Illegal from June to offer more than a 14% tan

[steve@nouvatan]

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

So how did your EXPERT come up with that ??? No where does it say that it will be illegal or that it is unsafe in the original quote from the report. It merely states that DHA was deemed safe as a spray when tested upto 14% ... They only tested upto 14% because that was what they were given to test. and at the time of the test the solution manufacturer chosen to participate in those tests only produced tan to 14%
our legal team along with the other tanning companies have been through this legislation thoroughly.
To imply that we and other companies are acting Ilegally, unlawfully, and are providing a solution that is untested and dangerous and for a company to send out emails that account to untruths and scare Mongering in a vain hope to Gain business . In our minds is totally unethical

 

[steve@nouvatan]

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

NO !!!!!! it doesn't say that at all ... It simply says that someone has to be responsible for the products a company produces .. It is law we are all adhering too in July ourselves included. it has to be on your label the name stated is the analytical chemist who tested the solution to ensure he is going to be responsible for its safety. Different companies use different analytical chemistry/ testing facilities. our chemist is willing to put his name to our product as safe
BUT The chemist who works for FI and amber mist is not willing to put his name to be responsible for anything produced above 14% so anything they produced above 14% would be illegal so there was some truth in the original Email .. However
WE ARE WILLING TO BACK OUR PRODUCT AND TAKE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF OUR HIGHER DHA SOLUTIONS !!
our insurers are more than happy to allow us to carry on producing higher DHA solutions ... So if you want a higher DHA solution or a rapid Tan that is insured and totally legally produced CALL US !!!
I am bowing out of this now and this is my final post on this Matter.... If you look back on my posts, you will know I am always honest. When other companies were selling tanning machines from china that cost £18 to buy and were selling them for 400 I exposed them. When companies were offering cheap tents that cost pennies for £65 i exposed them,
TAN ON GEEKS X X X

 

[Lush-Lash]

Thanks Steve, i totally understand now, so we can stock higher than 14% phew, thanks for your last post for explaining it clearly x

 

[Tan Envy]

A chemists "opinion" is not law. Again I would reiterate that EU directives and legislation are usually very clearly outlined, effectively communicated and not hard to misinterpret.

Sure, the % used in the test was 14% - that is quite clear and yes, all products are required to be registered - that is also quite clear.

We most certainly would not have recently developed and released a 15% DHA product if there was any pending legislation deeming this product "illegal" or unsafe.

I hate to throw a spanner in the works but what about products containing say 11% DHA and 4% Erythulose?? Erythulose is very similar in its chemical composition to DHA -would this product be breaking the imaginary 14% threshold?

It is safe to say that manufacturers, salon owners and heck even people using above 10% DHA products for home use will not be breaking any laws nor will they be putting their health at risk.

Happy spraying (in whatever % you like).....

 

[hellishbellish]

I don't use the brand myself, but why would a huge brand like Fake Bake launch a fast tan if this is the impending law? I'm pretty sure they would have known about it before spending thousands on getting it made and tested.

 

[sparkle_beauty]

Thank you Steve I'm happy now I love my nouvatan 16% xx

 

[umvemve]

I don't use the brand myself, but why would a huge brand like Fake Bake launch a fast tan if this is the impending law? I'm pretty sure they would have known about it before spending thousands on getting it made and tested.

How great can they be, Fake Bake UK just folded.

 

[Baggybear]

....................... 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.

................................................................

I am sorry if your upset by what I have said but I have said what I think & I stand by it. It seems your picking and choosing what to respond to though, if you have read all the replies to the 2 threads about this (this one and the original one you posted in).

I believe you used very STRONG wording and have still not made the situation 100% clear. From what other tanning companies have found out it seems you have twisted words or used different words to make it fit what you want it to, this is where I felt it may be a 'marketing ploy' & have not seen a anything to prove my thinking wrong yet.

For example I asked several questions which still have not been answered yet:
Who will enforce the ban of higher DHA solutions?
What will happen to those therapists who continue to use high DHA solutions?
Who would we report high DHA use to?
What are the reasons for banning higher than 14% DHA solutions (my clients will want to know this)?

If it will be illegal to use above 14% DHA products all the questions above have answers, if it is not going to be illegal they don't have answers.

So far I don't have answers to any of those questions and I feel it's not going to be illegal to use above 14% DHA.

 

[Catherine S]

Steve:

We only received one email in response to our mention of the law change in our newsletter, and it read: "Is this really harmful? Can you send me the link please to the SCCS, I tried to look online but couldn't find anything? " - to which I replied immediately. How exactly I am to guess from such an email that there is a thread on salongeek, only you can tell me! I'm not even sure what your point is trying to 'prove' that I would intentionally ignore a salongeek thread. I suppose that's called grasping at straws.

But Steve, I don't need to imply you're supplying a solution deemed as unsafe. Because you are. That is just a fact. You are choosing to ignore the recommendations of the SCCS and now the EU, and make something they deem as unsafe. It's not me saying it, it's the EU! You have every right to disagree with the scientific research and with the new EU regulations, but take it up with them, not me. And if you're going to keep supplying this to your customers, I really hope you plan on putting some kind of disclaimer on them to let people know they have not been safety assessed so that people are at least making an informed decision (particularly if insurance companies take action on this). Remember that when you sell a tanning solution, you are not only responsible to your own customers, but their clients also. The vast majority of people do not know about these studies, nor the new regulations. Would they want 18% on their skin if they did?

Yes, I know your solution is of high quality, I have never said otherwise and that is not the issue here.

Yes, we lost a LOT of customers because some people prefer a range with a higher percentage DHA. You are not telling me something I don't know. But when that trend for darker and darker began, we had a decision to make: do we introduce a high DHA solution, knowing that science has proven that DHA percentages over 12% are basically ineffective (that is not to say that these solutions don't make you darker, but it's not the DHA that's doing it)? Do we overload people's skins with unnecessary amounts of chemicals for our own profit? Our answer had to be no. It didn't fit with our company ethos. We can't tell people we believe in a natural tan made with healthy ingredients and then sell them a 20%. That was our decision.

 

[hellishbellish]

How great can they be, Fake Bake UK just folded.

What?!

 

[Catherine S]

It's very difficult to respond to every single person and every single point when there are six pages of comments, Baggy. You're also asking me to give you answers to questions about what is going to happen in the future, to which I do not have every answer.

I think a major mistake Steve and others like yourself keep making is a distortion of the facts about how this discussion has even arisen. Fresh Indulgence have done two things. First of all, I as somebody you all know to be associated with Fresh Indulgence, posted on another thread to a customer saying she needed a dark tan, to be careful about stocking up too much on it because of the change in the law this summer. That's not called a "marketing ploy" as you put it, it's called being a normal human being and not just watching somebody walk into trouble. I don't know what brand she's going to use - if she is going to use a brand like Nouvatan that is going to ignore scientific opinion and contravene the new EU directive, I guess she'll be just fine - but a large number of brands aren't willing to take that risk and they are withdrawing their high DHA % solutions. I thus did not want to see this lady get stuck with a bunch of 18% from somewhere and then have to tell her customers "sorry, I can't spray you with that any more."

Secondly, we devoted 63 words of our newsletter to informing people about the changes to the EU law this summer. We sent this to people on our own mailing list, i.e. people who were Fresh Indulgence customers. That is called looking after your customers and keeping them informed.

If people decide to start discussing this on salongeek, fine, but it is a bit of a wild leap to try and say that we are behind it or somehow fueling it for exposure when you're talking about a private email between us and our customers. If this was all planned by us then don't you think we'd have been all over this from page one of the discussion, and not page 5?


"What are the reasons for banning higher than 14% DHA solutions (my clients will want to know this)?" - You already know the answer to this. The new EU directive is based upon the findings of the SCCS, who recommend up to 14% for tanning solutions and up to 10% for home use products (and yes, this is going to be yet another change in the future. We're already getting emails from our cosmetic chemists about taking action now on it). This is what they have assessed as safe.

I doubt it's that they've tested the difference between 13.8%, 14% and 14.2% for years and decided that 14% is the exact and precise percentage at which no harm is done. It probably has a lot to do with the qualities of DHA and the simple fact that it is ineffective beyond this level for tanning human skin. Steve in all his fabricated "honesty" will come on here and argue this until he is blue in the face, I am sure, but with all due respect to him (what little I have left after this), he's no researcher or scientist. He's a guy with a profit motive. Talk to any cosmetic chemist, read any study you like on DHA... DHA at higher levels than 12-14% is pointless. If the tan is making you darker, it's NOT because of the DHA.

DHA does increase the number of free radicals in your skin making it more vulnerable to the sun's rays, so no one can ever claim that it is a completely harmless ingredient at any concentration, so why risk it? Why put in 18% or 20% when you know it does nothing of any use, but may do potential harm? Why would anybody in their right mind EVER want to put in an excess of any chemical which they know to be achieving nothing? For money, nothing else.


"What will happen to those therapists who continue to use high DHA solutions?" - I would assume nothing. The EU directive has made it quite clear that the responsibility to conform lies with the brands themselves. However, therapists should be very careful to check out the stance of their own insurance on this, because in my experience, insurance companies will use any excuse to wriggle out of a claim. Make sure whatever solution you are using has been safety assessed and has passed, at the very least.

"Who would we report high DHA use to?" - all manufacturers have access now to an online portal, where we can check out the credentials of others and report bad practice. So you just need to report it to any main brand.

"Who will enforce the ban of higher DHA solutions?" - this remains to be seen, and there is a huge amount of confusion on this right now. I made a call last night and even the 'go to' guy we've been given the contact information of who directly represents the EU on this new directive is unclear about how this will be enforced and how quickly. But be under no illusions that this is serious. Steve can dismiss the whole thing all he wants but just look at how many companies are pulling their above 14% solutions off the shelves. Make up a fake name and call generic solution manufacturers (most of the sellers of cheap solution buy from one of three factories and stick their own label on), ask them for a dark solution, tell me how many are willing to manufacture it for you (none). Have a look at any big high street stores and see what their rules are on what they can now stock.

This is not something I've just made up off the top of my head, Baggy. This is real. Sure, I don't know all the facts, I don't know the ins and outs of every single piece of legislation and how it's going to be enforced, but I am not a lawyer and even if I was I'd probably still be unclear until all of this actually happens this summer. What I do know is that this is real, this is serious, and I have absolutely no regrets about the decision of the company I work for to share this information with our customers. They have every right to know and I consider it our responsibility to share it with them.

I understand that people are upset and frustrated, because they love their high DHA solutions, but come on... talk about shooting the messenger.

 

[Decadence]

well this has got us very confussed indeed, we have checked the HABIA website and there is no news of this, we have had no notification from BABTAC, we have just recieved mays issue of the Guild News no mention there, and in Professional Beauty they seem to be keeping a lid on this as well.

One mite think that they may wish to let the therapists no about this law coming in ?

Well thats if there is one !

Regards
Mandy and John
www.decadencenailsandbeauty.co.uk

 

[Catherine S]

They probably don't know. I know the writers at The Salon magazine didn't.

 

[Decadence]

Perhaps, maybe a phone call to BABTAC and HABIA on tuesday then to clarify this !

Regards
Mandy and John
www.decadencenailsandbeauty.co.uk

 

[Ambermist]

Without predudice. I feel the same as Catherine from Fresh Indulgence about companies talking ill of each other, especially in open forums, very unprofessional, but Steve from Nouvtan leaves us with no choice.
Can I remind everyone of these post's from Steve at NOUVTAN;

01/05/13 "we would have heard about it, and we have nt"
01/05/13 "produce 1000's of litres a year, heard nothing about this new law"
02/05/13 "read the report fully today"
03/05/13 "accuse Fresh Indulgence of having " failed to comment or substanciate these ridiculous claims"
03/05/13 unsubstantiated comment "safe at 34% on tests on mice"
03/05/13 10.48pm, In direct response to Ambermist posting states "for a company to send out emails that account to untruths and scare Mongering in a vain hope to gain business, In our minds is totally unethical"
03/0513 " 11.12 pm (24 mins later!!!) " It is a law we are all adhering to in July, ourselves Included" "If you look back at my posts, you will know I am always honest"

There is not much to add to this without mudslinging but I would suggest Steve that you keep to your word, " I am bowing out of this now and this is my final post on this Matter...." because in my opinion you have libelled one company and are very close to libelling another. Ambermist have stated the facts and nothing more, if this comment is not blatant marketing perhaps you could tell me what is? "So if you want a higher DHA solution or a rapid Tan that is insured and totally legally produced CALL US !!!

Ray Vidler,
Ambermist

 

[umvemve]

What?!

Something to do with Fake Back UK only - have a look on the SG homepage there's an article. I did see that the products will be available via Scotland so you will still be able to get them. Sorry if that made you panic! x

 

[Baggybear]

So if I have understood the information correctly, for me as a therapist:

*If the high DHA solutions are still available from a supplier then I can buy them and nothing will happen to me.
*If I continue to use high DHA after the deadline nothing will happen to me and there will be nowhere to report me to.
*I should check with my insurance where I stand but if they say carry on - then I can with no changes & nothing will happen to me.

So it won't be illegal for me to continue using high DHA solutions as normal so long as the supplier still sells it and insurance company agree I can carry on as normal.

If I am correct in the above then it means Tuesday will be another busy day on the phones for the tanning companies and the insurance providers too.

 

[hellishbellish]

Something to do with Fake Back UK only - have a look on the SG homepage there's an article. I did see that the products will be available via Scotland so you will still be able to get them. Sorry if that made you panic! x

I don't use that company so no worries on that front for me, was just shocked

 

[sparkle_beauty]

I'm still so confused!! Firstly fresh indulgence stated that it would be illegal to buy or use but in the statement above that to me says that it's not illegal aslong as it has been passed by a chemist??
And the legislation that I've read basically says that tanning solution up to 14% is deemed safe but they have not tested above 14% as at the time of testing it wasn't available.
That to me does not say above 14% is unsafe.

 

[Bubba82]

From how i understand it (and please correct me if i'm wrong) the EU legislation will only pass spray tanning solutions of 14% and below DHA anything above this will not pass legislation so if you use it you are taking a risk. I would imagine insurance companies won't cover spray tanning of over 14% DHA as the product won't be deemed safe by the EU legislation