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.

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.

GlitterSniffer FAQ-Vegan

I received an email today, and there have been several questions on the Facebook page, regarding the vegan aspect of this situation. I cannot speak as to the nature of the products myself, so I referred to the FAQ provided by GlitterSniffer Cosmetics.

In the FAQ listed on the GlitterSniffer site there was a question regarding the vegan nature of the products. I present it here as it is on the site:

According to the official stance by GS the only two non vegan reds were Ariel and Seuss Red. They state that this was noted in the Etsy listings.

A quick Google search reveals that is simply not the case. The listings for the Twisted Princess Collection (which contained Ariel) and The DrSeuss Collection (which contained Seuss Red) contain no such information.

Twisted Princess, sold 7/4/10
DrSeuss, sold 7/15/10
DrSeuss, sold 7/10/10
DrSeuss, sold 7/9/10

As the company marketed itself as a 100% vegan company it stands to reason that anyone purchasing their product would feel comfortable that what they were receiving was indeed vegan. As we can see from the Etsy listings the fact that they were not vegan was not disclosed, nor were there any ingredient listings to alert people to the presence of non vegan ingredients.

It is not clear at this time where this falls in terms of the FDA, but it does show that the information provided by GS about it's products is not entirely correct.

1/12/11 ETA:
Ariel and Seuss Red are not the only non vegan colors GS ever produced. Ruby Red Slippers in The Wizard of Oz Collection was also  not vegan, but it was noted in the Etsy listing.


Though fully disclosed at the time of purchase it gives pause to the FAQ that GS has posted as their official answers to many questions. If GS does not list all non vegan colors despite stating that the list they have provided is complete, either by choice, accidental omission, or just plain not knowing what is in their products, how is a consumer to make an informed choice about any products the company has produced?

Thanks to a Facebook page member for the information.

Not Vegan/Possibly Misbranded

Here are screenshots of the ingredient list and the vegan claims from GlitterSnifferCosmetics.com.

These screenshots from a chat with GlitterSniffer proprietor Lela Warren occurred on 12/19/10. In them she discusses what ingredients she uses, and, more specifically, does not use, in GS pigments. Edited only to remove personally identifying information.

Here is the GS Statement, issued originally on 12/23/10 (subsequently removed and reposted), with the relevant portion outlined.

Up until as recently as 12/19/10 GS was emphatically insisting that nearly all of their products were indeed vegan, and that carmine was not used at all. We know now that was simply not true.

By Lela's own admission on 12/23/10, she had not listed these facts on her site nor on her pigments. This is illustrated by the FAQ provided on the GS site and by previous posts on this blog detailing her packaging. Additionally, Lela states that she tried to "include a note" that the products were not vegan, but did not always do so.

I am not going to rehash all the FDA requirements at this time (the relevant info is broken down here), but, suffice to say, not including carmine in her listing of ingredients or on the packaging of her product does not appear to meet FDA guidelines for labeling, and could possibly lead to the products in question being labeled as misbranded and subject to recall.

As of this post, despite several requests from various consumers, GS has not provided a list of products that contained carmine, or were otherwise non vegan, despite being labeled as such.

Vegan.com

I contacted Erik at Vegan.com regarding GlitterSniffer selling non vegan products as vegan.

I briefly outlined the entire situation, and provided links to Lela's statement and my blog post about the issue.

I asked that this issue be publicized so that consumers can make an informed decision about using GlitterSniffer products, both now and in the future. My hope is that this can reach a wider audience than just the fans on a Facebook page, as they are not the only ones who purchased GS products.

It also begs the question as to why there is nothing on the GS.com site to warn people of the recall and the non vegan products. As of right now the homepage simply states it's on hiatus and will be back soon.

Perhaps they are currently working on getting that taken care of. One can hope, with the company revamp that Lela trumpeted in her statement, that she cares enough about all of her customers to disseminate this information in as many outlets as possible.

Not Vegan

It's been stated before in the comments, but I've honestly been busy with so much I overlooked this bit of information, which should also be publicized: GlitterSniffer sold itself as a Vegan company, when in fact, they were not.


From GlitterSniffer.com:

Are your eye colors really all vegan?
Oh yes! Not only are they 100% vegan, they are also not tested on animals. We love animals and we love make-up, but those two things are not for mixing!

What are the ingredients of your cosmetics? I might be allergic and/or I have sensitive skin.
All our ingredients are clearly and happily listed here: Mica, Titanium Dioxide, Tin Oxide, Silica, Iron Oxide, Calcium Aluminum Borosilicate, Polyethylene Terephthalate, Ultramarines
Our products are also created with ZERO fillers thus making your face and sensitive eyes happy ♥ 

 Please be aware that according to Lela's statement that she used ingredients in some shadows known to contain carmine which is derived from scale insects. It is approved for use in cosmetics, but has been linked to anaphylactic shock if consumed. Notice that carmine is NOT listed as one of her ingredients.

Per the FDA this is information that must be included in an information panel:

 Ingredients. If the product is sold on a retail basis to consumers, even it it is labeled "For professional use only" or words to that effect, the ingredients must appear on an information panel, in descending order of predominance. [21 CFR 701.3].

Also this:

It is illegal to introduce a misbranded cosmetic into interstate commerce, and such products are subject to regulatory action. Some of the ways a cosmetic can become misbranded are:

• its labeling is false or misleading,
• its label fails to provide required information,
• its required label information is not properly displayed, and
• its labeling violates requirements of the Poison Prevention Packaging Act of 1970 [FD&C Act, sec. 602; 21 U.S.C. 362].

Additionally, GS sold badger fur brushes (scroll down to related items at the bottom). These were labeled as such, so while not in probable violation of any labeling laws it's certainly not 100% vegan.