more misinformation for consumers

when the new database designed to "inform" consumers about toxic ingredients in personal care hit the web, of course i was excited. i even worked with this group when it started - attending conference calls and meetings. little did i know that soon my own company would be unfairly and unjustly slandered and suffer in the hands of yet another horrendously slanted system that gives consumers only a tiny, limited, inaccurate part of the toxic picture.

the EWG rating system rates products (that we voluntarily submitted, happy to be rated by the way) from independents like suki to mainstreams like avon based only on the ingredients companies submit themselves (we have yet to determine that the EWG actually verifies that these ingredients are actually in products and know for a fact that there are more ingredients in products than many companies claim and submit to the EWG on occassion). they then rate a company based on the most negative ratings they get.

when you open the page for suki for instance, the first thing you will read about us is "uses ingredients that cause cancer." quite ironic since i have spent my life building a business that educates people about toxic ingredients, works with treatment centers, survivors and people who are currently undergoing treatment, have incredibly high standards for excellence in formulating, sourcing, packaging (we never use plastic or try to make plastics sound environmentally safe when actually none of them are)and we have always done these things and more simply because we believe in what we do.

the EWG / skindeep's rating system does not differentiate between a botanical extract that is clean (meaning does not contain parabens, propylene glycol, or is extracted with the highly toxic hexane or any other means-in fact people doing the rating didn't even know when i spoke with them that ingredients can be hidden in extracts), or between regular lecithin and the lecithin we use (non-gmo, organic, food grade). there is no way to enter such a differentiation when you as a manufacturer go to enter your ingredients in the database. they do not make a distinction between organics, naturals in many cases, and/or regular, synthetic ingredients, not to mention cosmetic-grade and food-grade, nor do they care whether you use an ingredient at 100%, at 1%, or at .01% within your formulas. you get the same rating no matter how much of an ingredient you use.

they do not make a distinction in the formulas submitted between micronized and non-micronized ingredients. i recently noticed that a well known natural product manufacturer has a rating of 8 because the now "go-to" database, skindeep, has decided this company uses synthetic fragrances in their products. well, i'm very familiar with this company, my competition in fact, and i know for a fact that they do not. they simply use the INCI wording of fragrance or parfum, which is the legal wording for essential oils. now they are saddled with a rating of 8 even though they are one of the cleaner companies out there. i, and many others even some more mainstream manufacturers, have tried repeatedly to get the EWG to respond and update the rating system so it is truly informative and helpful instead of punishing those of us who are constantly trying to do the right thing but they only respond with story after story. at first they did not respond to us at all. then they told us that they were short staffed. then they told us that they would try to fix it. then they said only after being pressed by reporters a whole new story, that if we could prove our ingredients were free from contamination (whatever that means??) they would take it under consideration and that we had been advised of this already on many occassions. it's oddly familiar and perhaps it is because the EWG has made themselves the "go-to" source for information and they do not want to lose funding? perhaps they simply do not want to admit that their system is faulty. but it makes sense to me to simply admit, "hey, it's a highly complicated job, an overwhelmingly complicated task to do this and we didn't know what we were getting into. we are working on it and it's not there yet-we're not the trusted source we will be yet." instead of grasping at research sources like the one i found recently on their site for lecithin as a respiratory toxin: they sited as their proof a german study that focused on cigarette smoking and arteriosclerosis! this was their proof that lecithin in cosmetic products caused respiratory issues? shame on them. perhaps this system is helpful in showing people the ingredients in some of the harshest products, but not when i see the harsher products getting lower ratings then products i would put on my newborn neice without hesitation. if you aren't going to truly teach the whole story about toxic ingredients or rate products based on all the parameters,you are doing nothing but continuing to confuse consumers which really upsets me the most. and, certainly it upsets me that all my hard work and the hard work of my staff is in jeopardy at the hands of a misinformed staff at EWG.

suki, inc. has had to make the difficult decision to hire an attorney to counteract the incredible effects the EWG slander has caused us. I certainly hope that it doesn't cause suki, inc. to suffer anymore than we already have, however it is a distinct possibility. i hope someday things will change and that it will become what i always hoped it would be...a well managed and researched place for you to get good, truthful information.

i truly appreciate the time you took in reading our side.
take good care,
Suki