Talk:Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals

Contro-what?

Apart from the potential costs to industry and the complexity of the new law, REACH has also attracted concern because of the potential for a very significant increase in animal testing under the proposal.

Animal tests on vertebrates are allowed only once per one substance, and where suitable alternatives can't be used. If a company pays for these tests, it must sell the rights to the results for a "reasonable" price (although this is not defined). There are additional concerns that access to the necessary information may prove very costly for potential registrants needing to purchase this.

This doesn't make any sense at all. If animal test are restricted to one test per substance, and test result sharing is mandatory, how can it increase animal testing "very significantly" Seems very counter-intuitive to me. Also, I tried to look up the source article, but it didn't exist. Could somebody hammer some sense into this? 62.142.161.252 (talk) 08:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Presumably because animal testing will have to take place where it was not deemed neccessary previously. "According to the European Commission, little safety information exists for 99 percent of the tens of thousands of chemicals placed on the market before 1981". Even if it's once per substance, that means potentially tens of thousands of animal tests.JohnB57 (talk) 11:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Fraud

Why is this section labeled as such? The "only representative" function is a key part of complying with REACH for non-EU entities (importers). The sentance refering to non-EU companies that offer OR Services needs to havce more information before it can be properly evaluated. Are these companies deliberately trying to defraud the system or are they misinterpreting REACH? It seems to be a short shighted fraud when you have to register with the government authorities in order to conduct it.Npeters22 (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I would agree - this doesn't seem to be fraud. At worst this is expoliting a loophole. I will do some digging at get back to this with some more info. Ajem (talk) 13:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

If you could, that would be great. It's something that's always bugged me as well about this article. Physchim62 (talk) 13:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason that the title is misspelled

or is Authorisation spelled with an s and not a z? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.225.39 (talk • contribs)

It's spelled with an s in British English and related variants. Spelling on Wikipedia varies according to WP:ENGVAR. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Fundamental Questions Not Answered

The article is quite lengthy and detailed but doesn't address even the most fundamental questions. So, for example, WHO can/should make a submission / application regarding a certain chemical? The supplier?, the customer?, or both?, and how far down the supply chain does the legislation extend? Let's suppose that company A in a non-EU country manufactures a certain chemical and an EU company (company B) wants to buy it, to include in one of their products. In this example, who has to make a submission? Is it Company A, or is it Company B, or is it both of them? Also, if that chemical has previously been registered at ECHA by some other party, Company C, then does Company A and/or B have to do a submission all over again, even though the chemical has already been registered by ECHA following a submission by Company C?Rocker888 (talk) 21:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)Rocker888 (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Not very neutral. Assumes certain chemicals that are under debate are already toxic. For example BFRs. BFRs are a wide range of compounds and not all have been shown to be toxic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.188.255.98 (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 20:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 04:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060616175040/http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/reach/index_en.htm to http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/reach/index_en.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

June edit request

Please consider adding the following to the controversy section of the page:

The cosmetics company Lush were critical of the legislation when it was first proposed in 2006, as they believed it would increase animal testing. The cosmetics company wrote to its European customers and also ran an in-store marketing campaign, asking for postcards objecting to the legislation be sent to MEPs, a move which resulted in 80,000 Lush customers sending postcards. In December 2006, Lush protested outside the European Parliament in Strasbourg, by dumping horse manure outside the building. RuanaLush (talk) 13:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

References

 Done RuanaLush Cheers. Duke Gilmore (talk) 01:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)