| EnviroLink Forum http://www.envirolink.org/forum/ |
|
| We are winning! http://www.envirolink.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=17255 |
Page 3 of 15 |
| Author: | Ann Vole [ Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: We are winning! |
| Author: | tommee [ Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: We are winning! |
| Author: | Wayne Stollings [ Fri Apr 13, 2012 3:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: We are winning! |
| Author: | tommee [ Sun Apr 15, 2012 7:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: We are winning! |
| Author: | Wayne Stollings [ Sun Apr 15, 2012 11:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: We are winning! |
| Author: | tommee [ Sun Apr 15, 2012 12:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: We are winning! |
| Author: | Wayne Stollings [ Sun Apr 15, 2012 12:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: We are winning! |
| Author: | Wayne Stollings [ Sun Apr 15, 2012 12:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: We are winning! |
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. |
|
| Author: | Wayne Stollings [ Sun Apr 15, 2012 12:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: We are winning! |
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]. |
|
| Author: | tommee [ Sun Apr 15, 2012 1:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: We are winning! |
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. |
|
| Author: | tommee [ Sun Apr 15, 2012 1:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: We are winning! |
"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 |
|
| Author: | Wayne Stollings [ Sun Apr 15, 2012 8:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: We are winning! |
| Author: | Wayne Stollings [ Sun Apr 15, 2012 8:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: We are winning! |
| Author: | Wayne Stollings [ Wed Apr 18, 2012 5:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: We are winning! |
http://www.livescience.com/15672-bill-c ... diets.html The great meat-vegan tradeoff Veganism is one of the healthiest dietary lifestyles... if done properly. It is also one of the unhealthiest diets in town if not done properly, which is often the case. The reason for the latter scenario is twofold. Animal products are loaded with nutrients that are hard to obtain in adequate amounts through a plant-based diet. Also, the American culture in particular is so meat-focused that vegans in North America can have trouble preparing food that is satiating enough to keep one on such a diet. In short, animal products provide high-quality protein, healthy omega-3 fatty acids (in fish, anyway), calcium, iron, zinc and vitamin B12. As a vegan, as opposed to vegetarian, you cannot rely on milk, cheese and eggs to get some of these nutrients. B12 is a particularly sticky issue for vegans, because it is only present in animal products, such as eggs. This means that, as a vegan, you need to become skilled in preparing iron-rich and calcium-rich foods such as dark, leafy green vegetables; zinc-containing foods such as nuts and beans; foods rich in omega-3 fatty acids, for which there are few other than flaxseed; and a variety of protein-containing foods every day such as rice, beans and lentils, to be sure you are getting a complete protein. Or you take a bunch of vitamin pills, as some vegans have to do. |
|
| Author: | tommee [ Wed Apr 18, 2012 7:09 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: We are winning! |
| Page 3 of 15 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|