EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Tue Sep 02, 2014 5:29 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 217 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 15  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: We are winning!
PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:04 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:

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?


Yes, it seems I must since you believe there will be no additions to the ingredients used in cosmetics after 2013. Can you please point out where that statement is made? Did you notice the specific allowance of nanotechnology additions through mid-july 2013 if they met the safety criteria for example?


Quote:
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.


That would be the understanding given you stated the companies in the UK were following the directive as if it were 2013. If only some companies were doing that you should have been more clear in the statement.

Quote:
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.


Possibly.

Quote:
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....


As long as something does not change or they wish to change to a new formulation.

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


That is an opinion that may not be as factual as it seems.

_________________
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 8:08 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20500
Location: Southeastern US
So much for absolutes.....

In relation to the tests concerning repeated-dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity and toxicokinetics, for which there are no alternatives yet under consideration, the period for implementation of paragraph 1(a) and (b) shall be limited to 11 March 2013.

The Commission shall study possible technical difficulties in complying with the ban in relation to tests, in particular those concerning repeated-dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity and toxicokinetics, for which there are no alternatives yet under consideration. Information about the provisional and final results of these studies forms part of the yearly reports presented pursuant to Article 35.

On the basis of these annual reports, the timetables established as referred to in the first subparagraph, could be adapted up to 11 March 2009 in relation to the first subparagraph and may be adapted up to 11 March 2013 in relation to the second subparagraph and after consultation of the entities referred to in the first subparagraph.

The Commission shall study progress and compliance with the deadlines as well as possible technical difficulties in complying with the ban. Information about the provisional and final results of the Commission studies forms part of the yearly reports presented pursuant to Article 35. If these studies conclude, at the latest two years prior to the end of the maximum period referred to in the second subparagraph, that for technical reasons one or more tests referred to in that subparagraph will not be developed and validated before the expiry of the period referred to therein it shall inform the European Parliament and the Council and shall put forward a legislative proposal in accordance with Article 251 of the Treaty.

In exceptional circumstances, where serious concerns arise as regards the safety of an existing cosmetic ingredient, a Member State may request the Commission to grant a derogation from paragraph 1. The request shall contain an evaluation of the situation and indicate the measures necessary. On this basis, the Commission may, after consulting the SCCS and by means of a reasoned decision, authorise the derogation. That authorisation shall lay down the conditions associated with this derogation in terms of specific objectives, duration and reporting of the results.

A derogation shall be granted only where:
(a)
the ingredient is in wide use and cannot be replaced by another ingredient capable of performing a similar function;
(b)
the specific human health problem is substantiated and the need to conduct animal tests is justified and is supported by a detailed research protocol proposed as the basis for the evaluation.

The decision on the authorisation, the conditions associated with it and the final result achieved shall be part of the annual report presented by the Commission in accordance with Article 35.

The measures referred to in the sixth subparagraph, designed to amend non-essential elements of this Regulation, shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 32(3).

_________________
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 8:22 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:07 pm
Posts: 188
Wayne Stollings wrote:
So much for absolutes.....

In relation to the tests concerning repeated-dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity and toxicokinetics, for which there are no alternatives yet under consideration, the period for implementation of paragraph 1(a) and (b) shall be limited to 11 March 2013.

The Commission shall study possible technical difficulties in complying with the ban in relation to tests, in particular those concerning repeated-dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity and toxicokinetics, for which there are no alternatives yet under consideration. Information about the provisional and final results of these studies forms part of the yearly reports presented pursuant to Article 35.

On the basis of these annual reports, the timetables established as referred to in the first subparagraph, could be adapted up to 11 March 2009 in relation to the first subparagraph and may be adapted up to 11 March 2013 in relation to the second subparagraph and after consultation of the entities referred to in the first subparagraph.

The Commission shall study progress and compliance with the deadlines as well as possible technical difficulties in complying with the ban. Information about the provisional and final results of the Commission studies forms part of the yearly reports presented pursuant to Article 35. If these studies conclude, at the latest two years prior to the end of the maximum period referred to in the second subparagraph, that for technical reasons one or more tests referred to in that subparagraph will not be developed and validated before the expiry of the period referred to therein it shall inform the European Parliament and the Council and shall put forward a legislative proposal in accordance with Article 251 of the Treaty.

In exceptional circumstances, where serious concerns arise as regards the safety of an existing cosmetic ingredient, a Member State may request the Commission to grant a derogation from paragraph 1. The request shall contain an evaluation of the situation and indicate the measures necessary. On this basis, the Commission may, after consulting the SCCS and by means of a reasoned decision, authorise the derogation. That authorisation shall lay down the conditions associated with this derogation in terms of specific objectives, duration and reporting of the results.

A derogation shall be granted only where:
(a)
the ingredient is in wide use and cannot be replaced by another ingredient capable of performing a similar function;
(b)
the specific human health problem is substantiated and the need to conduct animal tests is justified and is supported by a detailed research protocol proposed as the basis for the evaluation.

The decision on the authorisation, the conditions associated with it and the final result achieved shall be part of the annual report presented by the Commission in accordance with Article 35.

The measures referred to in the sixth subparagraph, designed to amend non-essential elements of this Regulation, shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 32(3).


Yes we are aware of this you obviously haven't bothered to read where we are now with this.

The industry have already asked for a delay (derogation) stating they will have alternatives set in place (validated) for 2017. Opposition to this delay have put forward their argument setting out why it should go ahead. Please do read up to date info instead of selecting out of date info to support your argument.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We are winning!
PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:23 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20500
Location: Southeastern US
Recap

The UK companies stopped testing the finished cosmetic product on animals within the UK, but the tests may be performed elsewhere without the stricter oversight of the UK regulations.

Animal testing for cosmetic products under another license division would be allowed within the UK.

The EU stopped all cosmetic product and pure cosmetic component testing except for the important toxilogical tests for products in the EU.

The EU may or may not stop all testing on pure cosmetic products in 2013 except for cases where human health is impacted. Products without the proper testing would not be allowed to be sold under regulation and linsurance liability restrictions.

Botox is allowed in the UK, but will be eliminated somehow although it is a medicine not a cosmetic.

_________________
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 8:26 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:
So much for absolutes.....

In relation to the tests concerning repeated-dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity and toxicokinetics, for which there are no alternatives yet under consideration, the period for implementation of paragraph 1(a) and (b) shall be limited to 11 March 2013.

The Commission shall study possible technical difficulties in complying with the ban in relation to tests, in particular those concerning repeated-dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity and toxicokinetics, for which there are no alternatives yet under consideration. Information about the provisional and final results of these studies forms part of the yearly reports presented pursuant to Article 35.

On the basis of these annual reports, the timetables established as referred to in the first subparagraph, could be adapted up to 11 March 2009 in relation to the first subparagraph and may be adapted up to 11 March 2013 in relation to the second subparagraph and after consultation of the entities referred to in the first subparagraph.

The Commission shall study progress and compliance with the deadlines as well as possible technical difficulties in complying with the ban. Information about the provisional and final results of the Commission studies forms part of the yearly reports presented pursuant to Article 35. If these studies conclude, at the latest two years prior to the end of the maximum period referred to in the second subparagraph, that for technical reasons one or more tests referred to in that subparagraph will not be developed and validated before the expiry of the period referred to therein it shall inform the European Parliament and the Council and shall put forward a legislative proposal in accordance with Article 251 of the Treaty.

In exceptional circumstances, where serious concerns arise as regards the safety of an existing cosmetic ingredient, a Member State may request the Commission to grant a derogation from paragraph 1. The request shall contain an evaluation of the situation and indicate the measures necessary. On this basis, the Commission may, after consulting the SCCS and by means of a reasoned decision, authorise the derogation. That authorisation shall lay down the conditions associated with this derogation in terms of specific objectives, duration and reporting of the results.

A derogation shall be granted only where:
(a)
the ingredient is in wide use and cannot be replaced by another ingredient capable of performing a similar function;
(b)
the specific human health problem is substantiated and the need to conduct animal tests is justified and is supported by a detailed research protocol proposed as the basis for the evaluation.

The decision on the authorisation, the conditions associated with it and the final result achieved shall be part of the annual report presented by the Commission in accordance with Article 35.

The measures referred to in the sixth subparagraph, designed to amend non-essential elements of this Regulation, shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 32(3).


Yes we are aware of this you obviously haven't bothered to read where we are now with this.

The industry have already asked for a delay (derogation) stating they will have alternatives set in place (validated) for 2017. Opposition to this delay have put forward their argument setting out why it should go ahead. Please do read up to date info instead of selecting out of date info to support your argument.


Yes, I know that extension has been requested, there is opposition to it, there may not be validated tests developed within that time frame, and that ANIMAL TESTING MAY BE PERFORMED AT ANY TIME IF THE HUMAN HEALTH IMPACT REQUIRES 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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We are winning!
PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:27 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

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

Yes, it seems I must since you believe there will be no additions to the ingredients used in cosmetics after 2013. Can you please point out where that statement is made? Did you notice the specific allowance of nanotechnology additions through mid-july 2013 if they met the safety criteria for example?


If you would follow the links and do some research you will see that this has also been covered.


Quote:

That would be the understanding given you stated the companies in the UK were following the directive as if it were 2013. If only some companies were doing that you should have been more clear in the statement.


Companies Like Lush doesn't mean to say every company. It was clear to me but obviously you find it difficult, don't know why.

Quote:

Possibly.


Fact.

Quote:
As long as something does not change or they wish to change to a new formulation.


Stabbing in the dark again I see.

Quote:

That is an opinion that may not be as factual as it seems.


My opinion? What a giggle. Are you saying laws haven't changed?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We are winning!
PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:31 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:
So much for absolutes.....

In relation to the tests concerning repeated-dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity and toxicokinetics, for which there are no alternatives yet under consideration, the period for implementation of paragraph 1(a) and (b) shall be limited to 11 March 2013.

The Commission shall study possible technical difficulties in complying with the ban in relation to tests, in particular those concerning repeated-dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity and toxicokinetics, for which there are no alternatives yet under consideration. Information about the provisional and final results of these studies forms part of the yearly reports presented pursuant to Article 35.

On the basis of these annual reports, the timetables established as referred to in the first subparagraph, could be adapted up to 11 March 2009 in relation to the first subparagraph and may be adapted up to 11 March 2013 in relation to the second subparagraph and after consultation of the entities referred to in the first subparagraph.

The Commission shall study progress and compliance with the deadlines as well as possible technical difficulties in complying with the ban. Information about the provisional and final results of the Commission studies forms part of the yearly reports presented pursuant to Article 35. If these studies conclude, at the latest two years prior to the end of the maximum period referred to in the second subparagraph, that for technical reasons one or more tests referred to in that subparagraph will not be developed and validated before the expiry of the period referred to therein it shall inform the European Parliament and the Council and shall put forward a legislative proposal in accordance with Article 251 of the Treaty.

In exceptional circumstances, where serious concerns arise as regards the safety of an existing cosmetic ingredient, a Member State may request the Commission to grant a derogation from paragraph 1. The request shall contain an evaluation of the situation and indicate the measures necessary. On this basis, the Commission may, after consulting the SCCS and by means of a reasoned decision, authorise the derogation. That authorisation shall lay down the conditions associated with this derogation in terms of specific objectives, duration and reporting of the results.

A derogation shall be granted only where:
(a)
the ingredient is in wide use and cannot be replaced by another ingredient capable of performing a similar function;
(b)
the specific human health problem is substantiated and the need to conduct animal tests is justified and is supported by a detailed research protocol proposed as the basis for the evaluation.

The decision on the authorisation, the conditions associated with it and the final result achieved shall be part of the annual report presented by the Commission in accordance with Article 35.

The measures referred to in the sixth subparagraph, designed to amend non-essential elements of this Regulation, shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 32(3).


Yes we are aware of this you obviously haven't bothered to read where we are now with this.

The industry have already asked for a delay (derogation) stating they will have alternatives set in place (validated) for 2017. Opposition to this delay have put forward their argument setting out why it should go ahead. Please do read up to date info instead of selecting out of date info to support your argument.


Yes, I know that extension has been requested, there is opposition to it, there may not be validated tests developed within that time frame, and that ANIMAL TESTING MAY BE PERFORMED AT ANY TIME IF THE HUMAN HEALTH IMPACT REQUIRES IT.



Not in the UK and when the delay is rejected the 2013 implementation will go ahead, alternatives or not.

You do know that alternative to the toxicology test are available but not yet validated?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We are winning!
PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:34 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:

Yes, it seems I must since you believe there will be no additions to the ingredients used in cosmetics after 2013. Can you please point out where that statement is made? Did you notice the specific allowance of nanotechnology additions through mid-july 2013 if they met the safety criteria for example?


If you would follow the links and do some research you will see that this has also been covered.


So much for you having any helpful information other than telling us to "go look for it yourself". I expect that if we cannot find it you will then claim it is due to our lack of research skills. A very poor gambit which has been used far too often. You have nothing on that and you bluff.


Quote:
Quote:

That would be the understanding given you stated the companies in the UK were following the directive as if it were 2013. If only some companies were doing that you should have been more clear in the statement.


Companies Like Lush doesn't mean to say every company. It was clear to me but obviously you find it difficult, don't know why.


Because companies seems to imply all companies rather than some companies. You do tend to bounce around and not give a clear indication of what is suppoed to be stated.

Quote:
Quote:

Possibly.


Fact.


Then it has happened? If not it is not a fact.

Quote:
Quote:
As long as something does not change or they wish to change to a new formulation.


Stabbing in the dark again I see.


No, dealing with the real life issues of product progression.

Quote:
Quote:

That is an opinion that may not be as factual as it seems.


My opinion? What a giggle. Are you saying laws haven't changed?


I am saying the opinion that things are "better" may not be as factual as you believe.

_________________
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 8:39 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:
So much for absolutes.....

In relation to the tests concerning repeated-dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity and toxicokinetics, for which there are no alternatives yet under consideration, the period for implementation of paragraph 1(a) and (b) shall be limited to 11 March 2013.

The Commission shall study possible technical difficulties in complying with the ban in relation to tests, in particular those concerning repeated-dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity and toxicokinetics, for which there are no alternatives yet under consideration. Information about the provisional and final results of these studies forms part of the yearly reports presented pursuant to Article 35.

On the basis of these annual reports, the timetables established as referred to in the first subparagraph, could be adapted up to 11 March 2009 in relation to the first subparagraph and may be adapted up to 11 March 2013 in relation to the second subparagraph and after consultation of the entities referred to in the first subparagraph.

The Commission shall study progress and compliance with the deadlines as well as possible technical difficulties in complying with the ban. Information about the provisional and final results of the Commission studies forms part of the yearly reports presented pursuant to Article 35. If these studies conclude, at the latest two years prior to the end of the maximum period referred to in the second subparagraph, that for technical reasons one or more tests referred to in that subparagraph will not be developed and validated before the expiry of the period referred to therein it shall inform the European Parliament and the Council and shall put forward a legislative proposal in accordance with Article 251 of the Treaty.

In exceptional circumstances, where serious concerns arise as regards the safety of an existing cosmetic ingredient, a Member State may request the Commission to grant a derogation from paragraph 1. The request shall contain an evaluation of the situation and indicate the measures necessary. On this basis, the Commission may, after consulting the SCCS and by means of a reasoned decision, authorise the derogation. That authorisation shall lay down the conditions associated with this derogation in terms of specific objectives, duration and reporting of the results.

A derogation shall be granted only where:
(a)
the ingredient is in wide use and cannot be replaced by another ingredient capable of performing a similar function;
(b)
the specific human health problem is substantiated and the need to conduct animal tests is justified and is supported by a detailed research protocol proposed as the basis for the evaluation.

The decision on the authorisation, the conditions associated with it and the final result achieved shall be part of the annual report presented by the Commission in accordance with Article 35.

The measures referred to in the sixth subparagraph, designed to amend non-essential elements of this Regulation, shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 32(3).


Yes we are aware of this you obviously haven't bothered to read where we are now with this.

The industry have already asked for a delay (derogation) stating they will have alternatives set in place (validated) for 2017. Opposition to this delay have put forward their argument setting out why it should go ahead. Please do read up to date info instead of selecting out of date info to support your argument.


Yes, I know that extension has been requested, there is opposition to it, there may not be validated tests developed within that time frame, and that ANIMAL TESTING MAY BE PERFORMED AT ANY TIME IF THE HUMAN HEALTH IMPACT REQUIRES IT.



tommee wrote:
Not in the UK


In your opinion, but not in reality. If a human health impact occurs there will currently be animal testing to determine the extent of said impact.

Quote:
and when the delay is rejected the 2013 implementation will go ahead, alternatives or not.


You mean IF the delay is rejected.

Quote:
You do know that alternative to the toxicology test are available but not yet validated?


An unvalidated test is useless for anything other than providing the basis for research for it being validated at some point

_________________
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 10:08 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:07 pm
Posts: 188
http://ihcp.jrc.ec.europa.eu/our_activi ... ternatives

This really is becoming a bore. You have had many links provided for you to find this information but you haven't bothered to read through.

If there isn't an alternative it won't be used until such a time there is an alternative. The only substances that can be used are them that are already safety assessed, there is a large database listing them.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We are winning!
PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 10:53 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20500
Location: Southeastern US
tommee wrote:
http://ihcp.jrc.ec.europa.eu/our_activities/nanotechnology/nano_alternatives

This really is becoming a bore. You have had many links provided for you to find this information but you haven't bothered to read through.


To what information would this relate?

Nanomaterials and nanotechnologies have the potential to help create new product testing methods that avoid the use of laboratory animals.

Perhaps the reference to nanomaterials needing to be tested themselves? Do you know the difference between prefer and require? If what is required will not allow the use of what is preferred the preferred aspect is eliminated.

Quote:
If there isn't an alternative it won't be used until such a time there is an alternative.


Unless the deadline is extended until there are alternatives.

If there is a need, the toxicity test using in vitro methods will be used without alternatives.

In exceptional circumstances, where serious concerns arise as regards the safety of an existing cosmetic ingredient, a Member State may request the Commission to grant a derogation from paragraph 1. The request shall contain an evaluation of the situation and indicate the measures necessary. On this basis, the Commission may, after consulting the SCCS and by means of a reasoned decision, authorise the derogation. That authorisation shall lay down the conditions associated with this derogation in terms of specific objectives, duration and reporting of the results.

A derogation shall be granted only where:
(a)
the ingredient is in wide use and cannot be replaced by another ingredient capable of performing a similar function;
(b)
the specific human health problem is substantiated and the need to conduct animal tests is justified and is supported by a detailed research protocol proposed as the basis for the evaluation.


The decision on the authorisation, the conditions associated with it and the final result achieved shall be part of the annual report presented by the Commission in accordance with Article 35.

The measures referred to in the sixth subparagraph, designed to amend non-essential elements of this Regulation, shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 32(3).

Quote:
The only substances that can be used are them that are already safety assessed, there is a large database listing them.


Can you show where this limitation is presented? There are products which require continuing toxicity testing as part of the production process.

_________________
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 10:56 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20500
Location: Southeastern US
tommee wrote:
http://ihcp.jrc.ec.europa.eu/our_activities/nanotechnology/nano_alternatives

This really is becoming a bore. You have had many links provided for you to find this information but you haven't bothered to read through.


I have read them, but I just not have found the support you claim to have found. Perhaps you can copy and paste the excerpt showing what you claim with the link as I try to do.

That way there is no confusion over what you believe you have given compared to what was actually found.

_________________
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 11:10 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20500
Location: Southeastern US
It seems there will be some major changes in Europe in the next few years ... either in support of an industry or kissing it good-bye. Not easy to inovate when the options are limited to those previously used. :mrgreen:

http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/sectors/cosmetics/

Cosmetics
Cosmetic products are important consumer products with an essential role in everyone's life: apart from "traditional" cosmetic products, such as make-up and perfumes, it also includes products for personal hygiene, for example tooth-care products, shampoos and soaps.

Today's cosmetic market is driven by innovation including new colour pallets, treatments targeted to specific skin types and unique formulas concentrating on different needs. Most cosmetics products have a lifespan of less than five years and manufacturers reformulate 25% of their products every year. They need to improve products constantly in order to stay ahead in a highly competitive market where more choice and ever greater efficacy are expected by the consumer.

The European cosmetics industry is a world leader and dominant cosmetics exporter, a highly innovative sector and a significant employer in Europe. The EU's involvement concerns mainly the regulatory framework for market access, international trade relations and regulatory convergence, all aiming to ensure the highest level of consumer safety while promoting the innovation and the competitiveness of this sector.

_________________
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: Sat Apr 21, 2012 4:00 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

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

To what information would this relate?

Nanomaterials and nanotechnologies have the potential to help create new product testing methods that avoid the use of laboratory animals.

Perhaps the reference to nanomaterials needing to be tested themselves? Do you know the difference between prefer and require? If what is required will not allow the use of what is preferred the preferred aspect is eliminated.



I don't understand why you are having difficulty with this one. I provided you yet another link showing that the industry are developing alternatives but it doesn't matter if there is an alternative or not. If a substance need to be tested on an animal it won't be used until an alternative is set in place, it's as simple as that..

Quote:

Unless the deadline is extended until there are alternatives.


unless, maybe, if...

Quote:
If there is a need, the toxicity test using in vitro methods will be used without alternatives.


Not in the UK

Quote:
In exceptional circumstances, where serious concerns arise as regards the safety of an existing cosmetic ingredient, a Member State may request the Commission to grant a derogation from paragraph 1. The request shall contain an evaluation of the situation and indicate the measures necessary. On this basis, the Commission may, after consulting the SCCS and by means of a reasoned decision, authorise the derogation. That authorisation shall lay down the conditions associated with this derogation in terms of specific objectives, duration and reporting of the results.

A derogation shall be granted only where:
(a)
the ingredient is in wide use and cannot be replaced by another ingredient capable of performing a similar function;
(b)
the specific human health problem is substantiated and the need to conduct animal tests is justified and is supported by a detailed research protocol proposed as the basis for the evaluation.


The decision on the authorisation, the conditions associated with it and the final result achieved shall be part of the annual report presented by the Commission in accordance with Article 35.

The measures referred to in the sixth subparagraph, designed to amend non-essential elements of this Regulation, shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 32(3).


And?

Quote:

Can you show where this limitation is presented? There are products which require continuing toxicity testing as part of the production process.


You STILL haven't read through the many links have you, or are you just ignoring the facts.

You have links to documents and you posted the database link YOURSELF of validated substances allowed to be used, these DON'T need to be tested... :crazy:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We are winning!
PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 4:15 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:07 pm
Posts: 188
Cosmetic products used daily by consumers are not tested on animals


In the UK animal testing has not taken place on cosmetic products since 1997 and their ingredients since 1998. This was down to a voluntary industry initiative which led to all licences for such testing being withdrawn. In the European Union (EU), a complete ban on the testing of cosmetic products on animals was introduced by the European cosmetic legislation in September 2004, reinforcing the voluntary action by the European industry to seek alternatives.

All cosmetic products are required to be safe. Not only is there a legal obligation, cosmetic manufacturers also have a moral obligation to produce only safe products. It is important to the cosmetics companies that customers have confidence in the safety of the products they use. Every product must undergo a safety assessment before it can be placed on the market. This means the finished cosmetic product does not need to be tested on animals, whether in the EU or elsewhere

The safety assessment of a cosmetic product is based on the safety profile of its ingredients. The majority of products are made from ingredients that have a well-established safety record. Because of this, the ingredients do not require animal testing on a routine basis.

http://www.thefactsabout.co.uk/Content. ... menu=sub#2


Can't be any clearer.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 217 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 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