Velvia 100 Discontinued in the U.S.

[Mackinaw]

Because of EPA regs.

https://petapixel.com/2021/07/06/fu...ntinue-velvia-100-film-in-the-u-s-by-the-epa/

Jim B.

 

[flavio81]

Velvia 50 is safe... don't panic, people!

 

[BrianShaw]

Well that’s a shame. Too bad for us.

 

[bluechromis]

Bummer.

 

[Cholentpot]

Pour one out for the homies.

(did I do it right?)

 

[mshchem]

What a steaming load of horsecrap. I bet Kodak turned them in. Well this just puts chrome films into the stratosphere, price wise. NUTS!

 

[grat]

https://www.fujifilm.com/us/en/business/professional-photography/film/velvia-100#

 

[mshchem]

What about Provia?

 

[mooseontheloose]

Also just came across this article, confirmed by Fujifilm itself, about Velvia 100 being discontinued in the US by September of this year (manufacture and processing). From what I can tell, this won't affect the rest of the world (yet). I have to admit I don't shoot a lot of slides these days, but when I do, it's always Fuji (easier and cheaper to get here in Japan). That said, I hate to see any film leave the market.

 

[Ten301]

Okay, so I’ve got 20 years worth of frozen E6 films from Agfa, Fuji, Kodak and Konica, frozen since new. I have no idea if any used this chemical in manufacture over that time. So the question: is this just a uniquely Velvia 100 thing in the history of emulsion chemistry, or is the EPA going to produce a list of films (past and present), or are labs just going to start refusing anything but current, known emulsions that the EPA has green lighted? I’m sorry, I’m an environmental nut, but I think the EPA is going a bit overboard with this, and especially the timeframe. At least give Fuji time to rework Velvia 100 if they choose to do so.

 

[AgX]

This announcement is one of the biggest nonsense I ever read.

 

[AgX]

Okay, so I’ve got 20 years worth of frozen E6 films from Agfa, Fuji, Kodak and Konica, frozen since new. I have no idea if any used this chemical in manufacture over that time. So the question: is this just a uniquely Velvia 100 thing in the history of emulsion chemistry, or is the EPA going to produce a list of films (past and present), or are labs just going to start refusing anything but current, known emulsions that the EPA has green lighted?

Read the EPA document and you will see the nonsense.

 

[faberryman]

Okay, so I’ve got 20 years worth of frozen E6 films from Agfa, Fuji, Kodak and Konica, frozen since new.

How many rolls of E6 do you shoot each year, say a ballpark average over the past five years? I am trying to imagine the size of your freezer.

 

[Lachlan Young]

This sounds awfully like Fuji not resolving a known issue in sufficient time - for whatever reason.

 

[reddesert]

When a Federal agency proposes a regulation, there is generally (maybe always) a substantial lead-in period for comment during which affected parties can give their opinions, ask for exemptions, suggest modifications, complain about its effect on their business, etc. Obviously I have no idea whether Fujifilm did this, and the EPA nevertheless issued a blanket ban. But it does kind of sound like they missed a chance to argue that the trace amounts of phenol should be permitted.

 

[DREW WILEY]

It might be just too much fuss and expense to re-tweak this product for sake of one country, especially since they already have a reasonably close substitute choice. Ordinarily EU enviro standards for chemicals are far more strict than the US, so who knows what will happen there down the line.

Try to keep in mind that the EPA was severely budget hamstrung and understaffed under the previous administration, and that there has been a pandemic going on. With all kinds of horrific Superfund sites and ongoing gross pollution violations to deal with, the question of a single more stop of necessary exposure in a tiny overall market is not likely to get priority attention.

It's either blanket rulings or endless nitpicky haggling. That's always seemingly been the case with the EPA. Some rulings have made a lot of sense over the long run when it comes to public safety, while certain other stipulations make you scratch your head. But somebody has to do the job, and it's often a hazardous despised line of work.

 

[grat]

This announcement is one of the biggest nonsense I ever read.

Ah. Let me hand you an even larger piece of nonsense. I present, for your consideration, Proposition 65:

Proposition 65 (formally titled The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986) is a California law passed by direct voter initiative in 1986 by a 63%–37% vote. Its goals are to protect drinking water sources from toxic substances that cause cancer and birth defects and to reduce or eliminate exposures to those chemicals generally, such as consumer products, by requiring warnings in advance of those exposures.

By itself, it's not unreasonable. But any item that contains any amount of a known carcinogen, even if it's present in an immutable, inaccessible form, must be labeled. Most hammers for sale in this country carry a Prop. 65 label, along with Starbucks coffee-- in spite of the fact that you'd have to eat several hundred hammers (or drink a few thousand gallons of coffee a day) to run any statistical risk of cancer, and the side effects of trying would likely be far deadlier than the actual carcinogen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_California_Proposition_65#Controversy_and_claimed_abuse

 

[Ten301]

How many rolls of E6 do you shoot each year, say a ballpark average over the past five years? I am trying to imagine the size of your freezer.

A big freezer, but I shoot a lot as well. Not just E6, but C41, ECN-2 and B&W. If it was made or loaded in the past 20-25 years in 35mm by any manufacturer, I still have it frozen since new, before its expiration date. Now kept at -15F from advice gleaned on here. I know it’s silly. Just part of my OCD personality, I guess. It only manifests in two areas: film and GAS, so it’s definitely photography-related, but at least it’s a healthy vice, which I enjoy and have fun with. Could be worse things. And my doctor agrees...haha.

 

[grat]

Interestingly, the EPA document does have this exception:

The following are excluded from the prohibition in this final rule:

• Processing and distribution in commerce of PIP (3:1) for use in photographic printing articles and PIP (3:1)-containing photographic printing articles until January 1, 2022.

 

[mshchem]

I'm sure this has been in the works for sometime, no surprise to Fujifilm. I've been on the other side of this kind of thing. When the US appliance industry changed to more ozone friendly chemicals in foam insulation. There was animal testing, chemical migration into food testing, lawyers and lawyers, experts. In the end these chemicals were listed as GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe)
Fuji isn't going to spend a penny trying to argue the point. I would expect that Velvia 100 will be history. Hopefully this won't doom Provia and Velvia 50.

 

[lantau]

The relevant chemical has been classified as a 'Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Chemical' (PBT) in the US. In the EU it is still under review. So count on it being banned there as well, eventually.

And when you read the EPA ruling you'll realise that it also becomes illegal to process Velvia 100 after the September deadline. That may well be why Fuji stops sales immediately. To give time to use and process all remaining product in US circulation.

Release into water seems to be the primary concern, and hence I think there was no chance for film to get an exception.

 

[Ernst-Jan]

Okay, so I’ve got 20 years worth of frozen E6 films from Agfa, Fuji, Kodak and Konica, frozen since new. I have no idea if any used this chemical in manufacture over that time. So the question: is this just a uniquely Velvia 100 thing in the history of emulsion chemistry, or is the EPA going to produce a list of films (past and present), or are labs just going to start refusing anything but current, known emulsions that the EPA has green lighted? I’m sorry, I’m an environmental nut, but I think the EPA is going a bit overboard with this, and especially the timeframe. At least give Fuji time to rework Velvia 100 if they choose to do so.

Yes they will. Send the film to me and I will take the responsibility for environment friendly disposal

 

[perkeleellinen]

Opportunity for Kodak to make a punchy Ektachrome 100 which is something some posters alluded to earlier in the year.

 

[AgX]

It might be just too much fuss and expense to re-tweak this product for sake of one country, especially since they already have a reasonably close substitute choice. Ordinarily EU enviro standards for chemicals are far more strict than the US, so who knows what will happen there down the line.

Try to keep in mind that the EPA was severely budget hamstrung and understaffed under the previous administration, and that there has been a pandemic going on. With all kinds of horrific Superfund sites and ongoing gross pollution violations to deal with, the question of a single more stop of necessary exposure in a tiny overall market is not likely to get priority attention.

It's either blanket rulings or endless nitpicky haggling. That's always seemingly been the case with the EPA. Some rulings have made a lot of sense over the long run when it comes to public safety, while certain other stipulations make you scratch your head. But somebody has to do the job, and it's often a hazardous despised line of work.

Well, the EPA regulation is not a as blanket ruling as you put it. There are many exemptions, just these reason me calling it nonsense, and there even is longer phasing-out period especially for the photographic business. Though I doubt that with these the homeopathic amounts in that very Fuji film were on their minds.


I admit banning a substance, moreover with major exemptions, is a tricky endeavour, not only bulk, versus small, but also surface area, binder, possibility of contact, chance for deposit in nature, to name just a very few, have to be regarded.

 

[afriman]

Ah. Let me hand you an even larger piece of nonsense. I present, for your consideration, Proposition 65:


By itself, it's not unreasonable. But any item that contains any amount of a known carcinogen, even if it's present in an immutable, inaccessible form, must be labeled. Most hammers for sale in this country carry a Prop. 65 label, along with Starbucks coffee-- in spite of the fact that you'd have to eat several hundred hammers (or drink a few thousand gallons of coffee a day) to run any statistical risk of cancer, and the side effects of trying would likely be far deadlier than the actual carcinogen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_California_Proposition_65#Controversy_and_claimed_abuse

What amazes me is that you can freely buy as many paracetamol tablets as you like, when even a moderate overdose can severely damage your liver and even be fatal. In contrast, several comparatively innocuous substances are either verboten or severely restricted.