So you are trying to tell us there are no products which are used in cosmetics and other uses after 2009?
No I'm not saying anything of the sort. Not tested within the UK or EU.
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.
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.
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?
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?
In the list of validated ingredients there are a mix of animal and none animal tested ingredients, as we know.
You did not answer the question concerning the addition of new products to the list.
No new ingredients will have any potential impact on the safety of previously accepted ingredients?
New ingredients will have to under go alternative testing if they are to be used in cosmetics.
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.
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.
You seem to be more familiar with cherry picking then making something out to be something it isn't, it's dishonest. Let have a look at what was written shall we?.
You need to brush up on the reading comprehension before claim dishonest actions.
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
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 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.
The lack of a routine basis for animal testing is not a lack of testing at all.
View the video below for the expert opinion from the CTPA's Director-General, Dr Chris Flower, a Chartered Biologist and toxicologist.
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.
The information on toxicity testing and dual usage of 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, 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.
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.
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..
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.
Do you think everyone are idiots who are incapable of reading?
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"?
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.
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.
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.