On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 09:09:31 +0000, Norman Wells
wrote:
On 11/11/2018 23:31, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 23:12:35 +0000, Norman Wells
wrote:
On 11/11/2018 22:43, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
Answer: US 10
EU 1200
Cue Norman.
Which do you think is better? Why?
The regulatory authorities in the states have no teeth and the EU
precautionary approach is protectionist towards the consumer and not the
chemical companies.
Is there any evidence of disproportionate harm from cosmetics in the
USA? If so, do provide it.
"the average American uses nine personal care products – containing 126
chemicals – every day. "
"Chemical safety is a growing consumer concern. A 2015 report by the
nonprofit Environmental Working Group (EWG) says the average American
uses nine personal care products – containing 126 chemicals – every day.
Yet the federal agency responsible for overseeing the industry, the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA), lacks the legal authority to approve most
of these products before they go on the market. Some ingredients have
never been tested. Even when they have, little may be known about how
they interact with one another.
Among the chemicals causing concerns are suspected endocrine disruptors:
diethyl phthalate (DEP), frequently used in fragrances, parabens and
used as preservatives; and triclosan, an ingredient often found in
antibacterial products like hand sanitizer as well as some toothpastes
and soaps. Formaldehyde, a preservative found some hair straighteners
and other beauty items, and coal tar, used in anti-dandruff shampoos,
are among the known carcinogens present in many products."
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeands...organic-beauty
https://www.100percentpure.com/blogs...banned-only-30
You see, it's a very litigious country and there would be law suits
galore if there were.
That's just a lie. The chemicals aren't banned and proving harm in these
kind of cases is almost impossible. Just look tobacco and pesticides.
Besides just finding out what chemicals are in a cosmetic is very
costly. See that word on the label FRAGRANCE. Have you any idea what
chemicals are in that? Nope. They don't have to list them.
I can only assume therefore that it doesn't
exist, which means that the EU is being its usual silly self in banning
everything and anything.
Of course you are right as usual.
Nevertheless, snowflakes like me would rather not see our water systems
burdened with this stuff and the comcomitant NHS bills for treating the
victims.
Your bringing up 'the EU precautionary approach' is direct evidence of
that. What it means is that there's no evidence of any harm at all, but
we'll ban it anyway, probably for political or protectionist reasons not
scientific ones.
So I'm with the EU. I expect Boris won't give a **** though and will
bare his arse for a trade deal. Welcome to the future.
I doubt if cosmetics have even crossed his mind.
Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.
--
p-0.0-h the cat
Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, ******* hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
punk ass dole whore troll, no nothing innumerate religious maniac,
lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian, the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.
NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist
Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.
Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896
I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky