Rules yes, regulations no

A reader asked for our opinion on new legislation requiring testing for cosmetic ingredients to be sold in California.  She didn’t say whether she were pro or con, but most of the people I deal with on a daily basis are all for regulations that protect consumers from the depredations of “corporations.” Which is why I usually keep my mouth shut in mixed company.

I want fewer regulations on cosmetic ingredients, not more.  Now, pull that mascara wand out of your retina and hear me out. 

Excessive regulation, however well-meaning, often has the opposite effect of what is intended by those who seek it. I’ll give an un-cosmetic example from my experience as a newspaper editor:  working in an area where agricultural fields abutted residential areas, I followed the debate over the use of chemicals in agriculture quite closely.  After an incident in which schoolchildren were exposed to toxic fumigants from an adjacent strawberry field, local activist groups lobbied hard for years for limits to be put on the use of a fumigant called Methyl Bromide. Well, the activists won.  Then what happened?  The farmers who could no longer use Methyl Bromide simply switched to the next chemical on the approved list—Metam Sodium—which is even more toxic than Methyl Bromide. This is the story of a lot of well-meaning government regulation—there are usually more unintended consequences than intended ones.

Here’s what I think will happen when states regulate cosmetic ingredients:  small, independent companies without the resources to pay for ingredient-testing will fail.  No more small cosmetic lines.  No Pout, Tarte, Too Faced, Body Bistro, Enessa…. You’ll be buying all your makeup from Big Brother’s Big Sister, Estee Lauder (no slur on Estee, who makes my favorite lipstick, but she’ll be the only dame with the bucks to afford to stay in the game).  If you’re trusting and naive, you’ll think that any goop you buy under these new regs is “safe” because it’s been given a government stamp of approval.  Before you vote for feel-good measures that are supposed to protect you, you should know that most safety testing isn’t vigorous, and it isn’t objective—it’s really self-testing, performed by the manufacturers themselves.  And restricting the open market to those able to pay to join the club eliminates your best protection as a consumer: competition.

Yes, I’m basically a libertarian who believes that what I put on my face is my own business, as is what entrepreneurs like Carina Chatlani of Body Bistro put in their bottles.  Chatlani is a small-scale entrepreneur who makes some of my favorite body products, and she would be out of business in such a restrictive environment (she’s also a “corporation,” as is every non-profit and small business you patronize, by the way). 

I am not, however, a completely crazy libertarian who believes that companies or individuals, if left to their own devices, will always do the ethical thing. Having worked once for a company that always did the opposite, I know better.  My old boss was the kind of guy who would put radium in diaper crème just for kicks.  But malice isn’t even necessary; I’m sure there are fruit loops out there who think radium really does make baby’s bottom softer, or that glow-in-the dark buttocks will reduce infant kidnappings, etc.  So I am all for labeling requirements.

Call me a label whore if you must, but I love to read the packaging on consumables and slatherables.  I like being equipped with the information I need to avoid carbohydrates, hydrogenated oils, parabens and offal if I choose to--and I may avoid sugar in my daily life, but make no mistake:  I want to be free to show up for my abortion appointment reeking of cheap cologne to cover up the smell of Virginia Slims if I so choose, and to wash down my post-op prozac with a martini afterwards. 

I am willing to accept responsibility for choosing which ingredients I want to use and which I don’t. To this end, rules are okay by me; regulations are not.

Will rules be enough?  Recent experiences suggests the answer is yes.  Everyone knows now that hydrogenated oils are bad. Two years ago, it was hard to buy any prepared food without them. But now the choices are plentiful.  What got them out of your food?  Public pressure from consumers who wanted alternatives, and competition from agile companies willing to meet that demand for healthy food.  No regulation was necessary.  And thank goodness, if I want, once a year, to buy a can of Crisco to make pie crust exactly the way my great-grandmother made it (hmmm, she lived to 94 on a steady diet of Crisco, donuts and pot roast), I’m happy to find it’s not a controlled substance.

Comments

[Marnie Wells]

Well said, Hillary! Can't add anything more than that.

[Amy Nathan]

Hear-Hear! Although the laboratory I represent does extensive ingredient testing, the creativity of our chemists would still be hampered if super strict government regulations were enforced. When we consider all the cosmetic innovations in the recent years (lip plumpers - my personal fave)strict controls may have slowed this type of creativity. More consumers need to be educated on the real difference between rules and regulations! Thanks for being one of the first to tell it like it is.

[Tania]

I'm with you on the temptations and perils of regulation. Not that I'm a libertarian--just a pragmatist. I've been covering the financial regulation beat at my job (writing a lot of very dull articles about corporate governance and the like) and the problem with regulations is that corporations will often obey the letter of law and not the spirit. Much like in the fumigant example you gave. There's always a loophole. Caveat emptor does seem to be a very workable system. I'm all for choice and labels. Speaking of which, I wish we had choice and labels vis-a-vis the smoking ban in NYC. I don't smoke any more, but it's sad to know that if I wanted to take a nice long drag after dinner, it would necessarily be on the sidewalk and never over a scotch at the bar.