A handful of good china cosmetics producers pictures I discovered:
Exposed, The Toxic Chemistry of Every day Goods…
Image by Earthworm
The major treatise of this book is not so considerably about what’s poisoning us in our daily lives, even though that is pointed out, it is that the US no longer controls market standards due to the fact the EU has taken the lead in banishing toxins from several industries like electronics, cosmetics, and children’s toys as nicely as banning genetically engineered foods. It has also led the way in demanding that makers take back goods at the end of its lifecycle. All this is substantial simply because the EU is also influencing China and India and other emerging economies. This sidestepping of the Bush administration’s resistance to modify has triggered us to stay the guinea pigs for not only our personal sector, but also serving as a dumping ground for items that cannot be sold in the EU and other regulated countries.
The book describes the historical precedence that has laid the way for this parting of the techniques with the EU. The US chose to monitor hazardous products by permitting citizens to sue for damages when they are hurt by products. This litigious climate of customer protection is a approach that business has, of course, worked to erode. Meanwhile in Europe, lawsuits have been not a lot tolerated and settlements have been modest, but citizens had a political climate that demanded that the government protect them from hazardous merchandise in the initial place, therefore was born the precautionary principle. The distinction in between the two is that, with the cautionary principle, the burden of proof is on the manufacturer to prove that their product is protected although our strategy puts the burden of proof on the customer to prove that a product is unsafe. In other words our brand of capitalism permitted organization to flourish at the threat of consumers although their democracy place citizen safety first and let business operate inside these parameters. (In reality they fight over this just as considerably as we do, but the base from which they commence is diverse.)
I also took note that the generic brands are the most probably to fall to the bottom of the regulations heirarchy since the "white box" retailers that sell these products always seek the path of least resistance, ie least expensive, easiest to make and least most likely to object consumer. This is politically fascinating since activists are always going soon after the name brands, but practically nothing is ever done about the off off off Broadway brands.
The most exciting implication of this shift in power towards the EU is that it has reversed the "race to the bottom" that globalization forced upon us and has used it to leverage up the lax requirements of US business. If this writer had utilised much more inflammatory language such as "race to the bottom" this book would have been considerably more exciting to read as an alternative of the dry as dust slog it was. I may also add that the implications of this shift points to how cost-free industry capitalism is trumped by heavily regulated capitalism (formally socialized democracy). So there.