Cropwatch: More EU allergens regulation by a backdoor route

[Guest guest]

*Opinion:*

 

 

 

You may remember that Danish dermatologists had previously panicked the

EU into precipitous action over fragrance allergy - which eventually

resulted in the notorious '26 allergens' debacle under Directive

2003/15/EC. The controversy and industrial damage which accompanied

these measures halted any further legislation on alleged allergens at

the time, but IFRA and EFFA now seem to have found a back-door way of

creating some further progress - by invoking QRA methodology which

manifests in the enormously complex 40th IFRA Amendment. This will

presumably ensure that they continue to successfully take the lead in

hi-jacking fragrance regulation under their banner of toxicological

imperialism.

 

 

 

Curiously, although DG-Ent appear to have invited EFFA to submit a

scheme using the 40th Amendment framework for new considerations for

sensitisers (citral, farnesol & phenylacetaldehyde), to be submitted to

SCCP for rubber-stamping, they do not include the opinions of any other

interested parties - such as those dermatologists who have suggested

that the EU Commission defines the criteria for the inclusion of

allergens into regulation, those that suggest the " 26 allergens "

legislation includes many substances which do not present a proven

history of clinical allergy, and those dermatologists who suggest that

many substances included as allergens under the " 26 allergens "

legislation are not allergens at all, or are too weak to be labelled as

allergens. Cropwatch can't believe that DG-Ent or other Brussels staff

have failed to be aware of this situation. - after all 30 seconds on

Google will easily reveal it.

 

 

 

Cropwatch led a popular campaign in early 2007 against the

implementation of the 40th IFRA Amendment, which was widely reported in

the media, and forced a time-concession from IFRA to implement the

complex legislation for SME's. Cropwatch doesn't seem to have been asked

by the Brussels regulators to contribute to questions to the SCCP on the

present issue, which according to the way we read the Rules of

Procedure, is actionable. We have therefore officially submitted an

objection to the procedure (attached). N.B. We won't re-expose you to

the article on the abandoned quenching hypothesis mentioned in Cropwatch

Objection attached, but if you want to re-consult it, it is to be found

in the June 2007 /Cropwatch Newsletter/ at

http://www.cropwatch.org/newslet8.pdf

 

 

 

We go into high gear on the opposition front if this presently-sought

SCCP Opinion goes ahead - Cropwatch is not prepared to watch the

destruction of what is left of the European fragrance/essential oils

industry by moves like this coming from career toxicologists who do not

work in the industry, & their seemingly bemused & obedient EU lawmaking

counterparts, without a fight.

 

 

 

Tony Burfield. Kendra Kirkham.

 

Co-founders of Cropwatch.

 

 

--

Sincerely, Anya

of Natural Perfume

Natural Perfumers Guild http://NaturalPerfumersGuild.com

Natural Perfumers 1200+ members Group http://tinyurl.com/78kmv