I used to be an alarmist, banging my drum as loudly as I could, drowning out those around me while spreading propaganda and declaring my statements true. I was a real environmental crusader, fighting "environmental crimes" like flouride in drinking water and gas-guzzling SUV's, not to mention meat eaters and anyone who didn't buy Organic (gasp).
In my activist life, I could declare all sorts of statistics and facts but I couldn't prove them. Proving my position didn't matter, I was fighting against environmental evil-doers! The problem with this method, I soon learned...is that no one wants to be drowned out, no one wants to be on the receiving end of a one-sided conversation and people need proven facts to make educated decisions. Being the loudest person in the room doesn't make you right, it just makes you loud and annoying. My mom always says, "the loudest person in the room is just trying to garner attention". It's one thing to get somebodies attention, it's quite another to demand their focus and then shove your propaganda down their throats.As a self-professed science nerd, science fascinates me and it was the focal point of my education, even into college. I learned the importance of Scientific Method 20 years ago from Mrs. Larrisson, my 7th grade science teacher.The steps of the scientific method are to: - Ask a Question
- Glean Background Research from Reliable (Proven) Sources
- Construct a Hypothesis
- Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
- Analyze Your Data and Draw an Educated Conclusion
- Communicate Your Results
In those days, skipping a step meant a reduction in grade. These days, skipping a step is called bad science. Unfortunately, bad science is being used a lot these days in the propaganda game.
Many of you are aware of the "
Colorado Safe Personal Care Products Act" which failed on the Senate floor March 1, 2010. After several hours of testimony from both sides, it became apparent that those in favor of this legislation had skipped a few crucial steps. While they had addressed an important question, they did not glean background research from reliable sources. While the proponents did construct a hypothesis; mainly that "personal care products contribute to cancer in women and children", they seemed to leave out the most important part...the actual proof. Not only did they arrive unprepared to offer any proof to back up their statements, the group resorted to scare tactics and a campaign based on fear rather than actual fact.
It seems to me, if this fight is so important to the
Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (CFSC) and the
Environmental Working Group (EWG) they should have at least done some testing of their own to prove their point.
Stacy Malkin, co-founder of the CFSC,
states on her blog as a postscript: "...if anyone knows where I can apply for FDA funding to do the agency’s job for it, let me know!"
Maybe Stacy could talk to
Ken Cook, President and Co-Founder of EWG who provides the
Skin Deep Database to the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. As the head of a "Not For Profit" organization,
Ken Cook pulled down a six-figure salary from the over $5,000,000 net assets that EWG showed on their Income Statement for the Fiscal Year ending 12/2008. With all that "not for profit" money floating around, it would seem they could at least hire an actual scientist to get tangible facts, rather than rely on information from "
50 toxicity and regulatory databases" which remain unnamed, to perform some of the same testing they claim we need to make personal care products "safer".
Testifying before the Colorado Judiciary committee on March 1st was
Susan Roll, a founding member of the CFSC and Vice Chair of the Women's Lobby of Colorado (a doctoral candidate in the Graduate School of Social Work at the University of Denver)
who stated for the record:
"I'll tell you I'm not a scientist. I'm actually a social worker so I'm reading what your reading and also trying to make some 'um' educated guesses about it, 'um' when we have chemicals that cause tumors in rats I think that it is okay to say we don't want those chemicals in consumer products. Do we have that they are causing mammomary tumors in humans. No we just don't have that yet. We are not that far with the science....I wish I could say more. I wish I knew more of the science. I wish we had more science...I would just say that I think we have enough of the science that we need to make some steps towards safety. I wish I could say that there was an abundance of science linking this...we have some science...there is a little bit of science...we don't have an abundance of science. I wish we had it." When pressed for a list of what ingredients were actually added to a cosmetic versus what is naturally occuring she answered, "I don't know. We can't wait for the science..if we wait for the "good" science we are going to be sick." Sometimes, all the facts in the world aren't enough to convince those who make the "rules" that the road they are traveling is a slippery slope. However, as manufacturers/formulators/distributors/crafters of personal care products, we need to be prepared with facts to support our opinions regardless of what those opinions may be. The squeaky wheel (proponents of hyperregulation) may be the one to get the grease, but a well-oiled and maintained machine will always outperform when push comes to shove. How well are you maintaining YOUR fact-finding machine?
For more information on this recent regulatory defeat, visit these related articles:
Allison B. Kontur
www.BathBodySupply.com