From: "BIALKE, THOMAS" <tbialke**At_Symbol_Here**KENT.EDU>
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] GHS Busters
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 20:33:32 +0000
Reply-To: DCHAS-L <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU>
Message-ID: 6424891665D5D6458A1FABB209925C2C30B841D8**At_Symbol_Here**
In-Reply-To <8D0B4FE14FEB1B0-6B0-4F9BD**At_Symbol_Here**>

I would bet that if you conducted that survey prior to GHS implantation, especially in the US you would get zero agreement. So 8% is an improvement. Far from perfect, but what did Chemwatch offer as a solution?


It is so easy to find fault and condemn an program without offering a solution.


Witness the Affordable Care Act.


Right now, GHS is the best we have.



Thomas Bialke


From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:dchas-l**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU] On Behalf Of Monona Rossol
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 1:25 PM
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] GHS Busters


Thank you Ralph.   That supports what I'm seeing very well. I already wrote an article about that Canadian study of incorrect flash points.  


What it really boils down to is people are not reading the definitions and just making the same assumptions about their chemicals that they have always made.  


As long as there is no MSDS and no SDS oversight, why would manufacturers spend any more time or expertise writing their SDSs than they did their MSDSs.  Just get something out that looks right has been and still apparently is:  THE RULE.


And that is an established global system.

Monona Rossol, M.S., M.F.A., Industrial Hygienist

President:  Arts, Crafts & Theater Safety, Inc.

Safety Officer: Local USA829, IATSE

181 Thompson St., #23

New York, NY 10012     212-777-0062



-----Original Message-----
From: Ralph B. Stuart <rstuart**At_Symbol_Here**CORNELL.EDU>
Sent: Thu, Nov 21, 2013 1:13 pm
Subject: [DCHAS-L] GHS Busters

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.