Good observations, David. The very big companies do a pretty good job of writing MSDSs and the quality gets worse as the companies get smaller. And MSDSs are completely impossible when they are generated by very small art supply businesses I deal with that are essentially two guys in a garage.
And the whole concept of the MSDS is flawed since OSHA asks the manufacturer of a product to document all the reasons you probably shouldn't buy the stuff. It is a built in conflict of interest and spin is alive and well on the MSDS.
It still might work if there was some oversight. No one really looks hard at MSDSs until the manufacturer is involved in an OSHA investigation or the lawyers subpoena them in the discovery phase of a suit for damages.
And now OSHA is entertaining Global Harmonization proposals which would remove even more information from the MSDSs including the PELs. So excuse me while I get back to writing my objections to send in before the December 21 deadline.
You are 1000% correct in your description of MSDSs--they are not reliable.
As you have said, there is no requirement that they tell the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
However, some suppliers in fact do have reliable MSDSs. DuPont comes to
mind as an outstanding example. Ashland Chemical is another.
Previous post | Top of Page | Next post