Can a supplier distinguish no observed effect from proof that no effect is possible?
Last reviewed: .
Can a supplier distinguish no observed effect from proof that no effect is possible?
Yes: each of the four studies the company names reports its result for one endpoint, on one sample, under that study’s conditions, and none of them is offered as proof that no effect is possible.
The Validation page states that NanoFlashing™ is tested under Good Laboratory Practice to US EPA Health Effects Test Guidelines, and it names Product Safety Labs, Study 65321, Study 65322, Study 65323 and Study 65324. Each was completed in 2024 and each was run on a sponsor-supplied sample. Each of the four covers one endpoint. Product Safety Labs, Study 65323, completed 16 February 2024, reported that the material it tested “is classified as non-irritating to the skin”, and Study 65324, completed 31 January 2024, reported that the material it tested “is not considered to be a contact sensitizer”; each result describes that sample under that study’s conditions.
Each of those studies describes one endpoint, on that sample, under those conditions. None of them establishes an agency approval, a general safety conclusion, an inhalation result or a health outcome, and irritation and sensitisation are separate endpoints answered by separate studies. A copy may be made available on our review of the request. Confidentiality obligations may apply to a given report.
Source: C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; Product Safety Labs, Study 65321, Study 65322, Study 65323 and Study 65324, 2024, US EPA Health Effects Test Guidelines; C-POLAR — Terms of Use, section 3, https://cpolar.tech/terms/.
Reviewed on .
Sources
- C-POLAR — Validation
- Product Safety Labs, Study 65321, Study 65322, Study 65323 and Study 65324, 2024, US EPA Health Effects Test Guidelines
- C-POLAR — Terms of Use