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.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
GlitterSniffer Cosmetics: Back in Business?
There have been new developments in the past few hours with GlitterSniffer Cosmetics proprietor Lela Warren.
Though the GlitterSniffer Cosmetics and GlitterSniffer Bath Artfires are still empty it seems that proprietor Lela Warren is back to distributing her wares.
It appears however, that though sales via Artfire have stopped, distribution has not. From Lela Warren's personal Facebook Page, now reopened to comments:
A thank you for support for sales made yesterday, a plea for more oils to possibly produce more product, and, once again, in probable violation of Facebook TOS (on a profile that apparently violates Facebook TOS by simply existing), sales for soap.
One could take this as a matter of the company attempting to move forward with only personal care items and not cosmetics. Except there is this.
Listia is an online marketplace where people can list things for free and buy things with credits earned for signing up and 'selling' their own listings. Apart from shipping, it appears that no money will be changing hands for this transaction. There is no word yet on how the shipping will be paid as last reported GS and Lela Warren had no payment processor.
When the listing was found there were people who voiced their concerns. I am including the screeenshots of these comments, though you will not be able to see most of them. They have been hidden from view, and those that posted have been blocked from bidding. There are some comments that are now hidden that were able to be screenshotted prior to their being hidden.
The practice of hiding comments that don't agree with the listing is akin to the deletions that ran rampant on the GS Fan Page. And Lela Warren's response to the FDA question?
I will be following up as new information develops. I still have my interview with FDA to coordinate, as well as a followup with TWLOHA on July 9, 2011 to see if the six month timeline for remittance of the charity funds has been met, and a spot check on July 29, 2011 to see if anyone has begun receiving refunds yet. That date is the day after the Paypal funds are supposed to be released.
Thank you to everyone who provided screenshots and information, and a huge debt of thanks to KimmieKarma for the Listia link.
7:29 PM CST ETA:
Listia has removed the listing.
Though the GlitterSniffer Cosmetics and GlitterSniffer Bath Artfires are still empty it seems that proprietor Lela Warren is back to distributing her wares.
It appears however, that though sales via Artfire have stopped, distribution has not. From Lela Warren's personal Facebook Page, now reopened to comments:
A thank you for support for sales made yesterday, a plea for more oils to possibly produce more product, and, once again, in probable violation of Facebook TOS (on a profile that apparently violates Facebook TOS by simply existing), sales for soap.
One could take this as a matter of the company attempting to move forward with only personal care items and not cosmetics. Except there is this.
Listia is an online marketplace where people can list things for free and buy things with credits earned for signing up and 'selling' their own listings. Apart from shipping, it appears that no money will be changing hands for this transaction. There is no word yet on how the shipping will be paid as last reported GS and Lela Warren had no payment processor.
When the listing was found there were people who voiced their concerns. I am including the screeenshots of these comments, though you will not be able to see most of them. They have been hidden from view, and those that posted have been blocked from bidding. There are some comments that are now hidden that were able to be screenshotted prior to their being hidden.
The practice of hiding comments that don't agree with the listing is akin to the deletions that ran rampant on the GS Fan Page. And Lela Warren's response to the FDA question?
I will be following up as new information develops. I still have my interview with FDA to coordinate, as well as a followup with TWLOHA on July 9, 2011 to see if the six month timeline for remittance of the charity funds has been met, and a spot check on July 29, 2011 to see if anyone has begun receiving refunds yet. That date is the day after the Paypal funds are supposed to be released.
Thank you to everyone who provided screenshots and information, and a huge debt of thanks to KimmieKarma for the Listia link.
7:29 PM CST ETA:
Listia has removed the listing.
6/20/11 ETA: Correct spelling of Lela Warren's last name in first paragraph.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
GlitterSniffer Cosmetics Artfire: Back to Basics
I posted last week about GlitterSniffer Bath and its status being changed from Pro to Basic on Artfire.
There has been no formal closure announcement from GlitterSniffer Cosmetics, and Lela Warren's Facebook profile still lists her as Owner and President of GlitterSniffer Cosmetics.
This despite the current lack of a payment processor, the ongoing FDA investigation, the closure of both the GlitterSniffer Cosmetics Facebook Fan Page and Private Group, the failure to renew the GlitterSnifferCosmetics.com domain, and the Artfire shop being all but abandoned for at least two months.
I think at this point it is safe to say that GlitterSniffer Cosmetics is at the very least on an indefinite hiatus, and quite possibly closed forever. What this means for the customers still awaiting refunds or the ongoing FDA investigation remains to be seen.
I have a few more posts to publish in the next couple of days before moving to a posting schedule of FDA investigation information and random followup only. At that point posts will be sporadic and only should the need arise. The blog and the Facebook page will continue to remain so as to serve as a chronicle of the past business practices of GlitterSniffer Cosmetics and to ensure that people have all available information to make a safe, informed decision.
Per Artfire FAQ the billing for Pro accounts is handled via direct debit:
As of today GlitterSniffer Cosmetics no longer maintains a Pro Artfire account.How am I billed for my Pro membership?
Pro members on ArtFire pay a low monthly subscription via credit card. When you sign up for a Pro account or upgrade a Basic account to Pro you’ll begin a monthly subscription that bills on the same day of the month that you signed up. So, if you signed up on the 4th of the month, your account will be debited on the 4th of every month. If your card expires or is declined, we will contact you to assist you in setting up another card or updating your credit card information. You can request to cancel your Pro membership at any time; requests are processed on a members next scheduled billing date.
There has been no formal closure announcement from GlitterSniffer Cosmetics, and Lela Warren's Facebook profile still lists her as Owner and President of GlitterSniffer Cosmetics.
This despite the current lack of a payment processor, the ongoing FDA investigation, the closure of both the GlitterSniffer Cosmetics Facebook Fan Page and Private Group, the failure to renew the GlitterSnifferCosmetics.com domain, and the Artfire shop being all but abandoned for at least two months.
I think at this point it is safe to say that GlitterSniffer Cosmetics is at the very least on an indefinite hiatus, and quite possibly closed forever. What this means for the customers still awaiting refunds or the ongoing FDA investigation remains to be seen.
I have a few more posts to publish in the next couple of days before moving to a posting schedule of FDA investigation information and random followup only. At that point posts will be sporadic and only should the need arise. The blog and the Facebook page will continue to remain so as to serve as a chronicle of the past business practices of GlitterSniffer Cosmetics and to ensure that people have all available information to make a safe, informed decision.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
GlitterSniffer Bath Basics
As we come to what looks to be the end of the GlitterSniffer Cosmetics story there is a portion that has yet to be addressed, that of GlitterSniffer Bath.
GS Bath started off as an apprenticeship with Lela Warren for Brandy Cameron. In an effort to grow Brandy's skill in Bath and Body the free program was offered to GlitterSniffer Cosmetics customers for a varying cash donation for supplies. All labor was to be donated by Lela and Brandy. And just what was Brandy learning from Lela? Given the documented history and the reports of the conditions of formulation at GlitterSniffer Cosmetics it is a valid question.
So what did finally arrive for those in the bath pool?
Relatively intact, save for the dust shaped Bath Bombs. It appears to be well packaged, though the product has issues with irregularity. GS was always very upfront about their Bath Bombs being hand molded, so no surprises there. What about the labeling?
Depending on the actual ingredients in the bath products at the bare minimum the labels affixed to the packaging require:
GlitterSniffer Bath began selling via Artfire in short order. Things started off well, with several sales. It was verified through the sale of one of the Unicorn Birthday Scented Soaps that GS Bath was indeed under the reigns of Brandy Cameron, as seen in this Paypal receipt:
From a customer service standpoint the transaction went off without a hitch. The soap arrived in a timely manner, was well packaged, a Delivery Confirmation number (which updated regularly) was sent to the customer, and the package included a receipt and a coupon for 10% off the next order. Here is the soap itself:
It seems that GS Bath may have learned all too well at least one past business practice from GlitterSniffer Cosmetics.
I was unable to verify conclusively if the Google Checkout account being used was a separate one for GS Bath or the GS Cosmetics account. All receipts I saw were remitted to GlitterSniffer Cosmetics via Google Checkout, but they were all for combined purchases from both GS and GS Bath.
As it stands now the GlitterSniffer Bath Artfire is empty, and no one has checked in for a month. There was an interesting development this week for GS Bath. The shop has moved from a paid 'Pro' account to a 'Basic' account. Per Artfire the 'Pro' fees are automatically debited from a credit card on file every month on the same date as the inception of the shops' 'Pro' status. One could surmise from this that either the card was declined or the 'Pro' account was canceled.
At this point it appears that just short of 25 sales GS Bath has ceased operations, at least for the time being.
Another interesting thing to note, despite no communication from the company, removal of the Fan Page and private Facebook Group, no checkins on their Artfire for a month, and the ongoing FDA investigation, GlitterSniffer Cosmetics maintains their 'Pro' status.
*Note: All pictures and links to products/shops other than GlitterSniffer Bath/GlitterSniffer Cosmetics are used for illustrative purposes only and should not be construed as an endorsement or recommendation. Thank you.
5/31/11 ETA: Corrected Beauty in the second paragraph to read Body. B&B stands for Bath& Body.
GS Bath started off as an apprenticeship with Lela Warren for Brandy Cameron. In an effort to grow Brandy's skill in Bath and Body the free program was offered to GlitterSniffer Cosmetics customers for a varying cash donation for supplies. All labor was to be donated by Lela and Brandy. And just what was Brandy learning from Lela? Given the documented history and the reports of the conditions of formulation at GlitterSniffer Cosmetics it is a valid question.
So what did finally arrive for those in the bath pool?
 |
| An experimental product |
Relatively intact, save for the dust shaped Bath Bombs. It appears to be well packaged, though the product has issues with irregularity. GS was always very upfront about their Bath Bombs being hand molded, so no surprises there. What about the labeling?
Depending on the actual ingredients in the bath products at the bare minimum the labels affixed to the packaging require:
Again, depending on ingredients, the products sold by GlitterSniffer Bath would either fall under the purview of The Consumer Product Safety Commission ('true' soap) or FDA (soap that is detergent and/or makes cosmetic/health claims). As there has been no disclosure about what, exactly, was in these products by the company it is unclear at this point as to just what labeling is required. However, slapping on a label that says "Soap" does not appear to meet even the minimum requirements.
- Wording on the package that identifies the product as "Soap"
- Net weight of product
- Name and address of business
For illustrative purposes only, here are some Indie bath and body shops and their labels/product handling.
From a customer service standpoint the transaction went off without a hitch. The soap arrived in a timely manner, was well packaged, a Delivery Confirmation number (which updated regularly) was sent to the customer, and the package included a receipt and a coupon for 10% off the next order. Here is the soap itself:
It seems that GS Bath may have learned all too well at least one past business practice from GlitterSniffer Cosmetics.
There was absolutely no labeling on this product. Not even a sticker identifying it as soap.
GS Bath then hit a road bump.
I was unable to verify conclusively if the Google Checkout account being used was a separate one for GS Bath or the GS Cosmetics account. All receipts I saw were remitted to GlitterSniffer Cosmetics via Google Checkout, but they were all for combined purchases from both GS and GS Bath.
As it stands now the GlitterSniffer Bath Artfire is empty, and no one has checked in for a month. There was an interesting development this week for GS Bath. The shop has moved from a paid 'Pro' account to a 'Basic' account. Per Artfire the 'Pro' fees are automatically debited from a credit card on file every month on the same date as the inception of the shops' 'Pro' status. One could surmise from this that either the card was declined or the 'Pro' account was canceled.
 |
| Pro |
 |
| Basic |
At this point it appears that just short of 25 sales GS Bath has ceased operations, at least for the time being.
Another interesting thing to note, despite no communication from the company, removal of the Fan Page and private Facebook Group, no checkins on their Artfire for a month, and the ongoing FDA investigation, GlitterSniffer Cosmetics maintains their 'Pro' status.
*Note: All pictures and links to products/shops other than GlitterSniffer Bath/GlitterSniffer Cosmetics are used for illustrative purposes only and should not be construed as an endorsement or recommendation. Thank you.
5/31/11 ETA: Corrected Beauty in the second paragraph to read Body. B&B stands for Bath& Body.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
