The ugly side to importing and selling 'artisan' soap

You researched? Or you fired someone else's bullet?

This thread has had no effect at all in the wider world and changed nothing except to harden resolve for members to obtain American soaps direct. Vendors had already become aware of EU Legislation both here and abroad and were acting each in their own way. All you've achieved is to cause a storm in a tea cup here in TSR.

Your moral indignation reads as being defensive. Have the courage to re-post the item you so rapidly deleted and let everyone work out your real motivation.

texaspete said:
This was alluded to earlier, but is it coincidental that Shaving Station stopped selling US artisan soaps at same time this thread started?
Click to expand...

I think not. Imagine if Stuart Shaving Station heard from the Department of Correct Shaving Soap and called a self-appointed expert on EU Legislation, who perhaps feels he has lost sales of his Correct Shaving Soap because of Incorrect Imports, for advice. Perhaps then the self-appointed expert sees an opportunity and writes a piece on the matter of Incorrect Imported Shaving Soap and gets a friend to post it here, there and everywhere.

Between the lines, Burgundy's rapidly deleted post and his anonymised sources kinda point that way and pretty much ID the originating friend, who had him delete the post very soon after it was posted.

So am I just another conspiracy theorist?
 
I urge everyone who has read this thread and some of the 'contemptible nonsense' therein to attempt to invoke the law of unintended consequences by writing forthwith to their MEP asking them to champion the adoption of US consumables safety standards as equivalent to those of the EU and vice versa. This in the interests of free trade and consumer choice.

Many may feel this action is pointless but that is how democracies work!

Again, I would remind everyone that an EU citizen who purchases from outwith the EU in a private transaction commits no offence.

I had not realised until Carl's last post that Burgundy chooses to hide behind an anonymising server to post his 'helpful information'. I think that says much about his motivation and the probable commercial category to which he belongs. His comments have throughout been about serving specific interests and have no bearing on the indivduals who post here, the vast majority of whom understand the relevent legislation, find it stupid and circumvent it legally whereever possible.

Write that letter/email NOW!
 
It would be useful for folks who want to engage in this to have some facts around what constitutes a 'standard' in the US, notably around use of toxic ingredients and the thresholds permissible.

Just one of a number of examples is the concentration of essential oils, which are kept to what is considered a "safe" level in the EU, agreed by specialists and checked through by a qualified Toxicologist, yet appear to be entirely unchecked in the US. Artisans may well have the best of intentions in mind when creating their soaps, but may well be unwittingly exceeding "safe" levels to achieve a given effect.
 
Bugundy - re post the reply you made that you quickly deleted about the anonymous sources. Then the good people on this site can make an informed judgement on this whole sordid affair. It certainly made interesting reading.
 
pjgh said:
It would be useful for folks who want to engage in this to have some facts around what constitutes a 'standard' in the US, notably around use of toxic ingredients and the thresholds permissible.

Just one of a number of examples is the concentration of essential oils, which are kept to what is considered a "safe" level in the EU, agreed by specialists and checked through by a qualified Toxicologist, yet appear to be entirely unchecked in the US. Artisans may well have the best of intentions in mind when creating their soaps, but may well be unwittingly exceeding "safe" levels to achieve a given effect.
Click to expand...

I agree. Urging acceptance of standards is insufficient on its own but the opportunity to engage a larger market should lead to agreement on what is, and is not, acceptable. Then both sides of the pond can adhere to said agreement.

On a purely personal note, I have found I suffered skin reactions to a couple of US soaps which I ascribed, without rigorous evidence but on the balance of probability, to a much higher level of scent ingredients than would be permitted in the EU. I still want to buy certain US soaps however, and I look to elected representatives to make that possible. Perhaps the American market is regulated in this respect by the tendency to litigation. Nothing concentrates the mind like a 50 million dollar damages suit!

In the EU, we need to move away from the presumption of mal-intent, where we are required to show compliance with standards in advance and at considerable expense, to a system of stated standards which must be met and appropriate (heavy) penalties for breaching them. The load on small manufacturing businesses to prove compiance for every product and every change of formula, stifles innovation and makes costs unreasonable and unsustainable. I cannot see why it is not possible for a US artisan to make a simpe statement of ingredients and concentrations and thus obtain a licence to export to the EU. If a spot-check at some later date shows non-compiance, then the licence is revoked and, given a proper inter-governmental agreement, the artisan might face prosecution in their own country.

This is all idealistic, of course, but if we want to change a situation which we find unacceptable, we have to start somewhere.

Too many areas of interaction with the 'state', here in the EU, from anti-terrorism legislation through money laundering regulations to shaving soap manufacture, have become contaminated with presumption of guilt and that needs to change.
 
globalm said:
I had not realised until Carl's last post that Burgundy chooses to hide behind an anonymising server to post his 'helpful information'. I think that says much about his motivation and the probable commercial category to which he belongs. His comments have throughout been about serving specific interests and have no bearing on the indivduals who post here, the vast majority of whom understand the relevent legislation, find it stupid and circumvent it legally whereever possible.

Write that letter/email NOW!
Click to expand...

Nobody except Burgundy knows his motivation, we can only deduce, Watson, from his past posts and allegiances and from his deleted post. Well, and a few other clues - but we don't know unless he tells us.
 
I may be wrong but I thought the main issue was the composite strength and nature of the fragrance oils. Being synthetic the strength of said chemicals are supposedly beyond EU regulations with regards to toxicity. I accept this is still vague, but its as far as my understanding and research has taken me.

Now I did have a reaction to a said UK artisan, I contacted the UK artisan, who asked me to send the soap back to be re-tested which I didn't then to determine how credible they are I asked if the soap had been checked, I received an email back to say it had and the issue had been fixed concerning an ingredient. Bull shit. Didn't buy from them again. Others had the same experience.

What im getting at is an artisan wheter UK or US based is initially taken at face/.com value. If concern regarding certain chemicals exist, I believe strictest regulations should be adhered to and those soaps which dont are sold with warning labels.

Now I know this sounds stupid waking up to have a shave; to open a tub that reads: 'contains possible carcinogenic chemicals'. But without uniform adherence to one law, its difficult to differentiate and inform a consumer of non-conforming soaps otherwise. Again I use the american crayfish as symbolism.

I try not to stir the pot but to research, reflect and review. I have contacted Tiki soaps as Amanda holds a PhD in chemistry and wanted her thoughts on whether its down to iso propyls and or other specific hydrocarbons in fragrance oils and whether its simply going to be a concentration issue or that specific chemical as a whole (as the said chemicals would accumulate naturally by shaving daily). Again im not an organic chemist and await her response.
 
To say "I don't care" is hardly "baseless drivel". Take a look around you, as I type this millions of cigarettes are probably being lit. Go correlate...
 
I don't think regulations will protect you from irritation. That is a case by case sort of thing. If you have a reaction, stop using the product will be the only advice. What they should protect against is harmful ingredients and they do.
I reiterate, the United States is not a backwater country. The regulation of harmful chemicals is the same as you have in Europe as is the sale of products that may contain them. That's not the problem. The difficulties are those of fair trade. Western European standards are, for the most part, given parity--a notable exception is pharmaceuticals, which are more strictly regulated here than in some EU countries.
The situation all of this creates is one where European manufacturers may sell to the US, while US manufactures are not able to sell in the EU without paying for the ability to do so. That disparity will probably lead to the US and Canadian governments becoming involved.
 
MarshalArtist said:
I don't think regulations will protect you from irritation. That is a case by case sort of thing. If you have a reaction, stop using the product will be the only advice. What they should protect against is harmful ingredients and they do.
I reiterate, the United States is not a backwater country. The regulation of harmful chemicals is the same as you have in Europe as is the sale of products that may contain them. That's not the problem. The difficulties are those of fair trade. Western European standards are, for the most part, given parity--a notable exception is pharmaceuticals, which are more strictly regulated here than in some EU countries.
The situation all of this creates is one where European manufacturers may sell to the US, while US manufactures are not able to sell in the EU without paying for the ability to do so. That disparity will probably lead to the US and Canadian governments becoming involved.
Click to expand...
Hi yep agree, it is political, however, can you expand on your comment regarding the regulations and definite protection. I ask this as I understand strong fragrance oils (by strong I mean concentration of iso propyls) are used which contain a high toxicity risk when used aas a cosmetic; yet none of this information (strength /concentration) is provided on the packaging as a consumer.

The irritation comment is more geared towards ymmv as I still got irritation from a UK product with apparent stricter or more stringent regulations.
 
If all this is about fragrance concentrations, it boils down to one set of Nanny State experts disagreeing with another set of experts in a country that trusts it's citizens as mature adults, capable of making their own choices.
 
I am not certain what you mean when talking about iso propyls. To me, propyl is a compound containing three carbons and the iso prefix means it is bonded at the second carbon in, e.g. isopropyl alcohol is a three carbon alcohol with the OH being on the second of the three carbons. (We call that "rubbing alcohol" here.) This is skin safe at 70% or below. It is also sold at 90% for medical purposes such as disinfecting injection sites or cleaning of surfaces, but this carries the warning to dilute it before applying it to large areas of skin.
As to artificial fragrances, those are regulated by FDA standards. Essential oils are also rated as to whether they can be ingested or used on the skin and at what concentration they are safe to use. If something in any product is considered potentially harmful it is supposed to be listed as an "active ingredient" and the concentration must be given as a percentage by weight or volume.
 
Bechet45 said:
If all this is about fragrance concentrations, it boils down to one set of Nanny State experts disagreeing with another set of experts in a country that trusts it's citizens as mature adults, capable of making their own choices.
Click to expand...

I spat my coffee out at that one cheers!
 
Count of Undolpho said:
Bechet45 said:
If all this is about fragrance concentrations, it boils down to one set of Nanny State experts disagreeing with another set of experts in a country that trusts it's citizens as mature adults, capable of making their own choices.
Click to expand...

I spat my coffee out at that one cheers!
Click to expand...

Before we disappear into an anti-US fairyland, let's remember we are talking about shaving soap.
 
Bechet45 said:
Count of Undolpho said:
Bechet45 said:
If all this is about fragrance concentrations, it boils down to one set of Nanny State experts disagreeing with another set of experts in a country that trusts it's citizens as mature adults, capable of making their own choices.
Click to expand...

I spat my coffee out at that one cheers!
Click to expand...

Before we disappear into an anti-US fairyland, let's remember we are talking about shaving soap.
Click to expand...
Well, let us be honest. This is the same country that forbids liquids in bottles larger than 3 oz. to be carried on an airplane regardless of how much is actually in the container. This is the same country that inspects your shoes at the airport because some nut job tried to light hits shoes on fire once. (Thankfully, we still get to wear our pants on planes even though someone tried to light his on fire on the way to Detroit Metropolitan. [emoji54]) I think "trust" may not be the right word. Our government is hardly that libertarian.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom