Armitage72
Philosopher
I've been lurking for a while, but I was finally inspired to register and post...
I handle regulatory compliance for products at a chemical company in Western New York State. We recently got our first product certified by the Organic Material Review Institute (OMRI), which got me on the mailing list for their quarterly newletter.
The Winter 2012 edition had an interesting, i.e. depressing, Q&A column. I can't post a link to it, since I'm new, but a pdf can currently be found with a Google search for "OMRI Materials Review newsletter"
"analogous to the way that some allergies are treated, and to the administration of some vaccines."
Yeah, and sprinkling yourself with pixie dust and thinking happy thoughts is analogous to boarding an airplane.
"the intended substance is very often immeasurable by most tests that can be performed in a laboratory."
In other words, it's there but science isn't good enough to detect it. Getting into Sagan's Dragon territory there.
What they're actually saying is "We don't care if your overpriced tap water actually works, as long as the ingredients you pretend it contains are on our approved list...and you pay our annual certification fee."
It actually reminds me of when I worked for the Bureau of Pesticide Management at the NY Dept. of Environmental Conservation and queried the EPA about a capsaicin-based pigeon repellant gel that came across my desk. They responded that the manufacturer had submitted efficacy studies that supported registration, despite the fact that birds' nerve receptors are insensitive to capsaicin. In all likelihood, the "efficacy" was because the pigeons didn't like stepping in the sticky gel, but claiming chemical action from a "natural ingredient" allowed them to charge their customers more for it.
I handle regulatory compliance for products at a chemical company in Western New York State. We recently got our first product certified by the Organic Material Review Institute (OMRI), which got me on the mailing list for their quarterly newletter.
The Winter 2012 edition had an interesting, i.e. depressing, Q&A column. I can't post a link to it, since I'm new, but a pdf can currently be found with a Google search for "OMRI Materials Review newsletter"
"analogous to the way that some allergies are treated, and to the administration of some vaccines."
Yeah, and sprinkling yourself with pixie dust and thinking happy thoughts is analogous to boarding an airplane.
"the intended substance is very often immeasurable by most tests that can be performed in a laboratory."
In other words, it's there but science isn't good enough to detect it. Getting into Sagan's Dragon territory there.
What they're actually saying is "We don't care if your overpriced tap water actually works, as long as the ingredients you pretend it contains are on our approved list...and you pay our annual certification fee."
It actually reminds me of when I worked for the Bureau of Pesticide Management at the NY Dept. of Environmental Conservation and queried the EPA about a capsaicin-based pigeon repellant gel that came across my desk. They responded that the manufacturer had submitted efficacy studies that supported registration, despite the fact that birds' nerve receptors are insensitive to capsaicin. In all likelihood, the "efficacy" was because the pigeons didn't like stepping in the sticky gel, but claiming chemical action from a "natural ingredient" allowed them to charge their customers more for it.
