31
May
2008
The BFA has had in place a cosmetics standard for some six years now. It has been kept simple, based upon the existing food standards.
Further to strong market growth for this sector in recent years, there has been recognition of the need to further expand on the current standards and clarify i
ssues specific to processing of cosmetics.
The Australian Organic Standard (AOS) now has a new working document that will be included in the next version of AOS to be published in 2008 while in the meantime operators are able to begin incorporating these new standards into their practices.
The AQIS National Standard has also recently released new provisions for cosmetics/ beauty products.
The AOS revisions for cosmetics are more detailed than the AQIS minimum requirements.
The AOS is stricter than either the international Eco-cert or Soil Association allowances. Note that at all times importing country requirements still need to be met (eg there is no allowance to use the JAS mark on cosmetics).
The BFA’s newly revised standard for cosmetics has been created via extensive consultation with industry, utilizing the services and input of the BFA Cosmetics Subcommittee.
All credit goes to the efforts and input of industry members including in particular the Cosmetics Subcommittee members for their hard work and support.
To download the revised cosmetics standard, click here
Posted: Is it really organic ?, Skin Care, Cosmetics
31
May
2008
BFA and subsidiary company Australian Certified Organic have released for industry and stakeholder comment a new policy to deal with nanotechnology – ‘the science of the extremely tiny’ - in the organic industry.
The policy, with final endorsement of industry, will be integrated into the Australian Organic Standard and put forward for consideration for inclusion in a base domestic safety net standard, due to be released by Standards Australia at the end of this year.
BFA Standards Chair, Dr. Andrew Monk says the proposal takes a firm and clear stance on the use and application of nanotechnology, which has yet to be proven as safe.
“As with all technology choices, issues of consumer safety and environmental protection need to be balanced with assessing the “need” for the technology in the first instance. At this point the organic industry is taking the view that there is no confirmed need for nanotechnologies. There is noted divergence of views within the scientific community on safety and efficacy claims which impact both consumers and manufacturers”, said Dr. Monk.
Nanotechnology is a field of applied science where matter is manipulated at the nanoscale (down to 1/100,000 the width of a human hair) to change the internal structure of compounds, creating new materials and products. Nanotechnologies are reportedly reaching the market at a rate of 3-4 new products per week with cosmetics and sunscreens representing a reported 60% of listed products.
The BFA last year provisionally banned the use of nanotechnology applications until further review of the issue.
Dr Monk says that internal technical review has occurred, and the BFA is now calling for industry members and wider stakeholders to comment on the drafts before them.
He says the precautionary approach to the technology taken by the organic industry is justified.
“Many technologies including GMOs in the food and agriculture system, are being driven by commercial interests which could compromise government review and safety assessment processes. The organic industry is not opposed to new technologies however takes a precautionary approach to technology choice while maintaining a stringent adherence to natural farming and food processing practices”.
“We will continue to monitor and review the application of nanotechnology.”
The BFA would like to see nanotechnology properly regulated both by government and the broader food and industrial sectors and to see more effective labelling of all new technologies in the marketplace.
The new policy on nanotechnology which is available for comment can be found on the BFA website at the link: http://www.bfa.com.au/index.asp?Sec_ID=135.
Posted: Climate Change, Is it really organic ?
30
May
2008
Last week, Congress passed the Farm Bill by a majority, including improvements in funding allocations favorable to the nutrition and organic industries. The bill goes to President Bush this week.
“We expect that the president will veto the bill,” said Caren Wilcox, executive director of the Organic Trade Association. “We wish he wouldn’t, but based on the fact that both the House and the Senate passed the bill by an overwhelming majority, we believe Congress will override the veto.”
New funding in the bill includes $1.3 billion over 10 years for specialty crops including organic agriculture, research, and fruit and vegetable programs.
“Mandatory organic funding is going up more than fourfold,” said Mark Lipson, policy program director for the Organic Farming Research Foundation. “In organic research and education, the main things we work on, there is a fivefold increase in mandatory spending.”
Lipson says the OFRF staff is very happy about the increases, although if organic allocations were based on market share, the funding would be closer to $120 million a year versus the $20 million a year available with the new Farm Bill.
“We are still very positive and see it as a very solid down payment on that fair share goal,” Lipson said.
Other bill highlights include:
Posted: Climate Change, Is it really organic ?
29
May
2008
Did you know? Up to 60% of what you put on your skin is absorbed into your body! Most high street skincare products contain synthetic chemicals whose long-term effects are unknown. Switching to natural and organic products will reduce the level of toxins in your body.
If everyone boiled only the water needed instead of ‘filling’ the kettle every time, we could save enough electricity to run practically all the street lighting in the UK.
One long haul return flight can produce more carbon dioxide per passenger than the average UK motorist does in an entire year.
The energy saved by recycling one aluminium can is enough to run a TV for three hours.
Ninety per cent of the energy washing machines use is for heating the water.
Posted: Climate Change, Is it really organic ?, Skin Care, Cosmetics
28
May
2008
So lets say, hypothetically, that your four year old has begun begging for a play makeup set. Some parents would react with a firm but gentle “no stinkin’ way, sweetcheeks.” I can understand that sentiment — children grow up fast enough without the aid of adult trappings.
On the other hand, play makeup is a way for children to experiment with their identity. I had play makeup as a kid, and I turned out (arguably) alright. In fact, if I remember correctly, I lost interest in it after approximately 23 seconds. Except for the awesome peeling nail polish, which fascinated me. Goodness knows what was in that stuff.
In the end, whether or not to let a child use makeup for playtime is a personal decision for parents to make. But if you do decide to let ‘em make themselves up, there are steps you can take to make it safer.
1. No powders. Makeup in powder form is easily inhaled into little lungs, and can damage them. Opt instead for cream-based blushers and eye shadow.
2. Phthalate and toluene-free nail polish. Dibutyl phthalate and toluene are common nail polish ingredients linked to cancer, hormone disruption, and allergies. [Skin Deep: Nail polishes without toluene or dibutyl phtalate.]
3. Fragrance free. Fragrances are common allergens, and they usually contain phthalates. They also lurk in the strangest of places, so be sure to check the label.
4. Easy on the lipstick. Because lipstick can contain some hidden nasties (like lead), and because little ones tend to eat almost as much as they put on their lips, it’s best to avoid it altogether. Opt instead for a tasty, shiny, beeswax-based lip balm, or use the instructions in this article to make your own.
5. Use common sense. It goes without saying that little ones shouldn’t be allowed to play with eyeliner or mascara, and that those little tubs of cosmetic glitter, in the hands of a five year old, could spell disaster for the carpet. Be careful.
Armed with that list parents ought to be able to put together a play-makeup kit that would please even the pickiest kid — without breaking the budget. But if that task seems too daunting, it seems at least one company is rising to the challenge of creating a safer play-makeup kit.
For Safer cosmetics for children and adults alike see www.loveorganics.net or www.love.mionegroup.com
Posted: Is it really organic ?, Skin Care, Cosmetics
27
May
2008
The Australian Bureau of Statistics released water usage numbers for 2005-06, showing that rice is the most water intensive crop per hectare; however, pasture for grazing is the largest overall consumer of H2O. Although pasture used for grazing is the biggest drain on water resources in Australian agriculture, it requires much less per hectare than hydro-intensive crops like rice, cotton and sugar cane. Rice tops the water usage list at 12.3 megalitres/hectare, followed by cotton (6.4), then nurseries (5.3) and sugarcane (5). ::More
Posted: Climate Change, Is it really organic ?
26
May
2008
A 1,000 acre U.S. corporate farm growing genetically engineered crops nets an average of $39 an acre.
In contrast, a four-acre family farm nets, on average, $1,400 per acre.
Small organic farms are proving to be even more profitable. With oil prices on the rise, growing food without petroleum-based pesticides/fertilizers, and delivering that food to local markets will quickly prove to be the most affordable food available.
Source: New York Times
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_12216.cfm
Posted: Climate Change, Is it really organic ?
25
May
2008
53%: Percentage of polled Americans who say they won’t buy food that has ingredients from genetically engineered (GE) plants.
65%: Actual percentage of products on grocery store shelves that contain unlabeled GE ingredients (usually soy or corn derived).
90%: Portion of U.S. grown soybeans that are genetically engineered.
99%: Estimated likelihood that the U.S. sugar supply will start to be sourced from genetically engineered plants this year.
Learn more: http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_12246.cfm
Take action: http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_7031.cfm
Posted: Climate Change, Is it really organic ?
24
May
2008
“In the face of climate chaos and a deepening world food crisis, the Gene Giants are gearing up for a PR offensive to re-brand themselves as climate saviors. The companies hope to convince governments and reluctant consumers that genetic engineering is the essential adaptation strategy to insure agricultural productivity. Globally, the top 10 seed corporations already control 57% of commercial seed sales. This is a bid to capture as much of the rest of the market as possible.”
Source: Hope Shand, Research Director of ETC Group (Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration), speaks of the recent research indicating that the world’s largest biotech companies are developing and patenting hundreds of varieties of new “climate ready” genetically engineered crops designed to supposedly endure the worst of global climate change. The ETC Group is mobilizing people around the world to censure these companies for focusing on profitable ways of taking advantage of the climate crisis, rather than looking for solutions to the actual problem. http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_12278.cfm
Posted: Climate Change, Is it really organic ?
23
May
2008
(Cosmetic Design) Sales of ethical cosmetics are booming in the UK and France as the beauty industry catches up with the ecoconscious
shopping trend, said the market research firm Mintel.
The number of ethical cosmetics and skin care launches increased five fold last year to 2,260 with the UK and France accounting
for 74 per cent of the market, according to the Mintel GNPD database.
The UK and France are leading the ethical trend which looks set to continue in 2008 as more than 420 new ethical products have
already hit European beauty counters.
“Beauty manufacturers are innovating by making their products more compatible with the emerging lifestyle trends of ethical
shopping and eco-consciousness,” said Mintel analyst Nica Lewis. “They are clearly looking at ways to cut down the amount of
packaging they use and are trying to reduce the negative impact production can have on the environment.”
Read the full story: http://cosmeticsdesign-europe.com/news/ng.asp?id=84446
Posted: Climate Change, Is it really organic ?, Cosmetics
