Cosmetics were not vegan despite the company's many claims to the contrary. GlitterSniffer Cosmetics has refused to recall any nonvegan items as they state they have always released that information "at some point in time".

Emphasis mine.

Perhaps GlitterSniffer Cosmetics is confused by what exactly "vegan" means. By definition a vegan is:

a strict vegetarian who consumes no animal food or dairy products; also : one who abstains from using animal products (as leather) 

Then why was a "100% vegan" company selling items that contained beeswax?  After further investigation it becomes clear:

Solid perfume made with "vegan beeswax"

There is no such thing as vegan beeswax. It's an animal derived product and by definition cannot be vegan.

The solid perfumes were also sold on the official GlitterSniffer Cosmetics website, though the company continues to state that all items sold on that site were vegan. It is speculation at this point as to whether or not the solid perfume sold on the site was vegan as there are no ingredients listed.

There is also this:

This listing, purchased November 24, 2010, is for lip balm base containing beeswax. While I have found no evidence GlitterSniffer Cosmetics sold lip balms this base could have easily been used for other products. As there were no ingredients listed by the company on any of their products it is hard to know for certain.

Perhaps it was purchased for personal use, although with proprietor Lela Warren's commitment to living cruelty free, it's doubtful.

Unfortunately, these Ebay listings raise more questions than they answer. Why was the public not informed in the listing of the exact nature of the products being sold (IE: Some of the ingredients had been recalled as being unsafe)? Why are there pigments in this listing that the company states were being sold on glittersniffercosmetics.com that are not vegan despite their claims that they are a 100% vegan company and all products sold through the site were vegan? Why was it sold at all when the company committed to disposing of it?

These questions again must remain rhetorical, as GlitterSniffer Cosmetics refuses to answer any further questions posed by this blog, though the answers to those questions are well within every consumers right to know.

2/8/11 ETA:
It has been brought to my attention via the comments that there is a vegan beeswax. It is called Microcrystalline Wax and is a synthetic made with crude oil. It is vegan.

Although I researched this information over the course of a few hours I was unable to locate it when I published this post originally. I regret the error.

Promises, Promises

Posted October 23, 2010:

Posted exactly 2 months later, December 23, 2010:

 

 

Emphasis is not mine.

 Let's take this point by point.

I promise to treat you how I would like to be treated.

Currently GlitterSniffer Cosmetics is refusing to refund anyone for a period of at least 6 months. It can be surmised from this promise that GlitterSniffer Cosmetics new policy is to send out product to all of their customers but not expect payment for 6 months. After all, they want to treat everyone the way they would like to be treated. But we also know that they are currently billing their customers upfront, expecting payment before remitting product. If we go by this promise, treating people as they want to be treated, then GlitterSniffer Cosmetics will immediately refund everyone that is owed money via company check or bank issued money order sent via certified mail or start delaying billing for all current customers for 6 months. As waiting 6 months to receive payment makes absolutely no business sense, it also makes absolutely no logical sense that GS would refuse anyone a timely refund that they rightfully deserve

I will answer all emails within 24 hours.  

From GlitterSniffer Cosmetics Recall FAQ

Here is the reality of the situation:

And this is not the only complaint of emails not being answered, just the most recent.

I promise you the highest quality cosmetics money can buy.

See here (where you can also see one of Vanessa Barfields Tattoo Bags that she was never paid for), here, here, and here. This latest review, while better, still shows evidence of improper packaging and a less than hoped for texture to some of the products.

I promise quality control that all color will remain consistent.

For GlitterSniffer Cosmetics definition of slight variations see here.

I promise to grow at my own speed and keep my priorities straight.

This is where GS priorities lie.

GlitterSniffer Cosmetics is not issuing refunds, but is instead giving away free samples.

From this point forward, we will only be selling through our official GlitterSniffer Cosmetics website.
Here is GS Artfire and their (possibly unused but still active) Big Cartel.

We are discarding all of our old stock...
The old stock was not discarded, but was instead sold off in a lot (see here). And here are purported photos of the actual pigments received by the buyer, posted to the Glittersniffer Complaints Facebook.

All ingredients that could be found in our products will be listed on the GS website.
And further, agreeing to provide specific ingredients:

Here is a current listing for the Harajuku Collection on Artfire.No specific ingredients, just a vague "may contain..."

This ingredients list differs from the one posted on the official site for the full collection, but matches the ingredients for the sample sizes.

Do you know what you are putting on your eyes?

Does GlitterSniffer Cosmetics know what you are putting on your eyes?

We have applied for a business license in the state of Michigan.
No, GlitterSniffer Cosmetics. No you haven't.

Out of the nine promises and commitments made by GlitterSniffer Cosmetics since October 23 none of them have been honored.

2/9/11 ETA: Corrected a link to a blog post showing the tattoo bags and product packaging.