Please Go Directly To Jail - Part 1.

This independent little rant has been adopted by Frances Danger.
Learn more about adopting your own rant for charity right here.

There's something else I need to get out of my system before I can continue with reviews and business as usual. I've done a lot of negative reviews, and my negative ones are, often, pretty damn negative. I've said that I don't recommend places and I wouldn't spend my money there, but I don't think I've ever asked you not to shop there before. Not even with Lime Crime; I generally accept that, of course, it's your money and you may spend it wherever you like, but I think it's a waste and the company and their products don't deserve it.

This post is going to be the exception to that rule, though. I very much hope this will be the worst company I ever have to write about, because they have stooped so low that it's positively frightening to consider a worse alternative. I am talking, of course, about Glittersniffer Cosmetics.

I haven't posted about them before because I haven't shopped with them, so generally I wouldn't bother getting involved, but the fact that this woman is still in business horrifies me. There are other websites, like this one and this one who strive to post all of the company's actions without personal comment, leaving a factual chronological account for you to read through. The information is great, but if you're like me it will leave you screaming internally and wanting to smash things because of just how incredibly FUCKED UP it all is.

So, this account will be factual, but it will also be angry, full of personal comment, name-calling, vitriol and swear words. And it's about fucking time.
All yellow highlights are mine and the only editing is blocking out personal identifying information and highlighting.
I'm going to take this step-by-step. Let me know which point you'd stop and "omgwtfno" at.

Glittersniffer Cosmetics

Glittersniffer Cosmetics is run by Lela Warren, a woman who is at best mentally ill, and at worst a lying, malicious, and manipulative criminal.

The company was founded in either 2006:

Glittersniffer Facebook Fanpage

Glittersniffer Recall List

Or 2008:

Glittersniffer Artfire Bio

But they don't seem to know, and it's hard for me to tell exactly when they started, considering that their Etsy page has been removed and all of their old blog posts deleted. You can tell they were deleted, rather than simply never existing, as halfway through this puff-piece the blogger links to: http://glittersniffercosmetics.blogspot.com/2010/01/clearing-dust-from-this-blog-and.html - an URL which no longer exists.

The business started out on Etsy, and then spread to Artfire, Big Cartel and also their own website. As their Etsy account was removed they switched to selling on their website primarily. Why was it removed? We can only speculate, but Lela admits that another Etsy shop was closed down by Etsy because it was flagged as being affiliated to her - I don't think Etsy do that if you leave voluntarily.

Glittersniffer Recall List

The website is gorgeous, beautifully designed and quite straightforward to navigate, although the press page is curiously sparse and outdated, the news is a blog with all its posts bar one (entitled "coming soon" and dating to five months ago) deleted, and the FAQ page glossing over the truth just a bit. However, since the website uses a Paypal checkout system, and neither the Glittersniffer paypal nor Lela's husband's personal Paypal can accept payments anymore, they have moved back to Artfire. The business Paypal account was frozen after they received over $5000 worth of claims from customers wanting refunds for mis-sold or dangerous products, and Paypal opened an investigation.

Glittersniffer fan page, then subsequently complaints page.

Glittersniffer attempted to use Lela's husband's Paypal, but it was reported (by some rude people) as being affiliated with her as this breaks Paypal's terms of use. Subsequently, they switched to Google Checkout, which conveniently has no buyer protection, and moved back to Artfire.

Glittersniffer fan page, then subsequently complaints page.

Glittersniffer Cosmetics is a cockroach that simply won't die. They primarily sell eyeshadows ("pigments"), but sometimes also mascara, lip products, soap, and cosmetic bags she stole from an Etsy seller. More on that later.

Shipping

Glittersniffer charges flat rate domestic shipping at $4.95, which is the cost of a priority flat rate envelope. They throw in the 19 cents it costs them for delivery confirmation because they heart us.
The international shipping, however, is not so generous. $6.95 for flat rate first class shipping is actually not bad at all, and although they will be making a profit if your package weighs less than 7oz, if you're buying soaps or body products, a flat rate comes in handy.

Glittersniffer FAQ page - highlight is mine.

But then Glittersniffer demonstrate that they don't really understand what a flat rate is. We're told that flat rate international first class shipping is $6.95 - this is their rate, their set charge for the first class shipping, as there is no first class shipping flat rate pre-paid envelope.

They say "we change you what we are charged" which cannot be accurate; if something is a flat rate then you are charging a set fee which does not change no matter what size an order is or what the actual cost to ship is. Unless you use a flat rate pre-paid envelope, then no, you aren't charging what we're charged. Clearly, this statement doesn't apply to the first-class international mail.

But maybe they meant the priority international, which does use a flat rate pre-paid envelope. Except that according to them a flat rate international priority envelope (which they don't make money off) is $20, when according to USPS it's $13.95.
Maybe it's a box, not an envelope? Well, no; they're all $13.95.

Okay, so maybe it's a bigger box? Seems unlikely, since the next step-up in pricing after $13.95 is $45.50. Go and see for yourself.

Both USPS.com

Seems to me like they're making quite a bit off shipping. $6.05, in fact, and contrary to the statement that they charge us what they are charged, they seem to be charging us 43% extra.
For the sake of pedantry, I'm going to call this lie #1. This one is posted on the FAQ on their webpage.

Glittersniffer artfire.

Currently the turn-around-time for Glittersniffer is five working days, and they ship three times a week. If you don't get your order within 12 days, then it probably got lost in the mail. This happens quite often to Lela, who must be the unluckiest person alive; the sheer number of parcels she diligently sends out that simply get lost by the useless postal system, and then the replacements which also get lost, and the e-mails customers send when their parcels don't turn up, which simply, somehow, fail to reach her inbox.

Both Glittersniffer Complaints Facebook Page

Glittersniffer fan page, then subsequently complaints page.


Paypal forum thread.

Story anonymously submitted to Glittersniffer Complaints blog.


Story anonymously submitted to Glittersniffer Complaints blog.

Packaging

If you do get your order, it may not be what you ordered, but something else entirely. If it is correct, then the items may have arrived completely unlabelled:

Submitted anonymously to Glittersniffer Complaints blog.

Or with the labels so damaged you can't tell what the product is.

Glittersniffer fan page.

But that's okay, because apparently that fan is happy about it. Notice how Lela doesn't think to apologise for a product arriving damaged? Perhaps that's because it happens so frequently. Same product, same problem, different customer:

Submitted anonymously to Glittersniffer Complaints blog.

It seems like that product has a problem with becoming unsealed and leaking, but hey, that doesn't worry Lela, why not slather it all over your eyes? It's not like, uh, bacteria or any uh, nasty stuff can get into it even if the product can leak out, right? Isn't that how that works?

Product - Safety

But as Glittersniffer state, their products are clean and never contain bacteria. Welcome to lie #2.

E-mail screenshot submitted to Glittersniffer Complaints Facebook group.

They can't possibly contain bacteria, because Glittersniffer employees always wears gloves, masks, and use a sanitary work area.

Check out the almost-identical TKB sample bags, top right!

That looks like a lab to me.

Here's our hero Lela, joined by one of her employees, cutting soap on some very-sanitised table covered in her kid's crap, filling jars in her lap and showing off the finished product with clean, gloved hands, no jewellery which can harbour bacteria, and using masks and sanitary tools. You might make the argument that these were staged shots, in which case she just contaminated 42 jars of eyeshadow and what-looks-like 20 bars of soap, which will need to be thrown away. Pretty wasteful photography.

As she explains, Glittersniffer has and always will be sanitary, always uses gloves and masks and fingers do not touch the pigment, they are poured from a bag into the containers.

Glittersniffer Recall List,

I guess that's lie #3.

See? Glittersniffer is completely sanitary, absolutely all of the time apart from those times when they aren't. The real kicker is that, six questions below the quote you just read, on the same page of the Glittersniffer Recall FAQ, Lela contradicts herself entirely.

Glittersniffer Recall List

It's moments like these that I need to take a deep breath to keep calm, because there isn't enough capslock in the world to properly express the sheer stupidity of this.
Read it again.

Well done, Lela. Well done. You just contradicted what you said six questions ago. The answers are so close together I can view both at once in my browser, look:

Glittersniffer Recall List

How does this happen? Are you high? Insane? Or just incredibly fucking dim? How do you not see that you just completely contradicted yourself? You say that the practices are and always have been sanitary, using gloves, masks, sanitary worksurfaces etc (as evidenced in pictures above), and then six questions later you say you've introduced new practices including gloves, sanitised work areas and hand washing.

...

I don't know what to say here. I honestly wonder whether this is intentional and incredibly incompetent deceit or whether Lela is just plain nuts. I think I'm leaning toward the latter. How do you not know if you used to wear gloves or not? Maybe the same way you don't know whether you actually mailed something or not, after you said you did, and you're not sure whether your company started in 2006 or 2008.

Whatever sanitation problems Glittersniffer might have, no one has been injured as a result.

Glittersniffer complaints Facebook group.

Yes, you read that right, that woman's child was injured as a result. Glittersniffer's position?

Glittersniffer Recall List

Oh, wait sorry, there have been allegations but no official documentation.

Looks unofficial to me. (GSC Complaint FB page along with 2 below.)

Here's a picture one allegedly injured party submitted, along with full details of their condition, medical trips, medication and the pigments which caused the problem, to Lela.

Of course, Lela responded promptly and professionally, expressing concern and requesting the official documentation required for her to act on the issue.

Great advice! Despite the fact that she already did see a doctor, which she mentioned, both the first and second time she e-mailed you about the problem. But it's good that, despite the first one unfortunately getting lost in the ether on its way to you, you took the time to properly investigate and respond to the issue, Lela.

At least these injuries were caused by products which have now been deemed to be unsafe and been properly recalled, right?

Maybe not. Aside from the fact that no Glittersniffer product is safe, because they don't seem to remember whether or not they wore gloves, masks, washed their hands or packed products in their lap, this person's injury was caused by a product not on the recall list.

The Statement

On December 23rd, 2010, Lela posted this statement to the Facebook fanpage. It has since been deleted. I have reproduced it here in its entirety, cut into sections to make comment easier.

Once again, starting in 2006. This makes me think perhaps the Artfire bio is a typing error.

If you make a product and sell it occasionally, then yes, that can be considered hobby income. However, if you make a product and sell it (however infrequently) and keep the profit, that is not a hobby, it is a business. This is a legal distinction used for calculating taxes on hobby/business income. Lie #4.
Even if it was a hobby (which it wasn't, it was a business) that doesn't absolve someone of the responsibility to ensuring the safety of the products they are making and selling. Lela is basically admitting she was completely clueless, but her excuse holds no weight - she started a business, it was her responsibility to do the research to make sure the products she was selling were safe.

She then explains that she did do research, find out about ingredients that weren't safe for use as eyeshadow, and made unsafe pink pigments (she later explains the ingredient which makes them unsafe is polyester) which she hadn't intended to sell as eyeshadow. I cannot verify whether or not this is true, but will note that the recall list includes every pink ever made, so evidently at some point these were sold as eyeshadows and this became her standard practice. She goes on to say that she realised other companies were breaking FDA regulations by selling neon colours as eyeshadow, so she made some for herself. She says that the neons are not safe for use around the eyes because they are soap dyes, but in fact these are not safe for cosmetic use at all. They may be used in nail polish or diluted to colour soap, etc, but must not be used on the skin - let alone the face or eyes. There is a huge difference. Lie #5.

This is the first part of the pity-parade. Lela made them just for herself, and everyone wanted them so badly she had absolutely no choice but to make and sell unsafe ingredients. She told people they were unsafe though. Except, she didn't. Here's one of the original 80's Collection listings; this stacker is entirely repackaged soap dyes which are not safe for use anywhere on the face/skin, let alone on the eyes. The listing does not say they are unapproved for eyes, or cosmetic use, it actually encourages use as eyeliner and eyeshadow. This receipt is from March 2010, which is contrary to Lela's statement that she knew the colours were unsafe early on and disclosed the information. Lie #6.
It also says the company was established in 2008 again. What the hell is going on?

This isn't an excuse. She seems to think that just stumbling onto five thousand customers and a massive website means she was helpless and the business grew out of control. Total bollocks. For starters, she never had to list on Etsy more than she had to sell. She never had to sell items which weren't safe for use, or lie about it. It sounds like she's trying to convince us she just woke up and, oh, crap, the business is huge. Judging from her web designer's price list, the Glittersniffer website probably cost her around $1000. Who the fuck makes that decision lightly?

Then the problem is that, despite having five thousand customers and dropping a grand on a website to avoid fees, and the business, by her own admission, growing, now she doesn't have any money to pay her staff? Despite the fact that she has let orders pile up i.e. has more business than she can handle, and has not been mailing stuff out (meaning she has both money from orders and stock) the fact that she didn't get a business loan meant she couldn't afford to pay anyone to help her keep up with orders. The money she got from the orders, apparently, didn't cut it, and the thousand she spent on the website had nothing to do with it.

More pity-parade. People wanted reds and pinks, so she had to put carmine in (carmine comes from ground up bugs, it is not vegan) and continue selling herself as an all-vegan company when she wasn't. The statement: "when a consumer is buying from an all vegan company, they shouldn't have to look for notes indicating otherwise" is particularly infuriating. No, Lela, when a consumer is buying from an all-vegan company, THE PRODUCTS SHOULD BE VEGAN. ALL OF THEM. Otherwise it ISN'T an "all-vegan company", and it's just lying. Which it was - lie #7.

Someone wanted inexpensive brushes, so rather than linking that fan to any of the other cheap brushes around (and there are many) or stocking synthetic brushes which were vegan, Lela had no choice but to stock non-vegan badger brushes instead.

This is the funny part. "From this point forward, we will only be selling merchandise through our official Glittersniffer Cosmetics website." That was December 23, 2010. At present, they are selling on Artfire. Lie #8.

"We are discarding all of our old stock" if, by discarding, you mean selling. Two days after this, their old stock (including unsafe products on the recall list) was sold off in a lot. Lela even admits to this on the fan page.

Glittersniffer fan page, then subsequently complaints page.

Lie #9.

Another statement which indicates that Glittersniffer staff didn't wear gloves when handling product, despite the assertion on the recall page right now which says they always did.

No, they haven't. Today, three months after saying they had applied, Glittersniffer still haven't applied for a business license in Michigan. Search for yourself. Lie #10.

Forgive me, but you don't seem sorry, considering that you lied six times in that one statement, and of all the promises it makes for the business going forward, none have been honoured. Perhaps she knew it was all bollocks, because as I say, this statement was deleted from the fan page.

Around the same time as this statement, the official product recall started.

Recall

I don't know about you, but seeing a company is recalling over 54 of their eyeshadows back, which were made over a period of four years using ingredients which were either not safe for use around eyes or not safe for use on the face/skin at all, fills me with confidence.

This wasn't a bad batch, this was four years worth of products, their creation continued for the entire life of the company. The recall also covers all pink eyeshadows ever made to be on the "safe" side. For some reason, I don't think doing things on the safe side has ever really been a Glittersniffer priority. The recall list is buried on its own page of the website and is accessible through a button on the FAQ page - not on the main page of the website itself. It is also not on the facebook fanpage, Artfire, or anywhere else. It also wasn't e-mailed to anyone, but knowing Lela's luck, her e-mails would have gotten lost on the way.

Glittersniffer Recall List

It seems like the official version of events, now, is that Lela knew they were unsafe when she made them and sold them, and continued to do so despite the knowledge. Whereas the original statement said she made the items either for herself or, in the case of the pinks, for nail polish/items other than eyeshadow. The snippet above seems to have abandoned that, and suggests that she ignored the safety rules in order to make things brighter and more colourful.
Some of the products were, eventually, updated with information saying they were unsafe, others weren't. Of the ones that were, the information wasn't always correct - as in the case of the 80's collection (repackaged neon soap dyes) being marked as not eye safe, when they were not safe for limited cosmetic use - a completely different thing.

It seems like Lela still doesn't understand the difference, because the recall list is separated into two categories:

So, the first category is products that aren't approved for use around the eyes, and the second category is products that aren't approved for use around the eyes - and/or contain soap dyes. This is misleading and still doesn't state that the soap dyes are not approved for limited cosmetic use i.e. lips, cheeks, skin - not just eyes. I'm not sure if this is because Lela still doesn't understand, doesn't care, or doesn't want people to know. None of those options are good.

Here's the official, final recall list.

Glittersniffer Recall List

If I haven't hit your "omgwtfno" mark yet, perhaps the highlighted text will do it for you. The Little Girls' Collection is on the recall list. The clue is in the name (although Lela got it wrong on the recall list - "kit" not collection) - this was a collection specifically designed and marketed for children. In that screenshot, notice this little Q&A:

Glittersniffer was also included in The Spotted Box, a sample box which is geared towards mothers and children.
In this e-mail, Lela is happily explaining to a customer that all of her colours are safe for children of any age - except for Flight Club, which is on the recall list, next to another fifty-three colours which were previously described as safe. Lie #11. Notice the e-mail is dated June; she's admitting the colour isn't safe, but is still selling it, and this is six months prior to the recall.

The recall list shows Glow In The Dark Collection and says it isn't accepted in the recall because it was advertised as being unsafe for eyes. Lie #12: here, here, and here are three listings showing the Glow In The Dark pigment marketed/suggested as eyeshadow/eyeliner with no safety warning.

Next to the recall lists, on the recall page, there's a bunch of questions and answers, some of which I've already discussed. Another one worth looking at is this one:

All oranges are safe, except for Finger Food. Just that one orange. Lie #13 - look a couple of inches to the right on the same damn page and you see 80's Orange and GLAAD orange also included in the recall.

The recall page is chock full of other lies, and there's still that Etsy seller I mentioned earlier, some issues surrounding veganism, alleged charity fraud, and the fact that Glittersniffer are still not meeting FDA regulations right now, today, in spite of this apparent wake-up call, but all of that will have to wait until part 2 tomorrow. There's just too much fuckery for one post.