I make my home remedies and products; my friends urge me to sell them and I’ve been mulling it over for several months, but I hesitated after finding notices posted about the G-Act of 2008, because if this passes, why bother?

I’m a single mom, college student, working woman and to do this part time on my stove top is how my business would begin. I cannot afford to pay a 2000.00 fee. My kitchen is a place to use for play and work and dinner. Don’t know if I can keep it lab perfect. I’m looking at the side business as a way to supplement my income by creative processes; something I enjoy. The fees and regulations going through would stop me in my tracks before even getting started!

Thank you for being the voice of reason. I search all over the web and read all the blogs about this, but where do we stand now? Does anybody know just exactly when we will know if this will come to pass? Is today, Nov.4, 2008 the day it is all to be decided? Through whose vote? Has the government listened to You Fine Women who went there??

Thanks, sorry so long winded, but really, really worried! Blessings,Kate =^,^=

Clarification for Nashua (who sounds awfully like a lobbyist or PR person for the companies who support this legislation) — using a contract manufacturer would *not* exempt you from the fees. This is one of the questions I raised directly with the legislative aide who is writing the draft of this legislation when we met *in person* on Capitol Hill last month. The current language in the proposed law is for “manufacturers, packers, holders AND DISTRIBUTORS” — meaning that anyone who SELLS OR DISTRIBUTES any cosmetic product — hair salons, corner stores, independent Avon and Warm Spirit sales reps — would be subject to the fees *in addition to* the company who actually manufactured the product, and any middlemen — wholesalers, distributors, warehousers, etc. would pay the fees as well.

Let me give you an additional scenario that I asked about during our meetings on Capitol Hill…

Let’s say I want to make and sell shea butter lotion. For that privilege, I pay $12,000 per year. Let’s say I need to get the shea butter from an importer - she pays her $12,000 a year (shea butter has to be imported because the karite tree that it comes from does not grow in the U.S.). And I need to get the essential oils and fragrance oils from Acme Botannicals — they pay their $12,000 a year, because many essential oils also come from plants grown on foreign soil. Then I sell my lotion wholesale to a Black hair salon, who has paid $2,000 to be able to sell shampoo and conditioner and other hair/skin products to their customers… How much do you think one small bottle of lotion will cost you, the consumer, after all of those fees being added down the entire supply chain??

I used this exact example when I asked the legislative aide about the intent of the language in the proposed law, just to be sure I understood him. He said this would be the correct scenario.

If this sounds crazy, it’s because it IS crazy!

Did you know that most small businesses, whether cosmetics or not, are NOT funded by grants or small business loans? So your point about “just put the cost into the business plan” is rather ridiculous. (And once against makes me suspect you are a lobbyist, or at best someone who is incredibly naive about starting a business.) As a 13-year full time entrepreneur who has successfully started and run *three* different companies, every last one of them was funded primarily by ME. The first biz I also borrowed money from family and friends.

And by the way, on your point about “protecting” consumers from unsafe products: First, anyone who makes cosmetics is *already* regulated by the FDA and must comply with their current safety standards and labeling requirements. Second, the proposed FDA Globalization Act of 2008 does not have one SINGLE new safety standard for cosmetics listed anywhere in the whole Act. If passed, this law would do NOTHING to protect consumers from any cosmetics products that are unsafe. All it is is fees and paperwork.

Here’s the real deal: Consumers are now demanding products that are more authentic and more natural. Small, innovative companies have dominated the natural and niche markets for decades. It used to be “small potatoes” in these niches — not much money to be made and natural products were very hard to find a decade ago — but as we all know, Natural products are now mainstream. The big companies haven’t been successful in introducing natural products on the market but they want a piece of this HUGE marketplace $$$ (Burt’s Bees is now owned by Clorox!). So who does it benefit to knock all the small companies out of the running? The big companies.

Do not be fooled. This is all about money and corporate greed.

Folks, if you care about this issue — and I hope you do — I urge you to contact your Congressional representatives TODAY (http://www.house.gov and http://www.senate.gov) and let them know you OPPOSE the FDA Globalization Act of 2008, that you support small businesses, and that as a consumer you want the freedom to *choose* products other than what’s on the shelves at Wal-Mart.

THANK YOU!!

Jamila White
Chief Joy Officer
j.blossom and co.
http://www.jblossom.com

If they are going to pull this, then they need to lower the licensing fees for small business owners. Period. I understand the FDA has a job to do, but the financial costs are too high.

http://realsimpleliving.wordpress.com/

All of the other big box companies have to do the same so why shouldn’t smaller businesses? I don’t see the evil in this.

Also everyone does not make enough product to use a contract manufacturer yet or they may want to keep it a smaller family oriented enterprise. But having to pay $2,000 or $10000 in certain circumstances is definitely jumping the gun for some of these businesses.

Yes, grants and loans do exist but the majority of small businesses will not qualify/receive one especially during a recession. And we will be right back where we started.

This is about big business being scared of thousands of small businesses with better products getting their customers. And the best way to get rid of this competition is to cripple the fledgling and small businesses financially before they can get a stronger foothold in the so-called free market.

1) It will shift small cosmetics businesses away from home manufacture to contract manufacturers. If you read the bill, it says that any facility that manufactures, packs or holds cosmetics will have to register annually for $2000 and importers of cosmetics will register annually for $10000. If you own your own company, you can get around this by using a contract manufacturer, which is something you’d have to do anyway as the volume of your business grows.

Furthermore, more companies are using what is called “drop shipping”, where the product goes directly from the manufacturer to the retailer or shipper and you no longer have to label and ship the product yourself. In this sense, the government is ahead of the trend

2) Don’t forget that small businesses are already subject to existing laws that limit the claims that you can make about the clinical effectiveness of any product. This goes beyond making false claims about whether your product works. You aren’t allowed to say that XYZ ingredient has a particular effect unless you have run registered clinical trials. So any small business will already have an uphill battle to demonstrate that their product deserves to be on the market. If anything, paying for this registration creates a seal of approval that can differentiate your small business from the guy selling oils on the corner.

3) How many times have we bought products that don’t work or irritate our skin or have harmful or unlabeled ingredients? Considering how much money we spend on hair and skin care looking for a miracle, this might actually protect us.

4) You can include this registration cost in your business plan when applying for small business grants and loans. There are lots of these available for small businesses owned by ethnic minorities and women. You have a business plan, right?