EnviroLink Forum

The alternatives, which in the case of your example will in turn have to be tested for safety before they can be used, are useless unless and until they are shown to be effective in comparison. It can take years to find there is no alternative that works effectively. The assumption of wanting to find an alternative does not automatically mean one exists.




No, it is not. Did you not read the information on changes in the products? The industry does not operate in a vacuum and the thought of the European R&D coming to a halt will be a big problem for the EU. Of course the R&D could be exempt from the requirement or it could be moved elsewhere, but the new developments could easily leave the Europeans behind in the market.

Now, even the interaction of old components in new mixtures still would require testing to ensure there was no new toxicity factor.




Yes, the future is unknown so you cannot state it as a fact until it actually happens.



Yes, even in the UK. If there is such a concern the UK will perform the tests too.



Animal testing can and will be allowed if a human health threat is determined and the industry has no alternatives available.



I have read them and I do not see the claim you propose is there, which is why I asked for the clear reference. It seems there is none.



They do not have to be tested to be used in cosmetics, but there is a level of testing which is undertaken in the production of products that is used to ensure the finished component is correct and safe. If the finished product is correct it will act as expected, unless or until something new is used in conjuntion. Chemistry is a wonderous field of study.

_________________
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

Really? It seems you missed an important part of the information regarding the testing on the rest of the components and even the older components formerly believed to be safe.


Why may some cosmetic ingredients require safety testing?

If the safety profile of an ingredient comes under question (perhaps from new research) then it is important that its safe use in cosmetics is scrutinised. Innovation, bringing improvements in human health and safety as well as to the environment (such as new, more biodegradable ingredients), can also lead to the need for safety testing of ingredients.

It is important that there is a recognised way of assessing the safety of ingredients. In many cases, animal testing has remained the only accepted method required by regulatory bodies for assuring the health and safety of workers developing and handling new chemical substances. These substances may be used for many purposes other than as cosmetic ingredients.

Those products tested for use in other purposes would not have to be tested for use in cosmetics if they had been shown to be safe in the other tests. The accounting would show there was no testing for cosmetic ingredients, but the cosmetic ingredients would still have been tested. You would claim things were getting better and be happy while things are really just the same with different accounting methods that make you feel better.

_________________
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

Wow, your ignorance is boundless and your spin is pathetic. The paragraph you quote is in the past tense..... As in pre 2009

Even so, only a tiny proportion of all the animals used in research are used to evaluate cosmetic ingredient safety. According to official European Commission data for 2008[1], the year before the 2009 ban on animal testing in the EU for cosmetic ingredients, animal testing for the purposes of safety evaluation of cosmetic ingredients made up just 0.02% of all animals used for scientific purposes in the EU. This number is represented by the thin black line in the pie chart below."

You are showing yourself up to be a total.....

Is it any wonder this place has no, or very little contributors here....

So you are trying to tell us there are no products which are used in cosmetics and other uses after 2009? No products have had any need for toxicity testing since 2009 even though there is still such an allowance in the regulations until 2013 and that final change is being questioned? No products tested on animals will ever be added to cosmetics after 2009? None of the minority of products mentioned in the production of cosmetics which require testing were used after 2009 ... even if they are known to be safe to use if confirmed? No new ingredients will have any potential impact on the safety of previously accepted ingredients?



A total what? A total view rahter than the partial view you use? You seem to be less than familiar with chemistry, analytical procedures, legislation, logic, accounting, and advrtisement spin.

You missed the TESTING ON PRODUCTS USED IN COSMETICS AND OTHER USES WHICH CAN BE TESTED UNDER THE OTHER USE AND NOT ACCOUNTED AS COSMETIC TESTING.



More assumptions? You have no idea of the history, yet you assume just as you have done in relation to cosmetic testing and testing of products used in and for cosmetic applications.

_________________
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

"audience of one" is the real problem. I post stuff that interests me and nobody responds. Two people try to convince the other like what happened with most of this thread and everyone else skips over it and nobody changes their opinion. I have seen many similar forums wither and die but this one keeps going... just barely. I don't see the forum nor it's regulars as the problem but rather it is a global apathy that keeps people from caring at all. The regulars here are at least here... you have to give them credit for being here even if you have low regard for the stance they take on some issues.

Spammers have a large impact on a forum too. We have had as many as 40 here in a single day. If it were not for the safety delay a variety of spams, scams, porn, and complete gibberish would be visible most of the time. The other aspect is control of content. Some want a lot, some do not want any, but everyone wants their content to be accepted without question ..... one can over-moderate and under-moderate very easily trying to make everyone happy and in the process none are every really happy if it is done correctly.

_________________
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

No I'm not saying anything of the sort. Not tested within the UK or EU.

No products have had any need for toxicity testing since 2009 even though there is still such an allowance in the regulations until 2013 and that final change is being questioned?

Not tested in the UK or the EU.



In the list of validated ingredients there are a mix of animal and none animal tested ingredients, as we know.



New ingredients will have to under go alternative testing if they are to be used in cosmetics.




Why may some cosmetic ingredients require safety testing?


If the safety profile of an ingredient comes under question (perhaps from new research) then it is important that its safe use in cosmetics is scrutinised. Innovation, bringing improvements in human health and safety as well as to the environment (such as new, more biodegradable ingredients), can also lead to the need for safety testing of ingredients.

It is important that there is a recognised way of assessing the safety of ingredients. In many cases, animal testing has remained the only accepted method required by regulatory bodies for assuring the health and safety of workers developing and handling new chemical substances. These substances may be used for many purposes other than as cosmetic ingredients.

Even so, only a tiny proportion of all the animals used in research are used to evaluate cosmetic ingredient safety. According to official European Commission data for 2008[1], the year before the 2009 ban on animal testing in the EU for cosmetic ingredients, animal testing for the purposes of safety evaluation of cosmetic ingredients made up just 0.02% of all animals used for scientific purposes in the EU. This number is represented by the thin black line in the pie chart below.

Put the whole thing into context don't you think? The whole section talks about what is required and how things were before the ban..

Do you think everyone are idiots who are incapable of reading?



I can read, the site has history to read and there are very good archive sites to read what has been removed. You have always come across as a know it all, bit of a big head.

Not tested for use as a cosmetic, but what of the other uses? Are they not tested in the UK or EU either? How does that work exactly.



I truly doubt that statement, but in any case, not tested in the UK or EU does not mean they are not tested. Moving the testing from the industrial nations to the developing nations would result in better or worse treatment of the animals under the governmental regulations? Win?



You did not answer the question concerning the addition of new products to the list.



You missed the point, which is the impact on one ingredient upon another can cause the second "safe" ingredient to no longer be safe. Thus, the list is only relatively safe as long as it is unchanged by additions. One addition changes the safety of the whole list and the more you add the greater the risk of the list being useless.




You need to brush up on the reading comprehension before claim dishonest actions.



Please note the difference between not testing products or ingredients and not testing them in a specific region is very different. The safety assessment does not preclude the ingredients being tested on animals, and only the finished cosmetic product is exempted.



The lack of a routine basis for animal testing is not a lack of testing at all.




The information on toxicity testing and dual usage of ingredients.



Given the previous information on dual usage, is this supposed to show all of the animal testing on the ingredients or just the ones which are not used for multiple purposes. If it is all purposes, what happened to the tests for the other uses after the ban? If it is not all of the testing for all mutiuse ingredients, you have the problem of being fooled by accounting.



What changed? There are still multiple use ingredients which will be tested for the other uses. There is still the need for safe cosmetic products. The references are in the present tense and written after 2009, so it does not seem to be a historical document of how it used to be pre-2009 in the discussion of safety requirements.



No, but a few who read have trouble with comprehension, especially when they want to believe something badly. Do you think "everyone are idiots who are incapable of reading"?



I am glad you can read, it makes communication much easier in a forum. If you have found an archive for the pre-2003 stuff I would like to find some of that. I toyed with the idea of trying to do a restore from an archive site on the post 2003 pruned items, but the only way it would fit into the current engine would be by each post. Not time effective.

Sorry if I come across as a "know it all" but that is the curse of extensive reading on many subjects, a good memory (at one time ) and an ability to see connections that not everyone seemd to notice until they are explained in some detail. My early teachers did not seem to like being corrected, except my 5th grade teacher. She accepted the correction and asked for more information to challenge me. She is the one who gave me the beginning algebra problems in math while she worked on long division with the rest of the class. A few of the teachers in high school were good with the corrections too, but a couple really did not like it. My going to college during the summer semester under an advanced admissions policy during my high school years made it hard on some of them especially when the newer college texts had differences from the older texts we were using in high school. Having the access to the information on the interwebs would have been great for me at that time, but not so much the teachers.

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

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

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

With such a detailed response, I just have to ask for more.

In this whole ban on animal testing for products sold in the EU, how does that work with products from other regions which are tested as drugs in those regions, but cosmetics in the EU? Are they banned for being tested or are they accepted for being tested as something other than a cosmetic?

To me it is a very important aspect of the real level of the "victory" being discussed.


http://www.intertek.com/cosmetics/

Cosmetic and Beauty Products
Cosmetic products are subject to legislative requirements in many countries, among which the European Union (EU) is considered the most active in regulatory development.
A cosmetic is generally defined as “Any substance or preparation for human use for the purpose of cleansing, beautifying or altering the appearance commonly to include personal toiletry products (such as shampoos and lotion), beauty products and fragrances.”

Certain products (e.g., anti-dandruff shampoo) that are classified as cosmetics in other countries (e.g., in the EU) may be regulated as Over-The-Counter (OTC) drugs (in the USA) or therapeutic goods (in Australia) or Quasi-Drugs (in Japan) or non-prescription drugs (in Canada). Although legislative requirements vary from country to country, most of the requirements can be generally grouped into the following categories:

_________________
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

"Regulatory context

The Cosmetics Directive foresees a regulatory framework with the aim of phasing out animal testing. It establishes a prohibition to test finished cosmetic products and cosmetic ingredients on animals (testing ban), and a prohibition to market in the European Community, finished cosmetic products and ingredients included in cosmetic products which were tested on animals (marketing ban).

The testing ban on finished cosmetic products applies since 11 September 2004; the testing ban on ingredients or combination of ingredients applies since 11 March 2009.

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

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

Another non-answer, which was not unexpected.

_________________
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

Not tested on animals ... (except when such testing was done to meet the requirements of federal, state, local or other applicable regulations)

Creative marketing statements to do what exactly?

_________________
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

If ingredient A is used in a drug and tested on animals for the required toxicity determination under most legislations, can ingredient A then be used in a cosmetic product knowing it is safe because it was accepted safe as a drug ingredient? No "cosmetic ingredient" would have been tested since the tests were on a "drug ingredient" and all safety requirements would have been met for both uses.

Why or why not?

_________________
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