EnviroLink Forum

In human brains, we know that we intend to have an audience and thus do it on purpose. With non-humans, we cannot be sure until we are able to discuss that with them or devise tests to see if there is intent. On the university campus where I am taking classes, there is one of the two species mentioned, Richardson Ground Squirrels. Due to the small patches of grass between buildings and roads and concrete pathways, these individuals are usually living alone rather then in a colony. When they run and hide, they make a warning call. I doubt they have an audience for that warning call suggesting it is instinct but in a colony, the warning calls continue until I leave but at the university they only make one or two chirps before going silent... this suggests that they know when there is an audience or not and change their response accordingly. I tell you this to show how grey and inconclusive such tests are. Asking them out-right would make it very black-and-white as to how conscious their motivation is to communicate.

This is only due to the laws we have set in place. Things may change.

Not likely, as there will not be any changes in the near future, unless there is an exemption given for liability for those who would be involved with the first clinical trials. If there is no liability for injury to those in clinical trials, they might bypass the animal tests, but even then I do not see the insurance carriers allowing it.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

I remember the cosmetic industry say much the same. It was up in arms saying they couldn't produce cosmetics without animal testing yet years after the ban in Europe they test without the use of animals and companies fall over each other proclaiming animal cruelty free products.

Laws can be change as we can see with the cosmetic industry.

So you believe all ads?? Cosmetics are not drugs, they do not have holistic impacts as can drugs, they are not tested like drugs, and the liability issues are more restrained. The difference in animal cruelty free and non-use of animal products is significant and easily overlooked in the ad campaigns.

http://www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/CosmeticLa ... 005202.htm

Cruelty Free/Not Tested on Animals
March 14, 1995; Updated February 24, 2000

Some cosmetic companies promote their products with claims such as "CRUELTY-FREE" or "NOT TESTED ON ANIMALS" in their labeling or advertising. The unrestricted use of these phrases by cosmetic companies is possible because there are no legal definitions for these terms.

Some companies may apply such claims solely to their finished cosmetic products. However, these companies may rely on raw material suppliers or contract laboratories to perform any animal testing necessary to substantiate product or ingredient safety. Other cosmetic companies may rely on combinations of scientific literature, non-animal testing, raw material safety testing, or controlled human-use testing to substantiate their product safety.

Many raw materials, used in cosmetics, were tested on animals years ago when they were first introduced. A cosmetic manufacturer might only use those raw materials and base their "cruelty-free" claims on the fact that the materials or products are not "currently" tested on animals

Can you point to which laws were changed for cosmetics?

http://www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/GuidanceCo ... 074162.htm
Does FDA approve cosmetics before they go on the market?
FDA's legal authority over cosmetics is different from other products regulated by the agency, such as drugs, biologics, and medical devices. Cosmetic products and ingredients are not subject to FDA premarket approval authority, with the exception of color additives. However, FDA may pursue enforcement action against violative products, or against firms or individuals who violate the law.

Who is responsible for substantiating the safety of cosmetics?
Cosmetic firms are responsible for substantiating the safety of their products and ingredients before marketing. Failure to adequately substantiate the safety of a cosmetic product or its ingredients prior to marketing causes the product to be misbranded unless the following warning statement appears conspicuously on the principal display panel of the product's label:

"Warning--The safety of this product has not been determined." (21 CFR 740.10)

In addition, regulations prohibit or restrict the use of several ingredients5 in cosmetic products and require warning statements6 on the labels of certain types of cosmetics.

In general, except for color additives and those ingredients which are prohibited or restricted from use in cosmetics by regulation, a manufacturer may use any ingredient in the formulation of a cosmetic provided that the ingredient and the finished cosmetic are safe, the product is properly labeled, and the use of the ingredient does not otherwise cause the cosmetic to be adulterated or misbranded under the laws that FDA enforces.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

I quote EU you come back with FDA.

OK, the EU's legislation states there is still testing allowed until 2013 ..... until that time the final impacts on the industry cannot be known.

http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/sectors/c ... dex_en.htm

The marketing ban applies since 11 March 2009 for all human health effects with the exception of repeated-dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity and toxicokinetics For these specific health effects the marketing ban will apply step by step as soon as alternative methods are validated and adopted in EU legislation with due regard to the OECD validation process, but with a maximum cut-off date of 10 years after entry into force of the Directive, i.e., 11 March 2013, irrespective of the availability of alternative non-animal tests.

Also this is a very important aspect which most likely plays strongly in the EU markets.

Many raw materials, used in cosmetics, were tested on animals years ago when they were first introduced. A cosmetic manufacturer might only use those raw materials and base their "cruelty-free" claims on the fact that the materials or products are not "currently" tested on animals

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

The ability to test products on animals elsewhere and later introduce them into the EU market after the safety issues were confirmed would allow the manufacturers to keep insurance policies in place for product liability and still develop new products. Without out that testing no insurance company will cover an untested product with untested ingredients where liability could quickly go into the millions if there are damages. The EU legislation does not address the lack of such liability at all.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

http://www.premiumbeautynews.com/en/alt ... g-the,3815

The aim is to achieve workable solutions to replace animal testing as soon as possible, since the ban on the tests that remain accepted will enter into force in March 2013, despite the fact that it is unlikely that safe alternatives have been finalised in the meantime

http://www.jlpp.org/2012/01/31/cosmetic ... l-testing/

Furthermore, one should remain mindful of the incessant critics addressed by the Parliament to the European Commission, which has constantly endeavored to delay the enforcement of the ban. Of course, the Directive itself provided for a possible delay of the prohibition[10] in the event of a failure to develop alternative testing methods, but it seems that the Commission has abused its prerogative, as it has postponed the ban’s deadline once too many times. Originally, a complete prohibition should have been implemented in 1998, but it has been regularly delayed on the basis of the yearly reports of the Commission that kept repeating that some very good progress was made[11], but full replacement of in vivo experimentation would not be available before the deadline. We are now in 2012, and the Commission recently asserted that for the scientific tests concerning the most complex health effects, a 2020 deadline was optimistic and even refused to establish a timeline[12]. One can only join the European Parliament as it deplores and challenges the legality of these incessant postponements[13], and “calls into question whether all reasonable endeavors have been made to develop and validate such alternatives”[14].

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

The bench mark has already been set by the UK, tests banned in 1997 on products and a ban on ingredients in 1998.

EU will fall in line soon.

"Subsequently, as of 11 March 2009, no animal testing has been permitted in the EU, whether or not an alternative method is available."


"As from 11 March 2013, no cosmetic product containing an ingredient that has been tested for the purposes of the Directive using animals after this date will be allowed for sale in Europe, irrespective of whether or not an alternative test is available."

http://www.thefactsabout.co.uk/content. ... enu=subsub

Except, of course, the more complex and involved testing related to repeated-dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity and toxicokinetics as was stated in the previous EU link and the second quote indicating the 2013 deadline.

It helps if one knows what is being discussed.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

From your link:

The first milestone was September 2004 when a complete ban on animal testing of finished cosmetic products was imposed in Europe. The European cosmetics industry had already moved away from testing cosmetic products on animals some time before this and in the UK animal testing has not taken place on both cosmetic products (since 1997) and their ingredients (since 1998). Voluntary initiatives by the UK cosmetics industry to surrender all licences were followed by announcements from the Home Office[1] that no more licences for cosmetics testing would be issued.

At the same time a “rolling ban” on animal testing for cosmetic ingredients was introduced. This meant that the use of a particular animal test would be banned as soon as a validated and accepted alternative testing method became available. Subsequently, as of 11 March 2009, no animal testing has been permitted in the EU, whether or not an alternative method is available.

The PARTICULAR test being banned is not ALL animal testing and a voluntary initiative is significantly different from a ban.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Yes you are correct and when the 2013 deadline comes around this will change. Like I stated in an earlier post "laws can change" and this is the case. Things are getting better...

http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/ ... 191_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/sectors/c ... ive-76/768



Yes it would be an advantage if you knew what you were talking about, it would also be conducive to discussion if you came across in a less patronising manner.