Nails<3
Well-Known Member
Still can't find anything to say it is going to be illegal. Does anyone have any other info? X
Illegal from June to offer more than a 14% tan
- Thread starter Lush-Lash
- Start date
Help Support SalonGeek:
Nikinkibabyx
Well-Known Member
Just starting out in spray tanning and have alot of people enquire about offering the fast tans as they don't want to go to bed with the guide on..
If this starts to be the case I'm sure alot of us will have alot of unhappy clients that like being super dark or like the comfort or a tan they can wash off in a couple of hours!
What about dancers, sallow skinned people etc? What will we be offering them ??
Imagine telling someone that tans fabulously in the sun that we can only offer them a 12%... Pretty sure they won't be happy?
If this starts to be the case I'm sure alot of us will have alot of unhappy clients that like being super dark or like the comfort or a tan they can wash off in a couple of hours!
What about dancers, sallow skinned people etc? What will we be offering them ??
Imagine telling someone that tans fabulously in the sun that we can only offer them a 12%... Pretty sure they won't be happy?
Just found this explanation here on SG:
http://www.salongeek.com/health-safety-unatural/189843-fake-tan-time-bomb-myth-reality.html
"So when you introduce a new product, tanning or otherwise into your portfolio it is sensible to ask your supplier for an ingredient list that you can keep on file and a written undertaking that the product you are buying does conform to The Cosmetic Products (Safety) Regulations 2008 (Cosmetics Directive 76/768/EEC)."
"DHA - Is EU approved and deemed to be safe for use in spray tans. (Cosmetics Directive 76/768/EEC). Ok we all know this is the key ingredient in spray tans. DHA has been declared by the EU as being safe and posing no risk to human health for use in cosmetic products. Up to 10% in a cream and up to 14% in a spray. The EUs findings were published in Dec 2010 (SCCS/1347/10). DHA is also approved for use in sprays by the FDA in the USA. DHA is a tanning agent derived from sugar beat/cane. This is the ONLY FDA-approved ingredient for sunless tanning (skin coloration). (Erythrulose is not FDA-approved.)"
Maybe it is just enforcement that is coming in ??
http://www.salongeek.com/health-safety-unatural/189843-fake-tan-time-bomb-myth-reality.html
"So when you introduce a new product, tanning or otherwise into your portfolio it is sensible to ask your supplier for an ingredient list that you can keep on file and a written undertaking that the product you are buying does conform to The Cosmetic Products (Safety) Regulations 2008 (Cosmetics Directive 76/768/EEC)."
"DHA - Is EU approved and deemed to be safe for use in spray tans. (Cosmetics Directive 76/768/EEC). Ok we all know this is the key ingredient in spray tans. DHA has been declared by the EU as being safe and posing no risk to human health for use in cosmetic products. Up to 10% in a cream and up to 14% in a spray. The EUs findings were published in Dec 2010 (SCCS/1347/10). DHA is also approved for use in sprays by the FDA in the USA. DHA is a tanning agent derived from sugar beat/cane. This is the ONLY FDA-approved ingredient for sunless tanning (skin coloration). (Erythrulose is not FDA-approved.)"
Maybe it is just enforcement that is coming in ??
steve@nouvatan
Well-Known Member
It would seem that one manufacturer who doesnt produce tan over 14% any way has totally read the report wrongly and informed a number of its distributors that its going to be LAW ..... Our selves, Nouvatan, Sienna X and Vanity have all read this report with our legal teams and can find nothing saying it is dangerous or that it will be unlawfull.
Fresh Indulgence the company that made these claims and sparked panic throughout the industry and have caused all the bigger tanning companies hours of lost work answering telephone enquirys about this statement have as yet failed to comment or substantiate these ridiculous claims of it being as they quoted "UNLAWFUL" :irked::irked:
Nails<3
Well-Known Member
Well they won't as they did exactly the same last year and had no evidence to back up there stories. All they did was post links to their site.
They should be ashamed of themselves causing this hype again and not backing their info up.
steve@nouvatan
Well-Known Member
The Tests were only carried out on tanning solution up to 14% because that was all that tans went upto back then, DHA was found to be 100% safe even at 34% on tests on mice GRRRR !! :sad::sad: (booster drops are 34%) the fact that the report mentions it was tested as a spray up to and including 14% is fact ... But no where in the report does it say it would be ilegal or unlawful nor does it hint that it may be unsafe to use tanning agents above 14% DHA
Last edited:
Ambermist
Well-Known Member
In answer to Steve from Nouvtan's request to Ambermist ''to copy and paste part of the report that says it is illegal'' I would just like to state the following:
It is a little surprising that this company and other leading brands were not aware of this legislation. Also to bring other reputable companies into a debate on an open forum and challenge their interpretation of pending legislation is also surprising. This legislation has been pending for months and our experts, chemists etc have been working on it over that time. Basically, it is our understanding, all companies producing beauty products, including spray tan solution, will have to have them all independently tested and placed on this register by July 11th 2013. This means every product not just those over 14% DHA.
Our experts further interpretation of this legislation and others is as follows
This is a quote from the new legislation:
"As from 11 January 2012, a responsible person will have the possibility to notify through CPNP, by way of derogation from Directive 76/768/EEC, the information referred to in Article 13(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009. As from 11 July 2013, the use of CPNP will become mandatory." ( copy and pasted )
This is a quote from our chemist;
''understanding is that the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS - a committee that reviews the safety of cosmetic product and ingredients) opinion is that DHA is safe for use at 14% DHA. Although this is not law, I am finding our safety assessor refers to this opinion and will not approve products containing more than 14% DHA.''
We have also asked the question, '' is this neccesary?'' and received the following answer
"I am sure you are correct that some brands will not adhere to the new legislation, but I do feel it is a very dangerous game to play, as all of their competitors will have visibility of all products registered on the web portal,"
"All Cosmetic products that are to be registered on the European portal website need to pass the safety assessment & we have been told by our assessor that the inclusion level of DHA in excess of 14% for salon spray solutions will not pass the safety assessment.
Furthermore, companies supplying tanning solution to market will need to consider the implications on their Product Liability Insurance. If their products are in the market place without proper registration, then this may well compromise their insurance protection. Individual companies would be wise the check this out".
Again, as previously stated, this is expert opinion and as such Ambermist will take that advice and follow it, the health of our therapists and customers is always our primary concern, not just '' is it illegal''.
Ray Vidler
Ambermist
It is a little surprising that this company and other leading brands were not aware of this legislation. Also to bring other reputable companies into a debate on an open forum and challenge their interpretation of pending legislation is also surprising. This legislation has been pending for months and our experts, chemists etc have been working on it over that time. Basically, it is our understanding, all companies producing beauty products, including spray tan solution, will have to have them all independently tested and placed on this register by July 11th 2013. This means every product not just those over 14% DHA.
Our experts further interpretation of this legislation and others is as follows
This is a quote from the new legislation:
"As from 11 January 2012, a responsible person will have the possibility to notify through CPNP, by way of derogation from Directive 76/768/EEC, the information referred to in Article 13(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009. As from 11 July 2013, the use of CPNP will become mandatory." ( copy and pasted )
This is a quote from our chemist;
''understanding is that the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS - a committee that reviews the safety of cosmetic product and ingredients) opinion is that DHA is safe for use at 14% DHA. Although this is not law, I am finding our safety assessor refers to this opinion and will not approve products containing more than 14% DHA.''
We have also asked the question, '' is this neccesary?'' and received the following answer
"I am sure you are correct that some brands will not adhere to the new legislation, but I do feel it is a very dangerous game to play, as all of their competitors will have visibility of all products registered on the web portal,"
"All Cosmetic products that are to be registered on the European portal website need to pass the safety assessment & we have been told by our assessor that the inclusion level of DHA in excess of 14% for salon spray solutions will not pass the safety assessment.
Furthermore, companies supplying tanning solution to market will need to consider the implications on their Product Liability Insurance. If their products are in the market place without proper registration, then this may well compromise their insurance protection. Individual companies would be wise the check this out".
Again, as previously stated, this is expert opinion and as such Ambermist will take that advice and follow it, the health of our therapists and customers is always our primary concern, not just '' is it illegal''.
Ray Vidler
Ambermist
sparkle_beauty
Well-Known Member
But that doesn't state that it is going to be illegal from July and fresh indulgence are claiming from June it will be illegal to sell or use spray tan over 14%
Ambermist
Well-Known Member
We would like to point out we have never stated that solution above 14% DHA is going to be illegal. We are not associated with Fresh Indulgence in any way and have never corresponded with them.
However our chemists and the Scientific Committee of Consumer Safety have stated that DHA up to 14% is safe and above this, will not pass the safety assessment required from 11 July 2013.
However our chemists and the Scientific Committee of Consumer Safety have stated that DHA up to 14% is safe and above this, will not pass the safety assessment required from 11 July 2013.
Catherine S
Well-Known Member
Apologies for not responding until now, I had no idea this conversation was even going on. It's a little hurtful that I'm being accused by people like Baggybear for creating a "marketing ploy" - if you look at my original post, I was simply warning a user not to invest too heavily on a solution they won't be able to buy in the future.
All this talk of Fresh Indulgence "not responding" and so on is utterly ridiculous, as not a single person has bothered to call or email us about this except one, and she is the reason I am replying now.
I would not normally say something like this so publicly, Steve its my opinion that companies should never speak ill of each other so directly and publicly - but your comments and what you have implied about Fresh Indulgence have been rather shocking, and you leave me no choice but to defend ourselves. There is no way that you didn't know about this. You knew about it now, you knew about it when you brought out your high DHA solutions. It's not a secret and it's been known for years, yet the majority of brands in the UK have hidden this knowledge from their clients and decided to cash in on the trend for darker and darker tans while they could. I am not trying to come across as judgmental but it does annoy me that you're feigning ignorance on this.
When I said illegal, let's put it this way: every tanning solution must be safety assessed, and I am not aware of any safety assessor in the EU willing to give the all clear to a solution above 14%. Or are you going to say now that it's fine to ignore the EU directive and not get your solutions safety assessed, Steve? Seriously.
I really find it ridiculous that I am having to argue over this. How about let's not bicker, and let's just all come back to this thread in a couple of months and see how my "marketing ploy" is looking then.
Oh, and Nails<3, yes, Fresh Indulgence did post about this about a year ago. This post was about the findings of the SCCS, so the evidence we had to back up our "stories" was - that's right - the SCCS. This journal blog on our website was about the findings of this committee and that DHA % were likely to be limited some time in the future. We did not at that time make any claims about a definite change in the law. Now we are letting people know about a change in the law, because there is one. So please don't misinform people about what we said last year, and what we're saying now, there is quite a big difference.
All this talk of Fresh Indulgence "not responding" and so on is utterly ridiculous, as not a single person has bothered to call or email us about this except one, and she is the reason I am replying now.
I would not normally say something like this so publicly, Steve its my opinion that companies should never speak ill of each other so directly and publicly - but your comments and what you have implied about Fresh Indulgence have been rather shocking, and you leave me no choice but to defend ourselves. There is no way that you didn't know about this. You knew about it now, you knew about it when you brought out your high DHA solutions. It's not a secret and it's been known for years, yet the majority of brands in the UK have hidden this knowledge from their clients and decided to cash in on the trend for darker and darker tans while they could. I am not trying to come across as judgmental but it does annoy me that you're feigning ignorance on this.
When I said illegal, let's put it this way: every tanning solution must be safety assessed, and I am not aware of any safety assessor in the EU willing to give the all clear to a solution above 14%. Or are you going to say now that it's fine to ignore the EU directive and not get your solutions safety assessed, Steve? Seriously.
I really find it ridiculous that I am having to argue over this. How about let's not bicker, and let's just all come back to this thread in a couple of months and see how my "marketing ploy" is looking then.
Oh, and Nails<3, yes, Fresh Indulgence did post about this about a year ago. This post was about the findings of the SCCS, so the evidence we had to back up our "stories" was - that's right - the SCCS. This journal blog on our website was about the findings of this committee and that DHA % were likely to be limited some time in the future. We did not at that time make any claims about a definite change in the law. Now we are letting people know about a change in the law, because there is one. So please don't misinform people about what we said last year, and what we're saying now, there is quite a big difference.
MaisyMouse
Well-Known Member
Will we still be able to use the electric tan, I love it :biggrin:
Catherine S
Well-Known Member
Of course! 
The DHA percentage is below 14%.
Oh, and to answer people's questions on booster drops: I honestly don't know, and I have been wondering this myself. It may be that because it's not designed to go directly onto a person's skin neat, it will still be allowed, but it's something I am finding out about.
The DHA percentage is below 14%.Oh, and to answer people's questions on booster drops: I honestly don't know, and I have been wondering this myself. It may be that because it's not designed to go directly onto a person's skin neat, it will still be allowed, but it's something I am finding out about.
MaisyMouse
Well-Known Member
Of course!
Oh, and to answer people's questions on booster drops: I honestly don't know, and I have been wondering this myself. It may be that because it's not designed to go directly onto a person's skin neat, it will still be allowed, but it's something I am finding out about.
Perfect, I never contacted you about this as I am so happy with fresh indulgence tans, the best i have tried (and I've tried them all!!) so no need for me to use above a 14% :biggrin:
bladesgirl
Well-Known Member
I've just emailed my supplier, Sunless Solutions, who have also clarified that this is true, which is why they haven't produced a 16%
ProperPrincess
Well-Known Member
I'm going to back catherrine here. As soon as I got in touch...well lets say minutes later Catherine's response was posted!
ProperPrincess
Well-Known Member
Now who's going to be the first to apoligise? Nicely and professionally.....
sparkle_beauty
Well-Known Member
I think I understand it now, but I'm tired so just to make sure I've readit right,
It's not going to be illegal to produce above 14% but all solutions need to be passed tests before been sold?
Does this apply to all cosmetics? And if we as consumers wanted to know if the product had passed what would we ask the company for? X
It's not going to be illegal to produce above 14% but all solutions need to be passed tests before been sold?
Does this apply to all cosmetics? And if we as consumers wanted to know if the product had passed what would we ask the company for? X
steve@nouvatan
Well-Known Member
Catherine you knew that this thread was being discussed on geek, as customer of our who previously subscribed to your web site, was sent your automated news letter, she contacted you the day after you sent out your news letter. And other correspondence.
It's my opinion that words like illegal and unlawful and stating a date that these fictitional LAWS come into legality has caused a great deal of unnecessary anguish to any users/ buyers of 14% DHA and above.
To imply that we are unethical along with sienna, la tanning, vanity, OMG celebrity secrets and any one else I have missed out . And to imply that we would supply a solution to our customers that was deemed unsafe is quite frankly absurd , we pride our selves on providing top quality and trade marked and patented products.
unlike some companies who pass off cheap chineese copy's as a like for like product to make more profit.
If this was the LAW and your statement had an ounce of truth behind it we would remove it from our product range,
But the truth is that you lost a few of your customers to other companies because there clients prefer to have a range with higher percentage DHA solutions and to use tans that have a visible guide colour in them.
HEY NEWS FLASH ..... YOU WIN SOME YOU LOOSE SOME !
It's my opinion that words like illegal and unlawful and stating a date that these fictitional LAWS come into legality has caused a great deal of unnecessary anguish to any users/ buyers of 14% DHA and above.
To imply that we are unethical along with sienna, la tanning, vanity, OMG celebrity secrets and any one else I have missed out . And to imply that we would supply a solution to our customers that was deemed unsafe is quite frankly absurd , we pride our selves on providing top quality and trade marked and patented products.
unlike some companies who pass off cheap chineese copy's as a like for like product to make more profit.
If this was the LAW and your statement had an ounce of truth behind it we would remove it from our product range,
But the truth is that you lost a few of your customers to other companies because there clients prefer to have a range with higher percentage DHA solutions and to use tans that have a visible guide colour in them.
HEY NEWS FLASH ..... YOU WIN SOME YOU LOOSE SOME !
