EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Tue Sep 02, 2014 5:40 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 217 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 15  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: We are winning!
PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 5:35 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20500
Location: Southeastern US
tommee wrote:
Safety testing can be broken down further, based on 2010 figures, as follows:

Environment: 8,422 or 14%
Agriculture: 16,977 or 28%
Industry: 27,104 or 44%
Household: 24 or 0.04%
Foods/food additives: 8,803 or 14%
Cosmetics/toiletries ingredients: none after 1998

TOTAL: 61,130 or 2% of total animal use in research

http://www.understandinganimalresearch. ... l_products


Do you know there are ingredients used in food and cosmetics? The testing for food additives would not be used for cosmetics would they? That would be like using a medication as a component of cosmetics, which would never happen ... right?


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

Important notice

Please note that ingredients assigned with an INCI name which appear in CosIng (Inventory Section) are not necessarily actually used in cosmetic products nor are they approved for such use. However, for ingredients used in cosmetic products as colorants, preservatives and UV filters, only those authorized in Annexes IV, VI, respectively VII to Directive 76/768/EEC are listed in CosIng.

CosIng may contain ingredients known to be used in medicinal products.

If thanks to such ingredients a product restores, corrects, or modifies physiological functions by exerting a pharmacological, immunological or metabolic action, the product shall be qualified as a medicinal product. However, products that, while having an effect on the human body, do not significantly affect the metabolism and thus do not strictly modify the way in which it functions, may be qualified as cosmetic products.

_________________
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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We are winning!
PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 5:38 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20500
Location: Southeastern US
tommee wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
quote]

You have contradicted yourself. You stated there was testing on components and product outside of the UK for cosmetics sold in the UK, which clearly does not eliminate the testing the industry was referencing. There is still testing beign done for the cosmetic industry for sales in the UK, which means there has been NO ban for years for cosmetics sold in the UK.


Never claimed cosmetics tested on animals were banned in the UK, testing them on animals in the UK is banned.


Then why did you reference this?

Quote:
They can and do test cosmetics without the use of animals, some don't. The ban in the UK is current and companies follow the EU directive as if it were 2013, Lush for instance.


They do not follow the directive as if it were 2013 or they would not include any products tested on anumal anywhere. You clearly have no idea of what is going on.

_________________
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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We are winning!
PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 5:40 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:07 pm
Posts: 188
Wayne Stollings wrote:
tommee wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

It seems there is no ban yet, just a partial ban on some things ... maybe.


No there is a total ban on testing cosmetics on animals in the UK. The EU fell in-line in 2004 BUT they can use the three toxicology tests in the EU but not in the UK because there isn't anyone who has a licence to test cosmetics on animals ;)


The testing does not have to be on the cosmetics to be tests of cosmetics. The individual components can still be tested prior to being used in the production and are not the cosmetic tests for which there were licenses.

Quote:
Quote:

Assuming there will be an acceptable alternative, which is a critical flaw in the logic.


No alternative is needed.


That may be your opinion, but the consumers, the governments, the providers, and their insurance carrieres will disagree.

Quote:
Quote:

Except for those processes that would require the continous testing to ensure safe usage. This would be a boon for the industries moving to other countries and a big economic boost to the EU ... not.


Alternative or not the ban will go ahead in full.


If that were the case there would be no question as to the possible postponement or a n impact assessment by the Committee.

Quote:
Quote:
The three TYPES of toxicology tests and yes, they are still being performed for the products in both the UK and EU now.



No not in the UK, no licences.



There are test for the products in the UK just no testing for the finished product in the UK ... except for Botox and a few others. Why do the exceptions always screw up the absolute statements?
Quote:
Quote:

Or their suppliers are doing the testing on the components over seas.


Yes some companies contract out of the UK, Lush follow the full ban as it was 2013, other companies do also.. The final part will sort this out.


Poaaibly, but then again possibly not if there are no alternatives and there is a change of heart in risking the health and welfare of the EU population or shutting down an industy and putting people out of work in these economic times.

Quote:
Quote:

As it stands SOME animal testing related to cosmetics is banned in the UK and EU. The toxicology tests are still performed.


No that's not correct, testing on animals for cosmetics can't happen in the UK because there are no licence to do so, toxicology or not.


Sure there are. The licenses were for testing the finished products and not the components. Also there are things like Botox which are still being tested for toxicity and will continue to be tested for as long as it is produced anywhere.

Quote:
Quote:
On track to see if it will be implimented.



No, in the UK regulations have changed, no more testing inside the UK.


For the finished product, which is not the same as the components, especially those components which are not specific to only cosmetics.

Quote:
Quote:
Unless no viable alternatives are discovered and then there may be more delays as the elimination of an industry or the potential health impact on humans would not be a very popular outcome.



No you are wrong, it matters not if there is an alternative or not.


Sure it does as there will be competeing regulations, such as the consumer protection laws. The consumer may be harmed by untested products which require the use of testing and if there is no applicable testing allowed there becomes a big problem for those making the decision.

Quote:
If the industry didn't go for another delay the laws would still change in 2013 alternatives or not.


If there is a delay and no alternative found before the nexrt deadline there will be another delay and another unless and until viable alternatives are found.

Quote:
The chemicals that need toxicology would not be able to be used because of it.


Possibly, or if the chemicals are used for other purposes they may be tested for those purposes and still used in cosmetics. Botox would be a perfect example, the use for medical purposes requires testing and there is no way to know if any or all of a batch would be used for cosmetic purposes. Of course, there is the whole issue of medical treatments which have a cosmetic outcome too.


I think I've covered all this in my last posts. Just remember that ingredients came into play for UK in 1998 and the EU in 2004.

Botox is classified as a pharmaceuticals because it's injected directly into the body. Cosmetics are classed as skin application and oral care etc....


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We are winning!
PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 5:45 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20500
Location: Southeastern US
tommee wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
tommee wrote:
This is becoming tedious.
If you follow the link below you will find your answer to your liability question.
http://www.imb.ie/images/uploaded/docum ... nt_SOM.pdf

If you would have read the EU links on the directive you would have had your answer.


Sorry, but there was nothing indicating liability for the use of any product without the proper testing, which would be the case if the ban on products sold using animal testing were to be enacted before there were alternatives.


The system is already in use.


What system? There are still toxicity tests required and being undertaken for cosmetic products. What system has repleces them?

Quote:
"I am committed to manufacturing the finest soap, bath and bodycare products possible. None of my products have been tested on animals. All my products come with full certification from Cosmetic Safety Assessment company and I have full Product and Public Liability insurance."
http://www.passionforsoap.co.uk/Terms-a ... 362%29.htm

It would help if you knew what you were talking about.


SOAP?!?! What does soap have to do with the previous link requiring the specific safety data for public products? A limited active ingredient and FOOD grade coloring, which can be tested on animals, would be the extent of this product if one wanted. Unless all cosmetics are soap this is not an indication of anything.

_________________
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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We are winning!
PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 5:47 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:07 pm
Posts: 188
I'm not surprised this place is dead.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We are winning!
PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 5:53 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20500
Location: Southeastern US
Wayne Stollings wrote:
tommee wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

It seems there is no ban yet, just a partial ban on some things ... maybe.


No there is a total ban on testing cosmetics on animals in the UK. The EU fell in-line in 2004 BUT they can use the three toxicology tests in the EU but not in the UK because there isn't anyone who has a licence to test cosmetics on animals ;)


The testing does not have to be on the cosmetics to be tests of cosmetics. The individual components can still be tested prior to being used in the production and are not the cosmetic tests for which there were licenses.

Quote:
Quote:

Assuming there will be an acceptable alternative, which is a critical flaw in the logic.


No alternative is needed.


That may be your opinion, but the consumers, the governments, the providers, and their insurance carrieres will disagree.

Quote:
Quote:

Except for those processes that would require the continous testing to ensure safe usage. This would be a boon for the industries moving to other countries and a big economic boost to the EU ... not.


Alternative or not the ban will go ahead in full.


If that were the case there would be no question as to the possible postponement or a n impact assessment by the Committee.

Quote:
Quote:
The three TYPES of toxicology tests and yes, they are still being performed for the products in both the UK and EU now.



No not in the UK, no licences.



There are test for the products in the UK just no testing for the finished product in the UK ... except for Botox and a few others. Why do the exceptions always screw up the absolute statements?
Quote:
Quote:

Or their suppliers are doing the testing on the components over seas.


Yes some companies contract out of the UK, Lush follow the full ban as it was 2013, other companies do also.. The final part will sort this out.


Poaaibly, but then again possibly not if there are no alternatives and there is a change of heart in risking the health and welfare of the EU population or shutting down an industy and putting people out of work in these economic times.

Quote:
Quote:

As it stands SOME animal testing related to cosmetics is banned in the UK and EU. The toxicology tests are still performed.


No that's not correct, testing on animals for cosmetics can't happen in the UK because there are no licence to do so, toxicology or not.


Sure there are. The licenses were for testing the finished products and not the components. Also there are things like Botox which are still being tested for toxicity and will continue to be tested for as long as it is produced anywhere.

Quote:
Quote:
On track to see if it will be implimented.



No, in the UK regulations have changed, no more testing inside the UK.


For the finished product, which is not the same as the components, especially those components which are not specific to only cosmetics.

Quote:
Quote:
Unless no viable alternatives are discovered and then there may be more delays as the elimination of an industry or the potential health impact on humans would not be a very popular outcome.



No you are wrong, it matters not if there is an alternative or not.


Sure it does as there will be competeing regulations, such as the consumer protection laws. The consumer may be harmed by untested products which require the use of testing and if there is no applicable testing allowed there becomes a big problem for those making the decision.

Quote:
If the industry didn't go for another delay the laws would still change in 2013 alternatives or not.


If there is a delay and no alternative found before the nexrt deadline there will be another delay and another unless and until viable alternatives are found.

Quote:
The chemicals that need toxicology would not be able to be used because of it.


Possibly, or if the chemicals are used for other purposes they may be tested for those purposes and still used in cosmetics. Botox would be a perfect example, the use for medical purposes requires testing and there is no way to know if any or all of a batch would be used for cosmetic purposes. Of course, there is the whole issue of medical treatments which have a cosmetic outcome too.


tommee wrote:
I think I've covered all this in my last posts. Just remember that ingredients came into play for UK in 1998 and the EU in 2004.


No, you have not. the testing which is still allowed is clearly being ignored. The components which are food grade or medicinal can be tested as their food or medicine components and used in cosmetics. The toxicolgical testing is still allowed for those components.

Quote:
Botox is classified as a pharmaceuticals because it's injected directly into the body. Cosmetics are classed as skin application and oral care etc....


And what of the other components which are classified and tested as food or medicinal products? How are they eliminated from the cosmetic ingredients if they are tested?

How does the safety requirement become fulfilled if there are no available alternative tests for animal models? That is not addressed.

_________________
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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We are winning!
PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 5:55 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:07 pm
Posts: 188
Wayne Stollings wrote:
tommee wrote:
Safety testing can be broken down further, based on 2010 figures, as follows:

Environment: 8,422 or 14%
Agriculture: 16,977 or 28%
Industry: 27,104 or 44%
Household: 24 or 0.04%
Foods/food additives: 8,803 or 14%
Cosmetics/toiletries ingredients: none after 1998

TOTAL: 61,130 or 2% of total animal use in research

http://www.understandinganimalresearch. ... l_products


Do you know there are ingredients used in food and cosmetics? The testing for food additives would not be used for cosmetics would they? That would be like using a medication as a component of cosmetics, which would never happen ... right?


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

Important notice

Please note that ingredients assigned with an INCI name which appear in CosIng (Inventory Section) are not necessarily actually used in cosmetic products nor are they approved for such use. However, for ingredients used in cosmetic products as colorants, preservatives and UV filters, only those authorized in Annexes IV, VI, respectively VII to Directive 76/768/EEC are listed in CosIng.

CosIng may contain ingredients known to be used in medicinal products.

If thanks to such ingredients a product restores, corrects, or modifies physiological functions by exerting a pharmacological, immunological or metabolic action, the product shall be qualified as a medicinal product. However, products that, while having an effect on the human body, do not significantly affect the metabolism and thus do not strictly modify the way in which it functions, may be qualified as cosmetic products.


CosIng also includes the latest data after the adoption of the "Cosmetics Regulation" in 2009


"Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products(3)
OJ L 262, 27.9.1976, p. 169. (3) has been significantly amended on several occasions. Since further amendments are to be made, in this particular case it should be recast as one single text in the interests of clarity."


"List of time-limits for transposition into national law and application"

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/Lex ... 209:en:PDF


Yes I'm well aware that there are ingredients used in foods and medicines. Do you realise there is a compiled list of ingredients already tested safe (oh you must do because you linked the database) and ingredients that are banned? You do know there was a cut off point for the UK 1998 and EU 2004 for such ingredients? anything after the date can't be tested on animal for cosmetic purposes..

You're out of date and things have moved on.

Would help if you knew what you were talking about, would be even better if you kept upto date.


Last edited by tommee on Fri Apr 20, 2012 5:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We are winning!
PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 5:56 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:07 pm
Posts: 188
Wayne Stollings wrote:
It seems there is no ban yet, just a partial ban on some things ... maybe.


No there is a total ban on testing cosmetics on animals in the UK. The EU fell in-line in 2004 BUT they can use the three toxicology tests in the EU but not in the UK because there isn't anyone who has a licence to test cosmetics on animals ;)[/quote]

The testing does not have to be on the cosmetics to be tests of cosmetics. The individual components can still be tested prior to being used in the production and are not the cosmetic tests for which there were licenses.

Quote:
Quote:

Assuming there will be an acceptable alternative, which is a critical flaw in the logic.


No alternative is needed.


That may be your opinion, but the consumers, the governments, the providers, and their insurance carrieres will disagree.

Quote:
Quote:

Except for those processes that would require the continous testing to ensure safe usage. This would be a boon for the industries moving to other countries and a big economic boost to the EU ... not.


Alternative or not the ban will go ahead in full.


If that were the case there would be no question as to the possible postponement or a n impact assessment by the Committee.

Quote:
Quote:
The three TYPES of toxicology tests and yes, they are still being performed for the products in both the UK and EU now.



No not in the UK, no licences.



There are test for the products in the UK just no testing for the finished product in the UK ... except for Botox and a few others. Why do the exceptions always screw up the absolute statements?
Quote:
Quote:

Or their suppliers are doing the testing on the components over seas.


Yes some companies contract out of the UK, Lush follow the full ban as it was 2013, other companies do also.. The final part will sort this out.


Poaaibly, but then again possibly not if there are no alternatives and there is a change of heart in risking the health and welfare of the EU population or shutting down an industy and putting people out of work in these economic times.

Quote:
Quote:

As it stands SOME animal testing related to cosmetics is banned in the UK and EU. The toxicology tests are still performed.


No that's not correct, testing on animals for cosmetics can't happen in the UK because there are no licence to do so, toxicology or not.


Sure there are. The licenses were for testing the finished products and not the components. Also there are things like Botox which are still being tested for toxicity and will continue to be tested for as long as it is produced anywhere.

Quote:
Quote:
On track to see if it will be implimented.



No, in the UK regulations have changed, no more testing inside the UK.


For the finished product, which is not the same as the components, especially those components which are not specific to only cosmetics.

Quote:
Quote:
Unless no viable alternatives are discovered and then there may be more delays as the elimination of an industry or the potential health impact on humans would not be a very popular outcome.



No you are wrong, it matters not if there is an alternative or not.


Sure it does as there will be competeing regulations, such as the consumer protection laws. The consumer may be harmed by untested products which require the use of testing and if there is no applicable testing allowed there becomes a big problem for those making the decision.

Quote:
If the industry didn't go for another delay the laws would still change in 2013 alternatives or not.


If there is a delay and no alternative found before the nexrt deadline there will be another delay and another unless and until viable alternatives are found.

Quote:
The chemicals that need toxicology would not be able to be used because of it.


Quote:
Possibly, or if the chemicals are used for other purposes they may be tested for those purposes and still used in cosmetics. Botox would be a perfect example, the use for medical purposes requires testing and there is no way to know if any or all of a batch would be used for cosmetic purposes. Of course, there is the whole issue of medical treatments which have a cosmetic outcome too.


tommee wrote:
I think I've covered all this in my last posts. Just remember that ingredients came into play for UK in 1998 and the EU in 2004.


No, you have not. the testing which is still allowed is clearly being ignored. The components which are food grade or medicinal can be tested as their food or medicine components and used in cosmetics. The toxicolgical testing is still allowed for those components.

Quote:
Botox is classified as a pharmaceuticals because it's injected directly into the body. Cosmetics are classed as skin application and oral care etc....

And what of the other components which are classified and tested as food or medicinal products? How are they eliminated from the cosmetic ingredients if they are tested?

How does the safety requirement become fulfilled if there are no available alternative tests for animal models? That is not addressed.


Refer to above post.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We are winning!
PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 6:03 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:07 pm
Posts: 188
Wayne Stollings wrote:
tommee wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
quote]

You have contradicted yourself. You stated there was testing on components and product outside of the UK for cosmetics sold in the UK, which clearly does not eliminate the testing the industry was referencing. There is still testing beign done for the cosmetic industry for sales in the UK, which means there has been NO ban for years for cosmetics sold in the UK.


Never claimed cosmetics tested on animals were banned in the UK, testing them on animals in the UK is banned.


Then why did you reference this?

Quote:
They can and do test cosmetics without the use of animals, some don't. The ban in the UK is current and companies follow the EU directive as if it were 2013, Lush for instance.


They do not follow the directive as if it were 2013 or they would not include any products tested on anumal anywhere. You clearly have no idea of what is going on.




can you provide something to support this claim? I quoted Lush as a company who comply with the directive, M&S are another so do the Co-op.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We are winning!
PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 7:24 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20500
Location: Southeastern US
tommee wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
tommee wrote:
Safety testing can be broken down further, based on 2010 figures, as follows:

Environment: 8,422 or 14%
Agriculture: 16,977 or 28%
Industry: 27,104 or 44%
Household: 24 or 0.04%
Foods/food additives: 8,803 or 14%
Cosmetics/toiletries ingredients: none after 1998

TOTAL: 61,130 or 2% of total animal use in research

http://www.understandinganimalresearch. ... l_products


Do you know there are ingredients used in food and cosmetics? The testing for food additives would not be used for cosmetics would they? That would be like using a medication as a component of cosmetics, which would never happen ... right?


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

Important notice

Please note that ingredients assigned with an INCI name which appear in CosIng (Inventory Section) are not necessarily actually used in cosmetic products nor are they approved for such use. However, for ingredients used in cosmetic products as colorants, preservatives and UV filters, only those authorized in Annexes IV, VI, respectively VII to Directive 76/768/EEC are listed in CosIng.

CosIng may contain ingredients known to be used in medicinal products.

If thanks to such ingredients a product restores, corrects, or modifies physiological functions by exerting a pharmacological, immunological or metabolic action, the product shall be qualified as a medicinal product. However, products that, while having an effect on the human body, do not significantly affect the metabolism and thus do not strictly modify the way in which it functions, may be qualified as cosmetic products.


CosIng also includes the latest data after the adoption of the "Cosmetics Regulation" in 2009


"Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products(3)
OJ L 262, 27.9.1976, p. 169. (3) has been significantly amended on several occasions. Since further amendments are to be made, in this particular case it should be recast as one single text in the interests of clarity."


"List of time-limits for transposition into national law and application"

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/Lex ... 209:en:PDF


Yes I'm well aware that there are ingredients used in foods and medicines. Do you realise there is a compiled list of ingredients already tested safe (oh you must do because you linked the database) and ingredients that are banned? You do know there was a cut off point for the UK 1998 and EU 2004 for such ingredients? anything after the date can't be tested on animal for cosmetic purposes..

You're out of date and things have moved on.

Would help if you knew what you were talking about, would be even better if you kept upto date.


Things may not be tested for pure cosmetic purposes but they may be tested for other purposes and later used in cosmetics. That is a very important distinction you seem to overlook. Also the "cutoff point" for the UK in 1998 was for tests within the UK not testing elsewhere and not testing for other applications. That is another sleight of hand jumping back and forth between the two different situations.

_________________
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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We are winning!
PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 7:46 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20500
Location: Southeastern US
tommee wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
It seems there is no ban yet, just a partial ban on some things ... maybe.


No there is a total ban on testing cosmetics on animals in the UK. The EU fell in-line in 2004 BUT they can use the three toxicology tests in the EU but not in the UK because there isn't anyone who has a licence to test cosmetics on animals ;)


The testing does not have to be on the cosmetics to be tests of cosmetics. The individual components can still be tested prior to being used in the production and are not the cosmetic tests for which there were licenses.

Quote:
Quote:

Assuming there will be an acceptable alternative, which is a critical flaw in the logic.


No alternative is needed.


That may be your opinion, but the consumers, the governments, the providers, and their insurance carrieres will disagree.

Quote:
Quote:

Except for those processes that would require the continous testing to ensure safe usage. This would be a boon for the industries moving to other countries and a big economic boost to the EU ... not.


Alternative or not the ban will go ahead in full.


If that were the case there would be no question as to the possible postponement or a n impact assessment by the Committee.

Quote:
Quote:
The three TYPES of toxicology tests and yes, they are still being performed for the products in both the UK and EU now.



No not in the UK, no licences.



There are test for the products in the UK just no testing for the finished product in the UK ... except for Botox and a few others. Why do the exceptions always screw up the absolute statements?
Quote:
Quote:

Or their suppliers are doing the testing on the components over seas.


Yes some companies contract out of the UK, Lush follow the full ban as it was 2013, other companies do also.. The final part will sort this out.


Poaaibly, but then again possibly not if there are no alternatives and there is a change of heart in risking the health and welfare of the EU population or shutting down an industy and putting people out of work in these economic times.

Quote:
Quote:

As it stands SOME animal testing related to cosmetics is banned in the UK and EU. The toxicology tests are still performed.


No that's not correct, testing on animals for cosmetics can't happen in the UK because there are no licence to do so, toxicology or not.


Sure there are. The licenses were for testing the finished products and not the components. Also there are things like Botox which are still being tested for toxicity and will continue to be tested for as long as it is produced anywhere.

Quote:
Quote:
On track to see if it will be implimented.



No, in the UK regulations have changed, no more testing inside the UK.


For the finished product, which is not the same as the components, especially those components which are not specific to only cosmetics.

Quote:
Quote:
Unless no viable alternatives are discovered and then there may be more delays as the elimination of an industry or the potential health impact on humans would not be a very popular outcome.



No you are wrong, it matters not if there is an alternative or not.


Sure it does as there will be competeing regulations, such as the consumer protection laws. The consumer may be harmed by untested products which require the use of testing and if there is no applicable testing allowed there becomes a big problem for those making the decision.

Quote:
If the industry didn't go for another delay the laws would still change in 2013 alternatives or not.


If there is a delay and no alternative found before the nexrt deadline there will be another delay and another unless and until viable alternatives are found.

Quote:
The chemicals that need toxicology would not be able to be used because of it.


Quote:
Possibly, or if the chemicals are used for other purposes they may be tested for those purposes and still used in cosmetics. Botox would be a perfect example, the use for medical purposes requires testing and there is no way to know if any or all of a batch would be used for cosmetic purposes. Of course, there is the whole issue of medical treatments which have a cosmetic outcome too.


tommee wrote:
I think I've covered all this in my last posts. Just remember that ingredients came into play for UK in 1998 and the EU in 2004.


No, you have not. the testing which is still allowed is clearly being ignored. The components which are food grade or medicinal can be tested as their food or medicine components and used in cosmetics. The toxicolgical testing is still allowed for those components.

Quote:
Botox is classified as a pharmaceuticals because it's injected directly into the body. Cosmetics are classed as skin application and oral care etc....

And what of the other components which are classified and tested as food or medicinal products? How are they eliminated from the cosmetic ingredients if they are tested?

How does the safety requirement become fulfilled if there are no available alternative tests for animal models? That is not addressed.


Refer to above post.[/quote]

Which has nothing at all to cover the points referenced.

_________________
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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We are winning!
PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 7:50 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:07 pm
Posts: 188
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Quote:

Things may not be tested for pure cosmetic purposes but they may be tested for other purposes and later used in cosmetics.

This is not so, read the data provided, you certainly haven't had enough time going through it. Do you want spoon feeding?


Quote:
That is a very important distinction you seem to overlook. Also the "cutoff point" for the UK in 1998 was for tests within the UK not testing elsewhere and not testing for other applications. That is another sleight of hand jumping back and forth between the two different situations.


You seem to think that I'm saying that everything sold as a cosmetic in the UK has not been tested on animals. Although this will end with the final implementation of the EU directives.

You can purchase products tested on animals, purchase products with ingredients that have been tested on animals. You can't test on animals within the UK for cosmetic purposes. Again this will change with the final implementation of the EU directives.

Companies such as Lush follow the directives from the 2013 date. These companies don't use products testing on animals or use ingredients tested on animals and have liability insurance to cover them....

So as I have already stated, law can change and things are getting better.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We are winning!
PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 7:52 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:07 pm
Posts: 188
Wayne Stollings wrote:
tommee wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
It seems there is no ban yet, just a partial ban on some things ... maybe.


No there is a total ban on testing cosmetics on animals in the UK. The EU fell in-line in 2004 BUT they can use the three toxicology tests in the EU but not in the UK because there isn't anyone who has a licence to test cosmetics on animals ;)


The testing does not have to be on the cosmetics to be tests of cosmetics. The individual components can still be tested prior to being used in the production and are not the cosmetic tests for which there were licenses.

Quote:
Quote:

Assuming there will be an acceptable alternative, which is a critical flaw in the logic.


No alternative is needed.


That may be your opinion, but the consumers, the governments, the providers, and their insurance carrieres will disagree.

Quote:
Quote:

Except for those processes that would require the continous testing to ensure safe usage. This would be a boon for the industries moving to other countries and a big economic boost to the EU ... not.


Alternative or not the ban will go ahead in full.


If that were the case there would be no question as to the possible postponement or a n impact assessment by the Committee.

Quote:
Quote:
The three TYPES of toxicology tests and yes, they are still being performed for the products in both the UK and EU now.



No not in the UK, no licences.



There are test for the products in the UK just no testing for the finished product in the UK ... except for Botox and a few others. Why do the exceptions always screw up the absolute statements?
Quote:
Quote:

Or their suppliers are doing the testing on the components over seas.


Yes some companies contract out of the UK, Lush follow the full ban as it was 2013, other companies do also.. The final part will sort this out.


Poaaibly, but then again possibly not if there are no alternatives and there is a change of heart in risking the health and welfare of the EU population or shutting down an industy and putting people out of work in these economic times.

Quote:
Quote:

As it stands SOME animal testing related to cosmetics is banned in the UK and EU. The toxicology tests are still performed.


No that's not correct, testing on animals for cosmetics can't happen in the UK because there are no licence to do so, toxicology or not.


Sure there are. The licenses were for testing the finished products and not the components. Also there are things like Botox which are still being tested for toxicity and will continue to be tested for as long as it is produced anywhere.

Quote:
Quote:
On track to see if it will be implimented.



No, in the UK regulations have changed, no more testing inside the UK.


For the finished product, which is not the same as the components, especially those components which are not specific to only cosmetics.

Quote:
Quote:
Unless no viable alternatives are discovered and then there may be more delays as the elimination of an industry or the potential health impact on humans would not be a very popular outcome.



No you are wrong, it matters not if there is an alternative or not.


Sure it does as there will be competeing regulations, such as the consumer protection laws. The consumer may be harmed by untested products which require the use of testing and if there is no applicable testing allowed there becomes a big problem for those making the decision.

Quote:
If the industry didn't go for another delay the laws would still change in 2013 alternatives or not.


If there is a delay and no alternative found before the nexrt deadline there will be another delay and another unless and until viable alternatives are found.

Quote:
The chemicals that need toxicology would not be able to be used because of it.


Quote:
Possibly, or if the chemicals are used for other purposes they may be tested for those purposes and still used in cosmetics. Botox would be a perfect example, the use for medical purposes requires testing and there is no way to know if any or all of a batch would be used for cosmetic purposes. Of course, there is the whole issue of medical treatments which have a cosmetic outcome too.


tommee wrote:
I think I've covered all this in my last posts. Just remember that ingredients came into play for UK in 1998 and the EU in 2004.


No, you have not. the testing which is still allowed is clearly being ignored. The components which are food grade or medicinal can be tested as their food or medicine components and used in cosmetics. The toxicolgical testing is still allowed for those components.

Quote:
Botox is classified as a pharmaceuticals because it's injected directly into the body. Cosmetics are classed as skin application and oral care etc....

And what of the other components which are classified and tested as food or medicinal products? How are they eliminated from the cosmetic ingredients if they are tested?

How does the safety requirement become fulfilled if there are no available alternative tests for animal models? That is not addressed.


Refer to above post.


Which has nothing at all to cover the points referenced.[/quote]

It has, you have much to read and it would be an advantage if you did so. I'm going to jump off this round about until such a time you take time to read up.

it would be an advantage if you knew what you were talking about.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We are winning!
PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 7:52 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20500
Location: Southeastern US
Wayne Stollings wrote:
tommee wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
quote]

You have contradicted yourself. You stated there was testing on components and product outside of the UK for cosmetics sold in the UK, which clearly does not eliminate the testing the industry was referencing. There is still testing beign done for the cosmetic industry for sales in the UK, which means there has been NO ban for years for cosmetics sold in the UK.


Never claimed cosmetics tested on animals were banned in the UK, testing them on animals in the UK is banned.


Then why did you reference this?

Quote:
They can and do test cosmetics without the use of animals, some don't. The ban in the UK is current and companies follow the EU directive as if it were 2013, Lush for instance.


They do not follow the directive as if it were 2013 or they would not include any products tested on anumal anywhere. You clearly have no idea of what is going on.




tommee wrote:
can you provide something to support this claim? I quoted Lush as a company who comply with the directive, M&S are another so do the Co-op.


I thought your own statements would be sufficient evidence for you. If you were misleading us then there is no way to know when you are doing so again is there?

Did you claim the sale of cosmetics for which animal testing was banned in the UK or not? This would include component testing.

_________________
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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We are winning!
PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 7:56 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:07 pm
Posts: 188
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Did you claim the sale of cosmetics for which animal testing was banned in the UK or not? This would include component testing.


It's clear what I have said, I can't see why you have a problem understanding. The marketing and sales doesn't come into play until 2013. "Companies such as Lush" doesn't mean every company in the UK....


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 217 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 15  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group