I'm actually impressed that you pulled out the MSDS for this. I have a lot of experience reading these.
Can you tell me exactly which part you say, "EXPLICITLY STATES" that these proprietary ingredients are not classified as dangerous?
Section 2.1 is the part that talks about hazards, and it pretty clearly states that there are hazards involved with taking this. Which is why it gets the H203 classification.
3.2 talks about the proprietary ingredients, and states they're not classified. If they were confirmed not to be dangerous, they would be classified. Not being classified means it wasn't tested.
Which isn't uncommon in inactive ingredients in medications not designed for humans. Because they aren't going to risk testing things in people that they don't reasonably expect people to eat.
That is per 1910.1200 a5.iii, which discusses chemicals they don't need to label.
(iii) Any food, food additive, color additive, drug, cosmetic, or medical or veterinary device or product, including materials intended for use as ingredients in such products (e.g., flavors and fragrances), as such terms are defined in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) or the Virus-Serum-Toxin Act of 1913 (21 U.S.C. 151 et seq.), and regulations issued under those Acts, when they are subject to the labeling requirements under those Acts by either the Food and Drug Administration or the Department of Agriculture;
I'm actually impressed that you pulled out the MSDS for this. I have a lot of experience reading these.
Can you tell me exactly which part you say, "EXPLICITLY STATES" that these proprietary ingredients are not classified as dangerous?
Section 2.1 is the part that talks about hazards, and it pretty clearly states that there are hazards involved with taking this. Which is why it gets the H203 classification.
3.2 talks about the proprietary ingredients, and states they're not classified. If they were confirmed not to be dangerous, they would be classified. Not being classified means it wasn't tested.
Which isn't uncommon in inactive ingredients in medications not designed for humans. Because they aren't going to risk testing things in people that they don't reasonably expect people to eat.
That is per 1910.1200 a5.iii
(iii) Any food, food additive, color additive, drug, cosmetic, or medical or veterinary device or product, including materials intended for use as ingredients in such products (e.g., flavors and fragrances), as such terms are defined in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) or the Virus-Serum-Toxin Act of 1913 (21 U.S.C. 151 et seq.), and regulations issued under those Acts, when they are subject to the labeling requirements under those Acts by either the Food and Drug Administration or the Department of Agriculture;
I'm actually impressed that you pulled out the MSDS for this. I have a lot of experience reading these.
Can you tell me exactly which part you say, "EXPLICITLY STATES" that these proprietary ingredients are not classified as dangerous?
Section 2.1 is the part that talks about hazards, and it pretty clearly states that there are hazards involved with taking this. Which is why it gets the H203 classification.
3.2 talks about the proprietary ingredients, and states they're not classified. If they were confirmed not to be dangerous, they would be classified. Not being classified means it wasn't tested.
Which isn't uncommon in inactive ingredients in medications not designed for humans. Because they aren't going to risk testing things in people that they don't reasonably expect people to eat.
I'm actually impressed that you pulled out the MSDS for this. I have a lot of experience reading these.
Can you tell me exactly which part you say, "EXPLICITLY STATES" that these proprietary ingredients are not classified as dangerous?