EnviroLink Forum
http://www.envirolink.org/forum/

We are winning!
http://www.envirolink.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=17255
Page 14 of 15

Author:  tommee [ Sun Apr 29, 2012 12:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: We are winning!

Wayne Stollings wrote:
tommee wrote:
Johhny Electriglide wrote:
No, Wayne is not a waste of bandwidth, YOU are, tommee. =P~ :razz: =;



It hurts when the pro animal abuse lobby get their butts kicked, I understand you feel down about animals having a chance.


Where did thaqt happen ... other than in your daydreams? You have been given the chance to grasp at straws and assume all of those ingredients used in cosmetics will not be tested on animals at any time in the future, but in reality the vasr majority will continue to be tested for all of the other applications for which they are also used.



Not for cosmetics.

Author:  Wayne Stollings [ Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: We are winning!

tommee wrote:
Try the INCI :lolno:



For what? Another wild goose chase while you make unsupported claims we later find out are false?

Unless you give a specific referenceand a link your goose chases will be given the review they deserve ... none.

Author:  tommee [ Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: We are winning!

Wayne Stollings wrote:
tommee wrote:
Try the INCI :lolno:



For what? Another wild goose chase while you make unsupported claims we later find out are false?

Unless you give a specific referenceand a link your goose chases will be given the review they deserve ... none.



You can go look up in the data base yourself, it's well documented. You are an idiot.

Author:  Wayne Stollings [ Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: We are winning!

Wayne Stollings wrote:
tommee wrote:
It hurts when the pro animal abuse lobby get their butts kicked, I understand you feel down about animals having a chance.


Where did thaqt happen ... other than in your daydreams? You have been given the chance to grasp at straws and assume all of those ingredients used in cosmetics will not be tested on animals at any time in the future, but in reality the vasr majority will continue to be tested for all of the other applications for which they are also used.



tommee wrote:
Not for cosmetics.


Not SOLELY for cosmetics, no. But, if the other uses require testing that testing will be part of the standard procedure for the substance. It is impractical to try to produce a substance and segregate the product between tested and untested. The tested will be guaranteed as such, but that sold as untested will not be guaranteed. It is really that simple.

In reality the only impact would be on final cosmetic products and any ingredients which may be used solely in the cosmetic industry. I do not know of any which are so limited in use, but there may be some.

Author:  Wayne Stollings [ Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: We are winning!

tommee wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
tommee wrote:
Try the INCI :lolno:



For what? Another wild goose chase while you make unsupported claims we later find out are false?

Unless you give a specific referenceand a link your goose chases will be given the review they deserve ... none.



You can go look up in the data base yourself, it's well documented. You are an idiot.


I could look it up, but I am not going to waste my time when you have no idea if there is anything there to support what you will try to say. You claimed there was a huge list in the link you provided on cosmetics, which turned out to be nothing of the sort. When YOU wish to make a claim YOU can support it with references and links to specific sections, not the general stuff you have been trying to palm off on us. I will not waste time on trying to decipher what it is you may think you want to say relating to the subject.

You really should tone down the personal attecks, especially when you have those documented false claims that could be used to question the integrity of any future claims or your views in general.

Author:  Wayne Stollings [ Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: We are winning!

tommee wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
tommee wrote:
Try the INCI :lolno:



For what? Another wild goose chase while you make unsupported claims we later find out are false?

Unless you give a specific referenceand a link your goose chases will be given the review they deserve ... none.



You can go look up in the data base yourself, it's well documented. You are an idiot.


A list of names with nothing to indicate safety or lack thereof? Just as I thought an assumption driven claim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internatio ... I_labeling

The International Nomenclature of Cosmetic Ingredients, abbreviated INCI, is a system of names for waxes, oils, pigments, chemicals, and other ingredients of soaps, cosmetics, and the like, based on scientific names and other Latin and English words.[1] INCI names often differ greatly from systematic chemical nomenclature or from more common trivial names

Author:  Wayne Stollings [ Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: We are winning!

While we are at it, look at the requirements for chemicals in the EU.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Registrati ... _Chemicals

The European Chemicals Agency has set three major deadlines for registration of chemicals. In general these are determined by tonnage manufactured or imported, with 1000 tonnes/a. being required to be registered by 1 December 2010, 100 tonnes/a. by 1 June 2013 and 1 tonne/a. by 1 June 2018. In addition, chemicals of higher concern or toxicity also have to meet the 2010 deadline.

About 143,000 chemical substances marketed in the European Union were pre-registered by the 1 December 2008 deadline. Although pre-registering was not mandatory, it allows potential registrants much more time before they have to fully register. Supply of substances to the European market which have not been pre-registered or registered is illegal (known in REACH as "no data, no market").

REACH also addresses the continued use of chemical substances of very high concern (SVHC) because of their potential negative impacts on human health or the environment. From 1 June 2011, the European Chemicals Agency must be notified of the presence of SVHCs in articles if the total quantity used is more than one tonne per year and the SVHC is present at more than 0.1% of the mass of the object. Some uses of SVHCs may be subject to prior authorisation from the European Chemicals Agency, and applicants for authorisation will have to include plans to replace the use of the SVHC with a safer alternative (or, if no safer alternative exists, the applicant must work to find one) - known as substitution. As of January 2012[update], there are 73 SVHCs.[5]

REACH applies to all chemicals imported or produced in the EU. The European Chemicals Agency will manage the technical, scientific and administrative aspects of the REACH system.

To somewhat simplify the registration of the 143,000 substances and to limit vertebrate animal testing as far as possible, Substance Information Exchange Forums (SIEFs) are formed amongst legal entities (such as manufacturers, importers, and data holders) who are dealing with the same substance[6]. This allows them to join forces and finances to create 1 registration dossier. However, this creates a series of new problems as a SIEF is the cooperation between sometimes a thousand legal entities, which did not know each other at all before but suddenly must:

find each other and start communicating openly and honestly
start sharing data
start sharing costs in a fair and transparent way
democratically and in full consensus take the most complex decisions
in order to complete a several thousand end points dossier in a limited time.

The European Commission supports businesses affected by REACH by handing out – free of charge – a software application (IUCLID), which simplifies capturing, managing and submitting of data on chemical properties and effects. Such submission is a mandatory part of the registration process. Under certain circumstances the performance of a Chemical Safety Assessment (CSA) is mandatory and a Chemical Safety Report (CSR) assuring the safe use of the substance has to be submitted with the dossier. Dossier submission is done using the web-based software REACH-IT.

Author:  Donnie Mac Leod [ Fri Jun 01, 2012 1:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: We are winning!

Also as a supplementary to Wayne's research proving he was not misleading people ,this should be noted. Untill a few years ago a lot of cosmetics ,hair sprays and such, used gases like freon as the pressurized exponent but that proved hazardous to the environment per the ozone layer. Thus new methods had to be researched in getting cosmetics, bug sprays & hair sprays out of cans. That meant a whole new research & developement using animals to test chemical resistance for skin, eyes & lungs needed to be looked into. As the days go by other changes will be needed as Science can never remain stagnant because time does change needs.

Author:  tommee [ Thu Feb 07, 2013 5:26 am ]
Post subject:  Re: We are winning!

After decades of lobbying from animal rights groups, the European Union is set to ban sale of animal tested cosmetics from March 11 this year.

The European Union will ban the import and sale of animal-tested cosmetic products (including ingredients) for member states from March 11; from this date onwards anyone selling new cosmetic products and ingredients in the EU will not be allowed to test them on animals anywhere in the world.

This isn't just for high-end products: all toiletries and beauty products, from skin cream to toothpaste, will be affected. The ban has been planned since 2009, but some activists feared a delay to the decision.

EU Commissioner Tonio Borg wrote an open letter to animal testing campaigners informing them that the ban is due to go ahead as proposed, and stating that he was "not planning to propose a postponement or derogation to the ban."

Earlier this year, Israel also passed a ban on animal testing.

Chief Executive of charity Cruelty Free International Michelle Thew said: "This is truly an historic event and the culmination of over 20 years of campaigning. Now we will apply our determination and vision on a global stage to ensure that the rest of the world follows this lead."

One of the world's largest markets, China still demands animal testing as a safety precaution. According to PETA, Chinese companies are required by law to pay for testing before some cosmetics can be marketed to the public. The animal rights group has recently been working in Beijing, training scientists to test cosmetics with alternative in-vitro methods.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/e ... z2KCgfU3Eu


We can get back to this very soon :-

Author:  Wayne Stollings [ Fri Feb 15, 2013 3:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: We are winning!

Cool, if they remove all cosmetics which have been tested on animals or their components have been tested on animals somewhere there will be no cosmetics in the EU. Of course, they will ignore things which have already been tested, which will probably include new products that are tested after the "ban", but not tested directly for the sale. In any case it seems a perfect no win set up for a regulation.

Author:  tommee [ Sat Apr 27, 2013 6:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: We are winning!

"A complete ban on the sale of cosmetics developed through animal testing has taken effect in the EU.

The ban applies to all new cosmetics and their ingredients sold in the EU, regardless of where in the world testing on animals was carried out."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21740745

=D>

Author:  Wayne Stollings [ Sat Apr 27, 2013 8:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: We are winning!

Cool, now the EU based cosmetic industry will have to move to other areas of the world if it is to survive in the world market. If not, they will just have their own little market, less the new cosmetics which will be smuggled into the EU due to the market demand for new and better products.

Author:  Wayne Stollings [ Sat Apr 27, 2013 8:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: We are winning!

Wait, the ban is not as complete as it has been presented ....

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/11/busin ... .html?_r=0

And there were warnings on Monday that the ban still left a loophole. Shortly after the announcement, Dagmar Roth-Behrendt, a Socialist lawmaker from Germany who a decade ago helped to steer a measure through the European Parliament that resulted in the 2004 ban, said companies still could use ingredients from tests on animals as long as the tests were carried out for non-cosmetic products like pharmaceuticals or chemicals.

Author:  tommee [ Sun Apr 28, 2013 1:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: We are winning!

Wayne Stollings wrote:
Wait, the ban is not as complete as it has been presented ....


Yes it is.

Quote:
companies still could use ingredients from tests on animals as long as the tests were carried out for non-cosmetic products like pharmaceuticals or chemicals.


Please explain the process Einstein :crazy:

Author:  Wayne Stollings [ Sun Apr 28, 2013 2:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: We are winning!

tommee wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Wait, the ban is not as complete as it has been presented ....


Yes it is.


Not according to the quote.

Quote:
Quote:
companies still could use ingredients from tests on animals as long as the tests were carried out for non-cosmetic products like pharmaceuticals or chemicals.


Please explain the process Einstein :crazy:


Any ingredient used in cosmetics cannot be tested for the cosmetic use, but if it is also used in pharmaceuticals or is tested as a chemical outside of the cosmetic use, those animal tests will not preclude the use of the ingredient in cosmetics. Thus, the ingredients used in cosmetics can be tested on animals, but not just for the use in cosmetics.

Say a company wants to use dihydrogen oxide in a cosmetic, but there is a concern over the use. They cannot use animal testing to determine the safety of the use. However, if dihyrdogen oxide is tested for exposure as a chemical used for other purposes, the company can then use it in cosmetics with some level of comfort. The same thing applies if dihyrogen oxide were used in some pharmaceutical application, which may involve an even greater level of testing and therfore comfort. The only thing they cannot do is test the new usage specifically as a cosmetic application.

Page 14 of 15 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/