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.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
GlitterSniffer Cosmetics and the FDA Enforcement Report
On March 23, 2011 The Food and Drug Administration released their Enforcement Report. Included in the Enforcement Report was the recall by GlitterSniffer Cosmetics. The report states the facts that were provided to the FDA by GlitterSniffer Cosmetics regarding the recall, including the recall list, number of products, and notification methods.
In looking at the report it appears that there may be some issues with the information.
The recall list shows everything that has been officially recalled by the company and the stated reason is thus:
By the company's own admission neither of these products is eye approved, yet these products were omitted from the recall and the information provided to the FDA.
The FDA was also informed this in terms of distribution:
This could be easily dismissed as speculation, because there is no solid proof that the amount people state they had is indeed what was dispensed to the public by GlitterSniffer Cosmetics.
Here is just one photo of the roughly 600 pots of recalled product sent home with an Ex-GS Admin in late January/early February.
It should be noted that this alone represents more recalled product than was disclosed to the FDA by GlitterSniffer Cosmetics, and there are still many people who either traded, sold, used, or simply disposed of their recalled product. Suffice to say the estimate given to the FDA by GlitterSniffer Cosmetics appears to be incorrect.
Additionally, the FDA was told that letters were sent out as of February 7, 2011 regarding the recall. As of the writing of this post, not a single person who responded has received a communication via letter about the recall from GlitterSniffer Cosmetics.
Here is what has started arriving in late March instead: Free, postage paid samples given to new fans of GlitterSniffer Cosmetics.
It would seem that once again, GlitterSniffer Cosmetics is not following up on its commitments not only to its customers regarding the recall process, but to the FDA as well.
 |
| FDA Enforcement Report, March 23, 2011 |
In looking at the report it appears that there may be some issues with the information.
The recall list shows everything that has been officially recalled by the company and the stated reason is thus:
The firm is recalling products which contain ingredients that are not approved for use around the eye.If this is the case then where are the pink and green mascara on the list?
By the company's own admission neither of these products is eye approved, yet these products were omitted from the recall and the information provided to the FDA.
The FDA was also informed this in terms of distribution:
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCEA rough accounting, gathered from the GS Complaints Facebook page, Twitter, and email is 1269 pots of recalled pigment. That number is a rough estimate of official recalls, posted by people who saw the message in 18 hours, who felt comfortable sharing. When a non specific number was given (such as 20+) it was rounded down.
500 units
This could be easily dismissed as speculation, because there is no solid proof that the amount people state they had is indeed what was dispensed to the public by GlitterSniffer Cosmetics.
Here is just one photo of the roughly 600 pots of recalled product sent home with an Ex-GS Admin in late January/early February.
It should be noted that this alone represents more recalled product than was disclosed to the FDA by GlitterSniffer Cosmetics, and there are still many people who either traded, sold, used, or simply disposed of their recalled product. Suffice to say the estimate given to the FDA by GlitterSniffer Cosmetics appears to be incorrect.
Additionally, the FDA was told that letters were sent out as of February 7, 2011 regarding the recall. As of the writing of this post, not a single person who responded has received a communication via letter about the recall from GlitterSniffer Cosmetics.
Here is what has started arriving in late March instead: Free, postage paid samples given to new fans of GlitterSniffer Cosmetics.
It would seem that once again, GlitterSniffer Cosmetics is not following up on its commitments not only to its customers regarding the recall process, but to the FDA as well.
Monday, April 11, 2011
An Apology and a Request
I apologize I have not been posting. I have had to deal with some issues offline that required my attention. It is my sincere hope to be back to regular posting soon. I have much to share regarding the current state of GlitterSniffer Cosmetics business practices and my ongoing followup on my own complaints.
In the meantime I have a question. Has anyone that purchased GlitterSniffer Cosmetics prior to the recall in 12/2010 received a letter via US Postal mail regarding the recall from GS? The letter would have arrived after February 7, 2011. Please feel free to comment or email, whichever you prefer. I appreciate any information anyone is willing to provide.
Thank you again for your understanding and patience. More information soon.
4/11/11 ETA: To clarify, I would like to know if anyone who may have received products prior to the recall directly from GlitterSniffer Cosmetics, whether purchased or given for review, has received a letter via US Postal mail from GS regarding the recall. Additionally, approximately how many products did you have that were on the official recall list? These would include all those listed here and every pink manufactured between 2006-2010. This does not include anything not officially recalled.
I appreciate your time and hope that these questions will make a bit more sense in a post by tomorrow morning. Thank you.
In the meantime I have a question. Has anyone that purchased GlitterSniffer Cosmetics prior to the recall in 12/2010 received a letter via US Postal mail regarding the recall from GS? The letter would have arrived after February 7, 2011. Please feel free to comment or email, whichever you prefer. I appreciate any information anyone is willing to provide.
Thank you again for your understanding and patience. More information soon.
4/11/11 ETA: To clarify, I would like to know if anyone who may have received products prior to the recall directly from GlitterSniffer Cosmetics, whether purchased or given for review, has received a letter via US Postal mail from GS regarding the recall. Additionally, approximately how many products did you have that were on the official recall list? These would include all those listed here and every pink manufactured between 2006-2010. This does not include anything not officially recalled.
I appreciate your time and hope that these questions will make a bit more sense in a post by tomorrow morning. Thank you.
Monday, March 14, 2011
GlitterSniffer Cosmetics Turnaround Time- Google Checkout and The Mail and Telephone Order Merchandise Rule
On Saturday, March 12, 2011, GlitterSniffer Cosmetics announced a change in their turnaround time for orders. They extended it from 5 business days, as stated in their listings and their Artfire policies, to 15 days. The explanation was that there is a 10 day hold on their funds remitted via their payment processor Google Checkout as a new merchant.
The company states this is temporary, for approximately a month.
A check of Google Checkout shows that it is a policy to place a 10 day hold on funds for new merchants for a period of 60 days, then for a review to be conducted to lift the hold.
GlitterSniffer Cosmetics began using Google Checkout on January 28, 2011. The review would be conducted by Google Checkout in about 2 weeks time, not the month that GlitterSniffer Cosmetics is stating.
The hold is placed on funds remitted to the merchant, not the actual charge to the method of payment. This means that GS has to charge the funds then wait the ten day hold. The company has 168 hours (7 days) to capture the funds. Despite the funds not actually being transferred to the company they are obligated, per Google Checkout Program Policies and Guidelines, to fulfill orders within 24 hours of charging the method of payment.
This would seem to indicate that per Google Checkout Program Policies and Guidelines the new 15 day turnaround time is incorrect if the company wishes to be compliant with the guidelines. Once the money is charged (which at the longest is 7 days) the order must ship within 24 hours to meet the guidelines. That is, at most, 8 days.
Additionally, the new turnaround time would need to meet the criteria set forth by the FTC Mail and Telephone Order Merchandise Rule, which states:
It is unknown at this time if all customers with current orders have been notified and given consent for the delay, nor if Google Checkout is aware of the issue GlitterSniffer Cosmetics seems to be having with the new turnaround time and meeting their payment processors' policies and guidelines. As of publication, the listings and policies for GlitterSniffer Cosmetics on Artfire still give a stated turnaround time of 5 business days.
I will update in the event new information becomes available.
The company states this is temporary, for approximately a month.
A check of Google Checkout shows that it is a policy to place a 10 day hold on funds for new merchants for a period of 60 days, then for a review to be conducted to lift the hold.
GlitterSniffer Cosmetics began using Google Checkout on January 28, 2011. The review would be conducted by Google Checkout in about 2 weeks time, not the month that GlitterSniffer Cosmetics is stating.
The hold is placed on funds remitted to the merchant, not the actual charge to the method of payment. This means that GS has to charge the funds then wait the ten day hold. The company has 168 hours (7 days) to capture the funds. Despite the funds not actually being transferred to the company they are obligated, per Google Checkout Program Policies and Guidelines, to fulfill orders within 24 hours of charging the method of payment.
This would seem to indicate that per Google Checkout Program Policies and Guidelines the new 15 day turnaround time is incorrect if the company wishes to be compliant with the guidelines. Once the money is charged (which at the longest is 7 days) the order must ship within 24 hours to meet the guidelines. That is, at most, 8 days.
Additionally, the new turnaround time would need to meet the criteria set forth by the FTC Mail and Telephone Order Merchandise Rule, which states:
This means, per the Federal Trade Commission, the merchandise must be shipped out in the agreed turnaround time, or the customer must consent to the delay. If the customer does not agree expressly to the delay then the company must issue a refund without the customer having to ask.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.
It is unknown at this time if all customers with current orders have been notified and given consent for the delay, nor if Google Checkout is aware of the issue GlitterSniffer Cosmetics seems to be having with the new turnaround time and meeting their payment processors' policies and guidelines. As of publication, the listings and policies for GlitterSniffer Cosmetics on Artfire still give a stated turnaround time of 5 business days.
I will update in the event new information becomes available.
United States Postal Service- Followup
I received a response from the United States Postal Service regarding the complaint I filed about GlitterSniffer Cosmetics on December 29, 2010. The complaint contained information regarding the charitable donations and was filed as a Misrepresentation of Products/Services.
My complaint was entered into the national Fraud Complaint System. I was informed I would be contacted should any further information be needed, and also advised that the information would be shared with other agencies should it fall under their purview.
My complaint was entered into the national Fraud Complaint System. I was informed I would be contacted should any further information be needed, and also advised that the information would be shared with other agencies should it fall under their purview.
Overview-Start Here
I have received a few emails over the last few days inquiring about specific information as it relates to GlitterSniffer Cosmetics and the recall. I can appreciate that the amount of information can be overwhelming, and I am posting these quicklinks in an attempt to make it a bit clearer to those who have recently been alerted to the situation.
Here is the original statement posted by GlitterSniffer Cosmetics, since removed, regarding use of unsafe soap dyes and other non eye approved, nonvegan ingredients.
Here is the recall list and refund information.
Here are the posts on labeling.
Here are the posts on veganism.
Here are the posts about others experiences, including pictures of possible unsafe formulation and packaging, repackaging, and the voicemail left by proprietor Lela Warren for a customer.
Here are the posts with all the complaints I filed, and any followups.
I hope this helps in breaking down the situation and makes it a bit easier to navigate.
3/14/11 and 2/18/11: ETA: This entry was originally posted on 1/20/11 at 8:33 AM. The only change made was to the date so that it may be found more easily for any new readers who have been recently alerted to the situation.
Here is the original statement posted by GlitterSniffer Cosmetics, since removed, regarding use of unsafe soap dyes and other non eye approved, nonvegan ingredients.
Here is the recall list and refund information.
Here are the posts on labeling.
Here are the posts on veganism.
Here are the posts about others experiences, including pictures of possible unsafe formulation and packaging, repackaging, and the voicemail left by proprietor Lela Warren for a customer.
Here are the posts with all the complaints I filed, and any followups.
I hope this helps in breaking down the situation and makes it a bit easier to navigate.
3/14/11 and 2/18/11: ETA: This entry was originally posted on 1/20/11 at 8:33 AM. The only change made was to the date so that it may be found more easily for any new readers who have been recently alerted to the situation.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Bellasugar- Others Experiences
On Thursday the site Bellasugar.com covered the GlitterSniffer Cosmetics story. The major difference between the Michigan Radio story and this is that this story contains comments by GlitterSniffer Cosmetics President Lela Warren. The Terms of Use on Bellasugar are very clear regarding copyright, and prevent me from summarizing, copying, or even linking the article directly here. Should you wish to read it I suggest clicking on the first link here.
The article goes into a little detail regarding the voicemail message left for a customer. The customer in question responds:
Though personal issues are mentioned it is plain to see that they were not disclosed. The person who received the voicemail states they never disclosed the personal issues that were discussed with Lela Warren.
The personal reason was disclosed by Lela herself during one of the many Q&A's this past week, in addition to other highly personal revelations. I have always avoided any mention of anything personal as it does not pertain to GlitterSniffer Cosmetics, as well as being very invasive. As the personal information was released by Lela herself I am now at a crossroads as to what to do. I want to present all information that is available, and in as much as these personal reasons are being used as an explanation for business practices they do seem relevant. Until I have decided on a clear course of action I will leave this post free from that for now. Should that change I will update.
I would like to thank the person who received the voicemail for sharing and for permission to publish.
The article goes into a little detail regarding the voicemail message left for a customer. The customer in question responds:
That phone call made the night before was the very first time I had ever talked to Lela. Then she spilled her guts to me. I found that odd...I was in the living room listening to the vm and I looked at my husband and said "omg, she called me the c-word". I HATE that word. That is the worst thing you can call someone. And yes, it is business related when I was a customer. If I were her personal friend, this would be a personal thing and this vm would not have been shared. BUT, I am not a personal friend, I am a customer and a facebook acquaintance. Therefore, this certainly IS business related. Anyways, I don't mean to drag this on and on, but after 2 1/2 months of watching her lie, I just snapped. So here is the proof. That's all. I hope this reaches many people out there who are considering believing Lelas lies.Here is the comment that was posted that spurred the voicemail:
Though personal issues are mentioned it is plain to see that they were not disclosed. The person who received the voicemail states they never disclosed the personal issues that were discussed with Lela Warren.
The personal reason was disclosed by Lela herself during one of the many Q&A's this past week, in addition to other highly personal revelations. I have always avoided any mention of anything personal as it does not pertain to GlitterSniffer Cosmetics, as well as being very invasive. As the personal information was released by Lela herself I am now at a crossroads as to what to do. I want to present all information that is available, and in as much as these personal reasons are being used as an explanation for business practices they do seem relevant. Until I have decided on a clear course of action I will leave this post free from that for now. Should that change I will update.
I would like to thank the person who received the voicemail for sharing and for permission to publish.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
