for more information about stanelco click on the links.

driver's research page link
http://www.moneyam.com/InvestorsRoom/posts.php?tid=7681#lastread
website link
http://www.stanelco.co.uk/index.htm

Sorry, I've missed a 3rd possibility.

3) Starpol 3000 has gained approval but SEO haven't told anyone.

I still go for 2), as it seems unlikely SEO wouldn't have told us - I'm sure they would have grabbed at any reasonably positive news to put out over the past couple of months.

From the open offer prospectus:

"Starpol 3000 - a family of multilayered thermoplastic materials with up to 100 per cent. biodegradability and sustainability. Starpol 3000 materials can combine the properties of different biodegradable materials to give higher functionality and competitive overall cost. Formulations of Starpol 3000 materials also provide gas and moisture barriers required for MAP matching industry standards. The product has completed initial stages of development and food contact approval is being sought"

Also:

"Starpol 3000 is the next product from Biotec and is nearing completion. The material is expected to provide barrier properties that are equal or better than traditional non-biodegradable plastics"

Prospectus is dated 9th October 2006.

Can an incomplete product be submitted for approval?

Well spotted Garbyle,then how could it have been submitted for approval early this year if it had not been fully developed or have I missed something?Infact strictly speaking you could say that as at 9/10/06 Starpol 3000 did not exist as it was "nearing completion"!

An Environment assessment on Starpol was approved by the FDA on 11th October 2005.
There is no FDA record of Starpol 2000 or Starpol 3000 being either submitted or assessed. Although the approval on 11th Oct 2005 includes Starpol 2000, although this (the approval of Starpol 2000 is not separately mentioned).
This leads me to believe that Starpol is the initial product name requiring assessment, with Starpol 3000 being assessed, without a separate FDA record as it is initially and fundamentally the same product with an added ingredient that by itself is not required to be tested. It it did require a full approval testing, why is there no FDA record of either submission or/and approval.
Are there any chemist, chemical type brains out there who can clarify, when a product improvement does or does not require an FDA full assesment.

The AGM statement said 3000 is expected to be confirmed as fully compliant under the same regulation and we expect approval in turn for this within weeks'


Would/should it have used the word 'approval' if it didn't need approval? And why the 'within' weeks if approval wasn't needed?

Greek,

FCN 558 is I think the approval of Starpol 2000:

Food Contact Substance {FCS}:
"1,4-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, dimethyl ester, polymer with 1,4-butanediol, adipic acid, hexamethylene diisocyanate and not more than 1 percent by weight of a polyhydric alcohol, as described in FCN 372."

Notifier/Manufacturer of the FCS:
Stanelco Plc

Intended Use:
For use in blends with food-contact polylactide polymers used to produce single use food-contact trays

Effective Date:
February 10, 2006

I also believe that each product in the range has to be approved due to varying chemical composition and possibly impacting of safe daily intake.

Oblomov,
Not saying it does not need approval, just asking if when a product that has been approved (Starpol 2000) and an improvement is made (Starpol 3000) is FULL testing required and approval required for the product as a whole or just for the added ingredient. The statement 'under the same regulation' ,could that mean it is only any none adverse effect of any additional substance. Just asking.
There is no record on the FDA site re submission or approval for Starpol 3000, which I find confusing.

Garyble,
Just read your post. It is strange that Starpol 2000 is still not mentioned on the FDA site.
Did you find your info via the SEO site as I did re Starpol 2000.
FCN 558 relates to Starpol on the FDA site (2000) is not mentioned.
I will stay confused.

You're not the only confused, greek.

My last few emails to SEO have gone unanswered or I'd ask if they could clear up the confusion. Does anyone have any more success than me communicating with them?

oblomove
i e/mailed them a couple of times, i didn't get an answer either not even the mandatory one

still in ftse then

On one BB someone posted that Sylvia was on holiday and that a temp was there, lets hope so?

Kicked out of Small Cap to Fledgling index.

http://www.ftse.com/tech_notices/2006/Q4/FTSE_UK_Review.xls

http://www.ftse.com/tech_notices/2006/Q4/FTSE_UK_Review.xls

http://www.ftse.com/tech_notices/2006/Q4/FTSE_UK_Review.xls

Well done Stanelco!!

Demoted, no news, no contracts, no income!!

It's now up or extinction!!

Schroders must have known this was going to happen - Let us hope it is a temporary situation.

As I have said the clock is ticking and time is not on their side.


Where are these elusive/alledged contracts?

may all at seo have a very shitty xmas.

Greek,

FCN 558 and the info I posted is on the FDA site {will post link later}.

You'll probably find that the FCSs are identified by their constituent names and not their brandnames. Also, as Starpols are simply blends of existing approved substances with the odd "top secret" ingredient. it maybe only the additional elements with reference to the pre-existing FCSs that need a mention.