On 14/11/2018 09:08, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
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.

Exactly. There is no evidence whatsoever of disproportionate harm from
any cosmetic chemicals in the USA relative to the EU.

Nevertheless, snowflakes like me would rather not see our water systems
burdened with this stuff and the comcomitant NHS bills for treating the
victims.

Oh, I see, you've shifted from personal harm to 'water systems' now.

Got any evidence of disproportionate harm to water systems in the USA
relative to the EU?

Tell me, do you **** in the woods, or do you flush it away into the
'water system' like everyone else, complete with all the chemicals it
contains? It's 100% chemicals, in case you're confused.