Talk:Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Chemistry (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject European Union (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Contro-what?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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

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)