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

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.

Re Starpol 3000 - FDA

Just checked my notes of the EGM of 6 November.

Oilywag asked about the 16 week period being up in December.

MW said "Starpol 3000 is a coextruded material of 3 layers like a sandwich. Two outer layers are PLA derived from corn starch. The filling is Thermoplastic starch from BioTec. Thermoplastic is considered to be a foodstuff coming typically from potato starch which does not need any approvals. PLA is a materialused by some supermarkets already for food contact. The only formal test we need to do is just to get a confirmation of the combination of the two materials put together would not be safe. There is no reason why two food contact materials put together would not be contact safe. We are waiting for that."

PL added "we are waiting for final approval"

IB "The development of the material is complete, it is being produced by a pilot machine."

Oilyway "Is it being tested in the States at the moment? ... as part of approval process".

MW "Yes, There are tests going on.."

Clear everyone?

As Starpol 3000 Tony!

Garyble,

Re your comment "You'll probably find that the FCSs are identified by their constituent names and not their brandnames". Yes that makes perfect sense.
As to the details on the FDA site, I did see it there, it was the none mention of 2000 or 3000 that threw me.
Your previous statement makes it clear.

Tony,
Your bit also helps. Looks like Starpol 3000 Approval (fingers crossed) is just a formality.

Cheers Greek.