Talk:Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
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? 22.214.171.124 (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)
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)
- 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
- 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)
The comment(s) below were originally left at 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., and are posted here for posterity. Following
|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 126.96.36.199 (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)|
Last edited at 20:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 04:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)