EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Sun Apr 20, 2014 8:21 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 217 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 ... 15  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: We are winning!
PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 9:12 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
tommee wrote:
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=ref_data.annexes


Ok this lists restricted substances, provisionally allowed substances, allowed preservatives, UV filters, and coloring agents. That leaves some 260,000 + known chemical compounds which could be used, but may require testing .... right?

List of substances which cosmetic products must not contain except subject to the restrictions and conditions laid down

List of substances provisionally allowed

List of colouring agents allowed for use in cosmetic products (1)

List of colouring agents provisionally allowed for use in cosmetic products

List of preservatives allowed

List of preservatives provisionally allowed

List of permitted UV filters which cosmetic products may contain

List of UV filters which cosmetic products may provisionally contain

_________________
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: Wed Apr 25, 2012 10:19 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:
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=ref_data.annexes


Ok this lists restricted substances, provisionally allowed substances, allowed preservatives, UV filters, and coloring agents. That leaves some 260,000 + known chemical compounds which could be used, but may require testing .... right?

List of substances which cosmetic products must not contain except subject to the restrictions and conditions laid down

List of substances provisionally allowed

List of colouring agents allowed for use in cosmetic products (1)

List of colouring agents provisionally allowed for use in cosmetic products

List of preservatives allowed

List of preservatives provisionally allowed

List of permitted UV filters which cosmetic products may contain

List of UV filters which cosmetic products may provisionally contain


You are a fool.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We are winning!
PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 10:26 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:07 pm
Posts: 188
Wayne Stollings wrote:
tommee wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
It is supposed to have done what? Indicate the EU regulations do not currently require toxicity testing for products/ingredients which may be used in cosmetics? Wrong, the general statute does, even for cosmetics as it is not prohibited from said requirement. The testing cannot be required to have been performed solely for cosmetic use within the EU, but the general statute requires everything reasonably suspected of harm to be properly tested, which would include toxicity testing since it is by definition reasonably suspected and is not prohibited by any other regulation. This may change in some fashion in the future, but presently it is the law.



Prove it.



Sure ... but why should it be necessary if you know it all and I do not? :mrgreen:

http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/comm ... _o_03j.pdf

As already mentioned, for repeated-dose toxicity testing, currently no validated or
generally accepted alternative method is available for replacing animal testing. There
have been some serious efforts in the domains of e.g. neurotoxicity and nephrotoxicity,
but to date, no method or screening battery has been formally (pre-)validated
[SCCNFP/0546/02].

In the notification process of dangerous substances, repeated dose toxicity studies are
required when the substance under consideration is produced or imported in amounts
exceeding 1 tonne/year [92/32/EEC].


In the case of the development of cosmetic ingredients which have specific biological
properties and which will come into contact with human skin for a long period of time,
the SCCP is convinced that evaluation of the systemic risk is a key element in
evaluating the safety of these new ingredients, irrespective of the tonnage-linked and
possibly limited requirements imposed by the Dangerous Substances Directive
[67/548/EEC]
.

Therefore the SCCP considers that in certain cases the use of animal long-term
experiments to study one or more potential toxic effects remains a scientific necessity.
It is self-evident that animal use should be limited to a minimum, but never at the
expense of consumer safety. The "7th Amendment" [2003/15/EC] to the Cosmetic
Directive 76/768/EEC allows up to 11 March 2013 for the development of validated
alternative tests for repeated exposure
.



Moved on since the sixth amendment :-

Like i have said, you are a fool.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We are winning!
PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 12:06 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
Wayne Stollings wrote:
tommee wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
It is supposed to have done what? Indicate the EU regulations do not currently require toxicity testing for products/ingredients which may be used in cosmetics? Wrong, the general statute does, even for cosmetics as it is not prohibited from said requirement. The testing cannot be required to have been performed solely for cosmetic use within the EU, but the general statute requires everything reasonably suspected of harm to be properly tested, which would include toxicity testing since it is by definition reasonably suspected and is not prohibited by any other regulation. This may change in some fashion in the future, but presently it is the law.



Prove it.



Sure ... but why should it be necessary if you know it all and I do not? :mrgreen:

http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/comm ... _o_03j.pdf

As already mentioned, for repeated-dose toxicity testing, currently no validated or
generally accepted alternative method is available for replacing animal testing. There
have been some serious efforts in the domains of e.g. neurotoxicity and nephrotoxicity,
but to date, no method or screening battery has been formally (pre-)validated
[SCCNFP/0546/02].

In the notification process of dangerous substances, repeated dose toxicity studies are
required when the substance under consideration is produced or imported in amounts
exceeding 1 tonne/year [92/32/EEC].


In the case of the development of cosmetic ingredients which have specific biological
properties and which will come into contact with human skin for a long period of time,
the SCCP is convinced that evaluation of the systemic risk is a key element in
evaluating the safety of these new ingredients, irrespective of the tonnage-linked and
possibly limited requirements imposed by the Dangerous Substances Directive
[67/548/EEC]
.

Therefore the SCCP considers that in certain cases the use of animal long-term
experiments to study one or more potential toxic effects remains a scientific necessity.
It is self-evident that animal use should be limited to a minimum, but never at the
expense of consumer safety. The "7th Amendment" [2003/15/EC] to the Cosmetic
Directive 76/768/EEC allows up to 11 March 2013 for the development of validated
alternative tests for repeated exposure
.



tommee wrote:
Moved on since the sixth amendment :-

Like i have said, you are a fool.


The sixth amendment of 92/32/EEC? Since it is not part of the cosmetic requirements can you provide the reference to that 1 tonne requirement being changed perhaps? If not, I will understand that the assumptions are driving your views.

_________________
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: Wed Apr 25, 2012 12:13 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
Wayne Stollings wrote:
tommee wrote:
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=ref_data.annexes


Ok this lists restricted substances, provisionally allowed substances, allowed preservatives, UV filters, and coloring agents. That leaves some 260,000 + known chemical compounds which could be used, but may require testing .... right?

List of substances which cosmetic products must not contain except subject to the restrictions and conditions laid down

List of substances provisionally allowed

List of colouring agents allowed for use in cosmetic products (1)

List of colouring agents provisionally allowed for use in cosmetic products

List of preservatives allowed

List of preservatives provisionally allowed

List of permitted UV filters which cosmetic products may contain

List of UV filters which cosmetic products may provisionally contain


tommee wrote:
You are a fool.



Because I understand what you do not? There are some 265,000 compounds in the database for GC/MS analysis comparison. Out of those you have a list of compounds which are not allowed in cosmetics under any circumstances, a list of compounds allowed with specific restrictions, and a list of provisionally allowed compounds. This does not cover all of the compounds which may be used since there are supposedly many compounds which should have no restrictions on use in cosmetics according to your references.

_________________
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: Wed Apr 25, 2012 12:36 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:07 pm
Posts: 188
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
tommee wrote:
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=ref_data.annexes


Ok this lists restricted substances, provisionally allowed substances, allowed preservatives, UV filters, and coloring agents. That leaves some 260,000 + known chemical compounds which could be used, but may require testing .... right?

List of substances which cosmetic products must not contain except subject to the restrictions and conditions laid down

List of substances provisionally allowed

List of colouring agents allowed for use in cosmetic products (1)

List of colouring agents provisionally allowed for use in cosmetic products

List of preservatives allowed

List of preservatives provisionally allowed

List of permitted UV filters which cosmetic products may contain

List of UV filters which cosmetic products may provisionally contain


tommee wrote:
You are a fool.



Because I understand what you do not? There are some 265,000 compounds in the database for GC/MS analysis comparison. Out of those you have a list of compounds which are not allowed in cosmetics under any circumstances, a list of compounds allowed with specific restrictions, and a list of provisionally allowed compounds. This does not cover all of the compounds which may be used since there are supposedly many compounds which should have no restrictions on use in cosmetics according to your references.



No because you don't understand the transition from one law to the other and quote directives that are out of date. Mixing it up because you think I'm an idiot.

Come back when you have an idea.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We are winning!
PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 3:04 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
tommee wrote:
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=ref_data.annexes


Ok this lists restricted substances, provisionally allowed substances, allowed preservatives, UV filters, and coloring agents. That leaves some 260,000 + known chemical compounds which could be used, but may require testing .... right?

List of substances which cosmetic products must not contain except subject to the restrictions and conditions laid down

List of substances provisionally allowed

List of colouring agents allowed for use in cosmetic products (1)

List of colouring agents provisionally allowed for use in cosmetic products

List of preservatives allowed

List of preservatives provisionally allowed

List of permitted UV filters which cosmetic products may contain

List of UV filters which cosmetic products may provisionally contain


tommee wrote:
You are a fool.



Because I understand what you do not? There are some 265,000 compounds in the database for GC/MS analysis comparison. Out of those you have a list of compounds which are not allowed in cosmetics under any circumstances, a list of compounds allowed with specific restrictions, and a list of provisionally allowed compounds. This does not cover all of the compounds which may be used since there are supposedly many compounds which should have no restrictions on use in cosmetics according to your references.



tommee wrote:
No because you don't understand the transition from one law to the other and quote directives that are out of date. Mixing it up because you think I'm an idiot.

Come back when you have an idea.


What was quoted which is out of date? This was YOUR reference from which I pulled the information not mine.

I have also looked for a later change to the Dangerous Substances Directive you claim was made and can find none. Are you sure that was repleaced or are you merely making baselesss claims in the hopes none check up on 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: Wed Apr 25, 2012 3:54 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
http://www.efma.org/PRODUCT-STEWARDSHIP ... 2-32EC.pdf

Article 8 section 4 gives the 1 tonne limit which triggers the requirements of Article 7 and which are specified in Annex VII.

I find no caveat related to or replacement of these requirements.

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

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


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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We are winning!
PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 5:27 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:07 pm
Posts: 188
Wayne Stollings wrote:
http://www.efma.org/PRODUCT-STEWARDSHIP-PROGRAM-10/images/1992-32EC.pdf

Article 8 section 4 gives the 1 tonne limit which triggers the requirements of Article 7 and which are specified in Annex VII.

I find no caveat related to or replacement of these requirements.


1992, moved on since.

Would help if you knew what you were talking about.


Last edited by tommee on Thu Apr 26, 2012 7:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We are winning!
PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 7:40 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

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

The sixth amendment of 92/32/EEC? Since it is not part of the cosmetic requirements can you provide the reference to that 1 tonne requirement being changed perhaps? If not, I will understand that the assumptions are driving your views.



Production volumes of 1 to 10 tonne requires toxicology test for carcinogenic, mutagenic or reproductive effect, the test required a mutagenicity test in bacteria....

Any thing else you require?

Would help if you knew what you were talking about


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We are winning!
PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 8:15 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
tommee wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
http://www.efma.org/PRODUCT-STEWARDSHIP-PROGRAM-10/images/1992-32EC.pdf

Article 8 section 4 gives the 1 tonne limit which triggers the requirements of Article 7 and which are specified in Annex VII.

I find no caveat related to or replacement of these requirements.


1992, moved on since.

Would help if you knew what you were talking about.


Where? According to the information I have found that was the seventh and last amendment to the 1967 base regulation. There seem to have been some annex additions, but I have found nothing that superceded the requirements of the articles referenced. Now if you can provide some link to such a change as has been asked prior, we can see what the current regulation is.

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

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


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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We are winning!
PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 8:18 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:
http://www.efma.org/PRODUCT-STEWARDSHIP-PROGRAM-10/images/1992-32EC.pdf

Article 8 section 4 gives the 1 tonne limit which triggers the requirements of Article 7 and which are specified in Annex VII.

I find no caveat related to or replacement of these requirements.


1992, moved on since.

Would help if you knew what you were talking about.


Where? According to the information I have found that was the seventh and last amendment to the 1967 base regulation. There seem to have been some annex additions, but I have found nothing that superceded the requirements of the articles referenced. Now if you can provide some link to such a change as has been asked prior, we can see what the current regulation is.


Go back to page 4.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We are winning!
PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 8:34 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:07 pm
Posts: 188
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
It is supposed to have done what? Indicate the EU regulations do not currently require toxicity testing for products/ingredients which may be used in cosmetics? Wrong, the general statute does, even for cosmetics as it is not prohibited from said requirement. The testing cannot be required to have been performed solely for cosmetic use within the EU, but the general statute requires everything reasonably suspected of harm to be properly tested, which would include toxicity testing since it is by definition reasonably suspected and is not prohibited by any other regulation. This may change in some fashion in the future, but presently it is the law.



Prove it.



Sure ... but why should it be necessary if you know it all and I do not? :mrgreen:

http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/comm ... _o_03j.pdf

As already mentioned, for repeated-dose toxicity testing, currently no validated or
generally accepted alternative method is available for replacing animal testing. There
have been some serious efforts in the domains of e.g. neurotoxicity and nephrotoxicity,
but to date, no method or screening battery has been formally (pre-)validated
[SCCNFP/0546/02].

In the notification process of dangerous substances, repeated dose toxicity studies are
required when the substance under consideration is produced or imported in amounts
exceeding 1 tonne/year [92/32/EEC].


In the case of the development of cosmetic ingredients which have specific biological
properties and which will come into contact with human skin for a long period of time,
the SCCP is convinced that evaluation of the systemic risk is a key element in
evaluating the safety of these new ingredients, irrespective of the tonnage-linked and
possibly limited requirements imposed by the Dangerous Substances Directive
[67/548/EEC]
.

Therefore the SCCP considers that in certain cases the use of animal long-term
experiments to study one or more potential toxic effects remains a scientific necessity.
It is self-evident that animal use should be limited to a minimum, but never at the
expense of consumer safety. The "7th Amendment" [2003/15/EC] to the Cosmetic
Directive 76/768/EEC allows up to 11 March 2013 for the development of validated
alternative tests for repeated exposure
.





Quote:
The sixth amendment of 92/32/EEC? Since it is not part of the cosmetic requirements can you provide the reference to that 1 tonne requirement being changed perhaps? If not, I will understand that the assumptions are driving your views.


"Annex I of the Dangerous Substances Directive (DSD) ceased to have legal effect when CLP entered into force on 20 January 2009.

The list of harmonised substance classifications and labelling requirements were immediately incorporated into Annex VI of the CLP regulation. In Annex VI of REACH, the classification and labelling according to CLP is given in in Table 3.1 and that according to the DSD in Table 3.2. Amendments to this list are made through Adaptations to Technical Progress (ATP). "

http://www.reachready.co.uk/CLP_faq_free.php#harm

Anything else you require spoon feeding?


Last edited by tommee on Thu Apr 26, 2012 8:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We are winning!
PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 8:34 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
tommee wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

The sixth amendment of 92/32/EEC? Since it is not part of the cosmetic requirements can you provide the reference to that 1 tonne requirement being changed perhaps? If not, I will understand that the assumptions are driving your views.



Production volumes of 1 to 10 tonne requires toxicology test for carcinogenic, mutagenic or reproductive effect, the test required a mutagenicity test in bacteria....

Any thing else you require?

Would help if you knew what you were talking about



Where is the change to OR instead of and for this requirement? Annex VII clearly states all are required in the report.

4.1 Acute toxicity - two routes of exposure
4.3.1 Mutagencity - two tests one of which is bacteriolical for reverse mutation
4.3.2 screening for toxicity related to reproduction
5.1.1 Acute toxicity for fish
5.1.2 Acute toxicity for daphnia

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

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


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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: We are winning!
PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 8:39 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:

The sixth amendment of 92/32/EEC? Since it is not part of the cosmetic requirements can you provide the reference to that 1 tonne requirement being changed perhaps? If not, I will understand that the assumptions are driving your views.



Production volumes of 1 to 10 tonne requires toxicology test for carcinogenic, mutagenic or reproductive effect, the test required a mutagenicity test in bacteria....

Any thing else you require?

Would help if you knew what you were talking about



Where is the change to OR instead of and for this requirement? Annex VII clearly states all are required in the report.

4.1 Acute toxicity - two routes of exposure
4.3.1 Mutagencity - two tests one of which is bacteriolical for reverse mutation
4.3.2 screening for toxicity related to reproduction
5.1.1 Acute toxicity for fish
5.1.2 Acute toxicity for daphnia



You need to have a real good read Mr ST.

Oh and please link what you quote, keep things in order


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 217 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 ... 15  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 4 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