From: Ralph B. Stuart <rstuart**At_Symbol_Here**CORNELL.EDU>
Subject: [DCHAS-L] GHS Busters
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 18:09:41 +0000
Reply-To: DCHAS-L <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU>
Message-ID: 5564F9EDC11C09468EE5DAF02B5CB30F4C48E474**At_Symbol_Here**

I noticed an interesting article at
about the challenge of GHS:

What does GHS stand for?

The Excercise
Chemwatch have undertaken a systematic comparison of GHS classification published by official sources in:

Europe (ECHA)
Japan (NITE)
New Zealand (CCID)
Korea (NIER)
A total of 12,452 Substances were reviewed.

Interestingly there was very little overlap between Substances reviewed by any two Jurisdictions - Korea and New Zealand reviewed 1494 Substances in common.

However, where Substances in common where assigned GHS Classifications, fewer than 8% were in agreement - New Zealand and the European Union agreed on only 75 Substances of 939 Substances.

In summary:

< 8% Harmonisation between any 2 Jurisdictions
< 0.6% Harmonisation between any 3 Jurisdictions
I'm not quite sure of what to make of this data. I wonder if anyone on the list has done international comparisons that include the US?

- Ralph

Ralph Stuart CIH
Chemical Hygiene Officer
Department of Environmental Health and Safety
Cornell University


Previous post   |  Top of Page   |   Next post

The content of this page reflects the personal opinion(s) of the author(s) only, not the American Chemical Society, ILPI, Safety Emporium, or any other party. Use of any information on this page is at the reader's own risk. Unauthorized reproduction of these materials is prohibited. Send questions/comments about the archive to
The maintenance and hosting of the DCHAS-L archive is provided through the generous support of Safety Emporium.