"Euopean campaign to ensure that all cosmetics sold in the EU are cruelty-free!"
Doug
"According to the Cosmetics Directive (76/768/EEC), a European
marketing ban on all animal-tested cosmetics products is due to come
into effect in March 2013. However, the European Commission now seems
likely to claim that it's unable to fulfil its commitment because some
replacement methods will not be available in time to meet the 2013
deadline.
At least one replacement method for the tests the Commission is
referring to has been validated for use since 2009, which shows the
competence of their investigative committee. The proposed ban was
originally intended to come into force in 1997, but the European
Commission has repeatedly postponed them through the complicity of the
MEPs!
What you can do :
* Stop buying/using animal tested cosmetics and boycott companies that
continue to test on animals, (a list will be on the site shortly).
* Pressure your European Representative to work to enforce the ban, (a
full list of MEPs, by country/region will be on the site soon).
* Participate in demonstrations against the cosmetic companies that
still fund animal experiments, or organise one yourself, (a list of
good potential targets will be uploaded soon).
* Translate the site! This is a Europe wide issue and to be successful
the campaign's message needs to transmitted as far as possible. If you
can translate the site into any EU language please contact us.
* Sympathetic organisations and campaign groups can sign the pledge to
support the campaign, organise actions and promote the campaign to
their members. The more support we have, the more leverage we have
when communicating with the MEPs.
Cosmetics companies will continue to test their products on animals,
conducting tests that have already been banned in Europe, and then
sell those products to European citizens until at least 2019 and
possibly even 2025. We must unite to say no to animal tested cosmetics
and demand that the 2013 deadline be maintained!"
More:
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/04/477448.html
http://www.ban-it-all.com/
Doug.
MM
wrote:
>So the unnecessary cruelty will continue.
How about cruelty to teenagers? It's truly cruel to sell them that
stuff for them to plaster all over their faces. And the girls are just
as bad.
MM
Norman Wells
> So the unnecessary cruelty will continue.
No it won't because it isn't happening now.
Once again, you demonstrate complete misunderstanding.
Animal testing on cosmetic products in the UK has been completely banned
since 1998, and none is carried out.
Moreover, there is virtually no animal testing of cosmetic products carried
out anywhere in the EU. What little is carried out is on products such as
sunscreens and cleaning products for contact lenses which, although some
extremists may regard them as cosmetics, actually have a medical function
and _need_ to be tested. The tests are to determine whether the components
being tested cause cancer or reproductive problems, matters which are
important and can hardly be tested without using animals. Products normally
regarded as cosmetics such as lipstick and mascara are no longer tested on
animals at all.
You've been swept along again on a tediously repetitive tide of single issue
group alarmist suggestion, implication and half truths, as you are so often.
> "According to the Cosmetics Directive (76/768/EEC), a European
> marketing ban on all animal-tested cosmetics products is due to come
> into effect in March 2013. However, the European Commission now seems
> likely to claim that it's unable to fulfil its commitment because some
> replacement methods will not be available in time to meet the 2013
> deadline.
It's a _marketing_ ban, Doug, not a testing ban, which would apply to all
components, however old, previously tested on animals. When you were asked
in an earlier thread:
"Are you suggesting there should be a sort of "year zero" approach, in
which any ingredient which has ever been tested on animals should be
banned, and the cosmetics industry should have to start from scratch with
new ingredients, Doug?"
you replied:
"Nope. All existing ingredients should remain and only new ones should not
be tested on animals and modern alternative testing methods used instead. It
would be pointless to dismiss out of hand all that animal torture purely for
human benefit that has been allowed to continue up until the present."
So, given that you actually fundamentally disagree with the aims of the
group you quote who want just such a year zero approach, what is your
problem exactly?
And why therefore is any of the action they advocate either necessary or
fair?
R. Mark Clayton
His new campaign may be misguided (for the reasons you state - already
achieved etc.), but at least the goal of campaign is sensible - no need for
animals to suffer in the development of make up products.
Otherwise he will return to his crack pot - all drivers are murderers and
cars should be banned - threads...
"Norman Wells" <stib...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:VYeop.26636$5t2....@newsfe06.ams2...
> Doug wrote:
>
>> So the unnecessary cruelty will continue.
>
> No it won't because it isn't happening now.
>
> Once again, you demonstrate complete misunderstanding.
>
> Animal testing on cosmetic products in the UK has been completely banned
> since 1998, and none is carried out.
>
SNIP
BrianW
> Doug wrote:
> > So the unnecessary cruelty will continue.
>
> No it won't because it isn't happening now.
>
> Once again, you demonstrate complete misunderstanding.
>
> Animal testing on cosmetic products in the UK has been completely banned
> since 1998, and none is carried out.
Duhg will doubtless post the same sources as before to "support" his
argument. You remember - those sources that don't show animal testing
for cosmetics taking place in the UK?
> Moreover, there is virtually no animal testing of cosmetic products carried
> out anywhere in the EU. What little is carried out is on products such as
> sunscreens and cleaning products for contact lenses which, although some
> extremists may regard them as cosmetics, actually have a medical function
> and _need_ to be tested. The tests are to determine whether the components
> being tested cause cancer or reproductive problems, matters which are
> important and can hardly be tested without using animals. Products normally
> regarded as cosmetics such as lipstick and mascara are no longer tested on
> animals at all.
>
> You've been swept along again on a tediously repetitive tide of single issue
> group alarmist suggestion, implication and half truths, as you are so often.
What creases me is that, until a few months ago, Gollum used to
trumpet the outlawing of animal testing for cosmetics as an example of
a successful campaign. Indeed, he suggested that it could only be a
matter of time before the same happened in respect of animal testing
for pharmaceuticals. Suddenly, though, his mates started bleating
about the continued use of ingredients that were tested on animals
prior to the ban. Lo and behold, Gollum swivels on a sixpence and
suddenly the current position on cosmetics isn't OK, after all.
Is there *any* ludicrous bandwagon that Gollum won't jump on?
> > "According to the Cosmetics Directive (76/768/EEC), a European
> > marketing ban on all animal-tested cosmetics products is due to come
> > into effect in March 2013. However, the European Commission now seems
> > likely to claim that it's unable to fulfil its commitment because some
> > replacement methods will not be available in time to meet the 2013
> > deadline.
>
> It's a _marketing_ ban, Doug, not a testing ban, which would apply to all
> components, however old, previously tested on animals. When you were asked
> in an earlier thread:
>
> "Are you suggesting there should be a sort of "year zero" approach, in
> which any ingredient which has ever been tested on animals should be
> banned, and the cosmetics industry should have to start from scratch with
> new ingredients, Doug?"
>
> you replied:
>
> "Nope. All existing ingredients should remain and only new ones should not
> be tested on animals and modern alternative testing methods used instead. It
> would be pointless to dismiss out of hand all that animal torture purely for
> human benefit that has been allowed to continue up until the present."
Indeed, but he later retracted this, and decided that a year zero
approach was appropriate after all (I guess he asked his mates what he
should "think"). When we pointed out that this would mean that water,
soap and olive oil would be banned as ingredients, Gollum said that
"alternatives will have to be found".
Curiously, when I asked Gollum whether the same principle would apply
to products that he uses e.g. medicines, no answer was forthcoming.
Odd, that.
Doug
> > So the unnecessary cruelty will continue.
>
> No it won't because it isn't happening now.
>
> Once again, you demonstrate complete misunderstanding.
>
> Animal testing on cosmetic products in the UK has been completely banned
> since 1998, and none is carried out.
>
allowed to be on sale in the UK.
>
> Moreover, there is virtually no animal testing of cosmetic products carried
> out anywhere in the EU.
>
the EU.
>
> What little is carried out is on products such as
> sunscreens and cleaning products for contact lenses which, although some
> extremists may regard them as cosmetics, actually have a medical function
> and _need_ to be tested. The tests are to determine whether the components
> being tested cause cancer or reproductive problems, matters which are
> important and can hardly be tested without using animals. Products normally
> regarded as cosmetics such as lipstick and mascara are no longer tested on
> animals at all.
>
>
> You've been swept along again on a tediously repetitive tide of single issue
> group alarmist suggestion, implication and half truths, as you are so often.
>
> > "According to the Cosmetics Directive (76/768/EEC), a European
> > marketing ban on all animal-tested cosmetics products is due to come
> > into effect in March 2013. However, the European Commission now seems
> > likely to claim that it's unable to fulfil its commitment because some
> > replacement methods will not be available in time to meet the 2013
> > deadline.
>
> It's a _marketing_ ban, Doug, not a testing ban, which would apply to all
> components, however old, previously tested on animals. When you were asked
> in an earlier thread:
>
>
> "Are you suggesting there should be a sort of "year zero" approach, in
> which any ingredient which has ever been tested on animals should be
> banned, and the cosmetics industry should have to start from scratch with
> new ingredients, Doug?"
>
> you replied:
>
> "Nope. All existing ingredients should remain and only new ones should not
> be tested on animals and modern alternative testing methods used instead. It
> would be pointless to dismiss out of hand all that animal torture purely for
> human benefit that has been allowed to continue up until the present."
>
> So, given that you actually fundamentally disagree with the aims of the
> group you quote who want just such a year zero approach, what is your
> problem exactly?
>
It would be pointless if all that previous animal torture was in vain.
All that is required is that animal testing of cosmetics should STOP
NOW and not be postponed indefinitely.
>
> And why therefore is any of the action they advocate either necessary or
> fair?
>
comes to animal testing of cosmetics and its animal suffering for the
sake of human vanity is being allowed to continue indefinitely.
Doug.
BrianW
> On Apr 10, 10:43 am, "Norman Wells" <stibb...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:> Doug wrote:
> > > So the unnecessary cruelty will continue.
>
> > No it won't because it isn't happening now.
>
> > Once again, you demonstrate complete misunderstanding.
>
> > Animal testing on cosmetic products in the UK has been completely banned
> > since 1998, and none is carried out.
>
> But imported cosmetics which have been tested on animals are still
> allowed to be on sale in the UK.
>
> > Moreover, there is virtually no animal testing of cosmetic products carried
> > out anywhere in the EU.
>
> Clearly my source says animal testing of cosmetics still continues in
> the EU.
No it doesn't, Doug. Your source says, at http://www.ban-it-all.com/cosmetics/history.html
"Following exchanges between the Parliament, which was strongly in
favour of the marketing ban, and the Commission, which is heavily
influenced by the cosmetics industry, the agreement was that the 7th
amendment would distinguish the subjects of testing and marketing of
cosmetics into two distinct bans:
•A complete ban on the on the use of animals for testing cosmetic
products and their ingredients on European territory, was to be
imposed from March 11th 2009, (and is now in force today)".
You *did* read the source before posting it and commenting on it,
didn't you Doug?
> > What little is carried out is on products such as
> > sunscreens and cleaning products for contact lenses which, although some
> > extremists may regard them as cosmetics, actually have a medical function
> > and _need_ to be tested. The tests are to determine whether the components
> > being tested cause cancer or reproductive problems, matters which are
> > important and can hardly be tested without using animals. Products normally
> > regarded as cosmetics such as lipstick and mascara are no longer tested on
> > animals at all.
>
> Evidence? Source? Quote?
Your own source, Doug.
http://www.ban-it-all.com/cosmetics/history.html
"Following exchanges between the Parliament, which was strongly in
favour of the marketing ban, and the Commission, which is heavily
influenced by the cosmetics industry, the agreement was that the 7th
amendment would distinguish the subjects of testing and marketing of
cosmetics into two distinct bans:
•A complete ban on the on the use of animals for testing cosmetic
products and their ingredients on European territory, was to be
imposed from March 11th 2009, (and is now in force today)".
You *did* read the source before posting it and commenting on it,
didn't you Doug?
> > You've been swept along again on a tediously repetitive tide of single issue
> > group alarmist suggestion, implication and half truths, as you are so often.
>
> > > "According to the Cosmetics Directive (76/768/EEC), a European
> > > marketing ban on all animal-tested cosmetics products is due to come
> > > into effect in March 2013. However, the European Commission now seems
> > > likely to claim that it's unable to fulfil its commitment because some
> > > replacement methods will not be available in time to meet the 2013
> > > deadline.
>
> > It's a _marketing_ ban, Doug, not a testing ban, which would apply to all
> > components, however old, previously tested on animals. When you were asked
> > in an earlier thread:
>
> Evidence? Source? Quote?
Your own source, Doug.
http://www.ban-it-all.com/cosmetics/history.html
"Following exchanges between the Parliament, which was strongly in
favour of the marketing ban, and the Commission, which is heavily
influenced by the cosmetics industry, the agreement was that the 7th
amendment would distinguish the subjects of testing and marketing of
cosmetics into two distinct bans:
•A complete ban on the on the use of animals for testing cosmetic
products and their ingredients on European territory, was to be
imposed from March 11th 2009, (and is now in force today).
•The marketing of products or cosmetic ingredients tested on animals
was to be prohibited from March 11th 2009, (and is now in force
today), except with regard to the tests involving repeated dose
toxicity, (including chronic, sub-chronic and sub-acute exposure),
toxicokinetics and reproductive toxicity for which the ban is due to
become effective on March 11th 2013, (dependent on the Commission's
decision)."
You *did* read the source before posting it and commenting on it,
didn't you Doug?
> > "Are you suggesting there should be a sort of "year zero" approach, in
> > which any ingredient which has ever been tested on animals should be
> > banned, and the cosmetics industry should have to start from scratch with
> > new ingredients, Doug?"
>
> > you replied:
>
> > "Nope. All existing ingredients should remain and only new ones should not
> > be tested on animals and modern alternative testing methods used instead. It
> > would be pointless to dismiss out of hand all that animal torture purely for
> > human benefit that has been allowed to continue up until the present."
>
> > So, given that you actually fundamentally disagree with the aims of the
> > group you quote who want just such a year zero approach, what is your
> > problem exactly?
>
> The problem is your lack of understanding of even simple statements.
> It would be pointless if all that previous animal torture was in vain.
> All that is required is that animal testing of cosmetics should STOP
> NOW and not be postponed indefinitely.
Right. The odd thing is that in an earlier thread (https://
groups.google.com/group/uk.legal/msg/7ff58f1179165605), you said:
"I would also expect any cosmetic recently manufactured and marketed
in the UK to be completely free of any animal tested ingredients."
And in an even earlier thread (https://groups.google.com/group/
uk.legal/msg/b77ab12085ac39e2), you said:
"Nope. All existing ingredients should remain and only new ones
should not be tested on animals and modern alternative testing
methods used
instead. It would be pointless to dismiss out of hand all that animal
torture purely for human benefit that has been allowed to continue up
until the present. "
So you've now changed your stance twice, going from "All existing
ingredients can continue to be used", to "No ingredients that have
been tested on animals can be used", back to "All existing ingredients
can continue to be used". Perhaps you should ask your mates at SHAC
to make up your "mind" for your Doug.
> > And why therefore is any of the action they advocate either necessary or
> > fair?
>
> Clearly the EU is unable to fulfil its previous commitments when it
> comes to animal testing of cosmetics and its animal suffering for the
> sake of human vanity is being allowed to continue indefinitely.
Not accordingly to your own source it isn't, Doug.
Norman Wells
> On Apr 10, 10:43 am, "Norman Wells" <stibb...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> So the unnecessary cruelty will continue.
>>
>> No it won't because it isn't happening now.
>>
>> Once again, you demonstrate complete misunderstanding.
>>
>> Animal testing on cosmetic products in the UK has been completely
>> banned since 1998, and none is carried out.
>>
> But imported cosmetics which have been tested on animals are still
> allowed to be on sale in the UK.
>>
>> Moreover, there is virtually no animal testing of cosmetic products
>> carried out anywhere in the EU.
>>
> Clearly my source says animal testing of cosmetics still continues in
> the EU.
Well, it's wrong, and you should tell them so.
The position in the EU, straight from the horse's mouth, is this:
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/sectors/cosmetics/animal-testing/index_en.htm
"The Cosmetics Directive .... 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."
>> What little is carried out is on products such as
>> sunscreens and cleaning products for contact lenses which, although
>> some extremists may regard them as cosmetics, actually have a
>> medical function and _need_ to be tested. The tests are to determine
>> whether the components being tested cause cancer or reproductive
>> problems, matters which are important and can hardly be tested
>> without using animals. Products normally regarded as cosmetics such
>> as lipstick and mascara are no longer tested on animals at all.
>>
> Evidence? Source? Quote?
My goodness, you do have a short memory. You yourself have referred to the
following site in the past, and were referred back to it in the recent
"Animal torture to develop vanity products still continues" thread in this
very newsgroup:
http://www.aboutanimaltesting.co.uk/animal-testing-myths.html
"Myth: The majority of animal testing is conducted for cosmetics
development.
"The truth is that very little animal testing is performed for
cosmetics development relative to biomedical research and other uses
for animal testing. In fact, approximately one tenth of a percent of
all animal testing is for cosmetics purposes in the United Kingdom.
It's also important to note that these 'cosmetics' include sunscreens
and cleaning products for contact lenses, which are considered
somewhat medically based. Those products we tend to assume constitute
cosmetics such as lipstick and mascara are no longer tested on
animals."
>> You've been swept along again on a tediously repetitive tide of
>> single issue group alarmist suggestion, implication and half truths,
>> as you are so often.
>>
>>> "According to the Cosmetics Directive (76/768/EEC), a European
>>> marketing ban on all animal-tested cosmetics products is due to come
>>> into effect in March 2013. However, the European Commission now
>>> seems likely to claim that it's unable to fulfil its commitment
>>> because some replacement methods will not be available in time to
>>> meet the 2013 deadline.
>>
>> It's a _marketing_ ban, Doug, not a testing ban, which would apply
>> to all components, however old, previously tested on animals. When
>> you were asked in an earlier thread:
>>
> Evidence? Source? Quote?
It's a _marketing_ ban, Doug, as you can see from your own quote immediately
above. You do know what 'marketing' means, don't you?
You will also see from the europa.eu website I quoted above that there is a
clear distinction between a testing ban and a marketing ban.
>> "Are you suggesting there should be a sort of "year zero" approach,
>> in which any ingredient which has ever been tested on animals should
>> be banned, and the cosmetics industry should have to start from
>> scratch with new ingredients, Doug?"
>>
>> you replied:
>>
>> "Nope. All existing ingredients should remain and only new ones
>> should not be tested on animals and modern alternative testing
>> methods used instead. It would be pointless to dismiss out of hand
>> all that animal torture purely for human benefit that has been
>> allowed to continue up until the present."
>>
>> So, given that you actually fundamentally disagree with the aims of
>> the group you quote who want just such a year zero approach, what is
>> your problem exactly?
>>
> The problem is your lack of understanding of even simple statements.
> It would be pointless if all that previous animal torture was in vain.
> All that is required is that animal testing of cosmetics should STOP
> NOW and not be postponed indefinitely.
You're way behind the times, old chap. It's been banned in the UK since
1998, ie 13 years ago, and is totally banned in the European Union too.
Why do you find this so difficult to understand? Why do you continue to
push at doors that are rusted open?
>> And why therefore is any of the action they advocate either
>> necessary or fair?
>>
> Clearly the EU is unable to fulfil its previous commitments when it
> comes to animal testing of cosmetics and its animal suffering for the
> sake of human vanity is being allowed to continue indefinitely.
It's not. It's banned. It doesn't happen.
Now will you please go back to your masters and tell them so?
AndyW
news:fc781b13-d703-4311-b6d1-
> You *did* read the source before posting it and commenting on it,
> didn't you Doug?
Doug posting a source that contradicts his assertions?
Surely not!
Must be a day ending in 'Y'.
Andy
BrianW
> "BrianW" <brianwhiteh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Awesome, isn't he? Sometimes Gollum challenges me to post a source to
back up my assertions that he is wrong. I always reply that I rely on
Doug to do that for me. He has an infallible eye for sources that
destroy his argument.
BrianW
> On Apr 11, 8:18 am, Doug <jag...@riseup.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 10, 10:43 am, "Norman Wells" <stibb...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:> Doug wrote:
> > > > So the unnecessary cruelty will continue.
>
> > > No it won't because it isn't happening now.
>
> > > Once again, you demonstrate complete misunderstanding.
>
> > > Animal testing on cosmetic products in the UK has been completely banned
> > > since 1998, and none is carried out.
>
> > But imported cosmetics which have been tested on animals are still
> > allowed to be on sale in the UK.
>
> > > Moreover, there is virtually no animal testing of cosmetic products carried
> > > out anywhere in the EU.
>
> > Clearly my source says animal testing of cosmetics still continues in
> > the EU.
>
No response, Doug? Running away from your own thread because you've
been caught out again?
AndyW
> No response, Doug? Running away from your own thread because you've
> been caught out again?
Such an unusual occurrence; this has not happened since the last time he ran
away from a thread..... then there was the time before that....and the time
before that......and the time before that....
<ZX81 basic mode on>
10 PRINT " and the time before that......"
20 GOTO 10
<ZX81 Basic mode off>
Andy
BrianW
> "BrianW" <brianwhiteh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:0ed59d4c-f57f-4b6a...@dn9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > No response, Doug? Running away from your own thread because you've
> > been caught out again?
>
> Such an unusual occurrence;
It is, isn't it? Mr Bollen is normally so assiduous in following up
challenges to his assertions. I wonder whether he is unwell?
> this has not happened since the last time he ran
> away from a thread..... then there was the time before that....and the time
> before that......and the time before that....
>
> <ZX81 basic mode on>
>
> 10 PRINT " and the time before that......"
> 20 GOTO 10
>
> <ZX81 Basic mode off>
I'm afraid that the ZX81, with its primitive processor chip and 1 kB
of memory, is an entirely inappropriate model for Mr Bollen. Mr
Bollen's brain is nowhere near as sophisticated as the ZX81.
AndyW
> I'm afraid that the ZX81, with its primitive processor chip and 1 kB
> of memory, is an entirely inappropriate model for Mr Bollen. Mr
> Bollen's brain is nowhere near as sophisticated as the ZX81.
My first computer was one I built from plans in Elektor magazine and had a
calculator keyboard and a single line LED display.
only programmable in hex and has a massive 1Kb of data.
Is that sophisticated enough?
Andy
BrianW
> "BrianW" <brianwhiteh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
I doubt it. Primitive though it was, I suspect it was probably
capable of carrying out simple calculations and getting the correct
answer. Which is more than Mr Bollen's Alzheimers-ridden brain cell
has ever managed.