Tea-tree oil is 'unstable' and 'unsafe' (says EU)

mkpdavies · 09-01-2005, 09:14 AM

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/hea...p?story=599116

Quote:

The group, which rules on the safety of consumer products for the European Commission, warned undiluted tea-tree oil could be unsafe to sell to the public.

It claimed that even small amounts could be risky because existing safety tests were inadequate, and has told the cosmetics industry it has less than 12 months to prove it is safe to use.

Not again. Tea-tree oil is used in loads of things and people rarely have problems with it. Like anything, if you are sensitive to it, you don't use it! Why is the EU so hell bent on banning everything?

Quote:

The warning will alarm Britain's health and beauty firms. Toiletries that use tea-tree oil are among their biggest sellers. The Body Shop sells more than £6m-worth of products a year. Retailers such as Holland & Barrett could now be forced to withdraw their top-selling ranges of pure tea-tree oil, which sells at all its 170 branches for £3.29 for 10m

Biggest sellers, no widespread problems, hell we'll ban it anyway. This is utter madness!

Julian Morrison · 09-01-2005, 12:37 PM

It's called the "precautionary principle". It can be summarised as: assume all unknowns are dangerous, change nothing rather than chancing harm. Formalized paranoia, basically, and very influential with eco-nutters and nanny statists.

The appendix to Michael Crichton's new book "state of fear" correctly points out that when applied recursively, it forbids itself.

mkpdavies · 09-01-2005, 01:21 PM

The problem in this case is it isn't even fear of the unknown. People have been using the product with no problems, in big numbers for ages! It is the nanny state gone mad!

Julian Morrison · 09-01-2005, 02:47 PM

The "unknown" is anything not sufficiently tested. And "sufficiently tested" is an asymptotic target.

Yes, this forbids doing anything at all, which amounts to suicide by inaction. And yes, that is the asymptote of nannyism and greenism.

Why this, why now? *shrug* who knows?

Telford Liberal · 26-01-2005, 08:29 PM

This is from the same people who came up with the Food Supplements Directive, which comes INTO phpbb_force in August 2005, and which will ban 75% of nutritional supplements (the vast majority of which we have taken in this country for decades quite safely).

Those against this directive went to the EU court yesterday in Luxembourg to try and get it overturned. Interestingly, neither the UK government, who fixed the commons committee that ratified it, nor any of the others responsible for it, turned up.

What did come out was that the directive bans most of the vitamins and minerals that are commonly found in food! Even the judge said that this was comical.

The Eu thinks that they know best, but it is also because some of their largest donors are pharmaceutical companies who hate the growing success of the supplements market.

Lobby your MP now (and if you`re in a marginal tell them you won`t vote for them).

mkpdavies · 26-01-2005, 08:38 PM

My MP is a career puppy, who toes the party line where possible. This is what I hate about politics now, no honour, no principles, just power and keeping your gravy train on track. I'm sick of it!

Telford Liberal · 27-01-2005, 04:05 PM

Sadly, most are `career puppies`. Kate Hoey the Labour MP, was on the committee that looked at the Directive. But because she (and a majority of her fellow MPs on the same committee) said that it was nonsense and shouldn`t be enacted INTO phpbb_UK law, Labour threw them off and replaced them with `placemen`. Even then they only passed the directive by 7-6!

The UKIP MEP (Mike Nattrass) who I contacted (I am in the West Mids `region`), was the first to reply, and stated quite clearly the UKIP stance on this: it is wrong, and UKIP would repeal it. The Tory MEP simply emailed me a copy of the directive (?!), while Michael Cashman (Labour), emailed a long and boring piece about why Doctors know best and it`s in the `interests of the British people` etc.

mkpdavies · 27-01-2005, 04:35 PM

These people are supposed to be representing us. We should have them up on the trades desctiption act. They are not doing what it says on the tin!

09-01-2005, 01:21 PM	#3 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 31,194 Party: Libertarian Party	The problem in this case is it isn't even fear of the unknown. People have been using the product with no problems, in big numbers for ages! It is the nanny state gone mad! __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

26-01-2005, 08:29 PM	#5 (permalink)
Telford Liberal Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Telford, Shropshire Posts: 34	This is from the same people who came up with the Food Supplements Directive, which comes INTO phpbb_force in August 2005, and which will ban 75% of nutritional supplements (the vast majority of which we have taken in this country for decades quite safely). Those against this directive went to the EU court yesterday in Luxembourg to try and get it overturned. Interestingly, neither the UK government, who fixed the commons committee that ratified it, nor any of the others responsible for it, turned up. What did come out was that the directive bans most of the vitamins and minerals that are commonly found in food! Even the judge said that this was comical. The Eu thinks that they know best, but it is also because some of their largest donors are pharmaceutical companies who hate the growing success of the supplements market. Lobby your MP now (and if you`re in a marginal tell them you won`t vote for them). __________________ Radical Centre, not dead centre

26-01-2005, 08:38 PM	#6 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 31,194 Party: Libertarian Party	My MP is a career puppy, who toes the party line where possible. This is what I hate about politics now, no honour, no principles, just power and keeping your gravy train on track. I'm sick of it! __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

27-01-2005, 04:05 PM	#7 (permalink)
Telford Liberal Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Telford, Shropshire Posts: 34	Sadly, most are `career puppies`. Kate Hoey the Labour MP, was on the committee that looked at the Directive. But because she (and a majority of her fellow MPs on the same committee) said that it was nonsense and shouldn`t be enacted INTO phpbb_UK law, Labour threw them off and replaced them with `placemen`. Even then they only passed the directive by 7-6! The UKIP MEP (Mike Nattrass) who I contacted (I am in the West Mids `region`), was the first to reply, and stated quite clearly the UKIP stance on this: it is wrong, and UKIP would repeal it. The Tory MEP simply emailed me a copy of the directive (?!), while Michael Cashman (Labour), emailed a long and boring piece about why Doctors know best and it`s in the `interests of the British people` etc. __________________ Radical Centre, not dead centre

27-01-2005, 04:35 PM	#8 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 31,194 Party: Libertarian Party	These people are supposed to be representing us. We should have them up on the trades desctiption act. They are not doing what it says on the tin! __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

09-01-2005, 12:37 PM	#2 (permalink)
Julian Morrison Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Banbury, England Posts: 198	It's called the "precautionary principle". It can be summarised as: assume all unknowns are dangerous, change nothing rather than chancing harm. Formalized paranoia, basically, and very influential with eco-nutters and nanny statists. The appendix to Michael Crichton's new book "state of fear" correctly points out that when applied recursively, it forbids itself.

09-01-2005, 02:47 PM	#4 (permalink)
Julian Morrison Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Banbury, England Posts: 198	The "unknown" is anything not sufficiently tested. And "sufficiently tested" is an asymptotic target. Yes, this forbids doing anything at all, which amounts to suicide by inaction. And yes, that is the asymptote of nannyism and greenism. Why this, why now? shrug who knows?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode