EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Mon Jul 28, 2014 4:38 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 217 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 15  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: We are winning!
PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 5:22 am 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20472
Location: Southeastern US
tommee wrote:
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.


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.


Quote:
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..


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.


Quote:
Quote:

Unless the deadline is extended until there are alternatives.


unless, maybe, if...


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

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


Not in the UK


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

Quote:
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?


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

Quote:
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.


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.

Quote:
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:


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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We are winning!
PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 5:35 am 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20472
Location: Southeastern US
tommee wrote:
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.


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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We are winning!
PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 7:42 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:
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.


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.


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....


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We are winning!
PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 10:02 am 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20472
Location: Southeastern US
tommee wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
tommee wrote:
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.


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.


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


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?

Quote:
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.....


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.

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


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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We are winning!
PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 10:13 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1649
Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
tommee wrote:
Is it any wonder this place has no, or very little contributors here....
"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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We are winning!
PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 3:40 pm 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20472
Location: Southeastern US
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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We are winning!
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 6:05 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:07 pm
Posts: 188
Quote:
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.

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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:

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.


Quote:
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?

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.

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.

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?

Quote:
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We are winning!
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 8:13 am 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20472
Location: Southeastern US
tommee wrote:
Quote:
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.

Quote:
Quote:
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?

Quote:
Quote:
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.

Quote:
Quote:
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.

Quote:

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.


Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.


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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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"?

Quote:
Quote:
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 :mrgreen: ) 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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We are winning!
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 8:30 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:07 pm
Posts: 188
#-o


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We are winning!
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 8:43 am 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20472
Location: Southeastern US
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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We are winning!
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 9:19 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

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


"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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We are winning!
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 9:24 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:07 pm
Posts: 188
http://nottested.co.uk/Cosmetics.html


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We are winning!
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 9:51 am 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20472
Location: Southeastern US
tommee wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
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:


"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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We are winning!
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 9:54 am 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20472
Location: Southeastern US
tommee wrote:
http://nottested.co.uk/Cosmetics.html



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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We are winning!
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 10:18 am 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20472
Location: Southeastern US
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


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 217 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 15  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 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