From: Monona Rossol <actsnyc**At_Symbol_Here**>
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] GHS Busters
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 13:44:02 -0500
Reply-To: DCHAS-L <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU>
Message-ID: 8D0B5C9F2740C92-21A0-58CB2**At_Symbol_Here**
In-Reply-To <74641.772d4d08.3fc0b69a**At_Symbol_Here**>

If there were a list of chemicals and their proper GHS classifications, that would also make oversight a snap.  Do I hear, faintly off in the distance, hoofbeats?
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: Michelle Sullivan <Sulliva1**At_Symbol_Here**AOL.COM>
Sent: Fri, Nov 22, 2013 9:25 am
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] GHS Busters

The lists that are in the Chemwatch article are government lists of chemical classifications/hazards from the Japanese, New Zealand and South Korean governments.
There is another study done by the UN GHS secretariat. They compared the transportation hazards to the EU CLP/GHS hazards, "GHS classification of dangerous goods most commonly carried: comparison between transport classification and EU CLP Regulation". This paper which is posted on the UN GHS website shows a similar lack of harmonized hazard classifications.
The EU ECHA Classification and Labeling Inventory that records industry GHS hazards also shows the lack of harmonization. For example there are 69 entries for acetone and 119 for toluene.
However, the UN GHS subcommittee is aware of this lack of harmonization. They are looking at approaches to developing a global list that would have harmonized hazard classifications for chemicals.The USA government is chairing the UN working group looking at developing this globally harmonized list of chemicals classified according to the GHS. 
Michele R. Sullivan, Ph.D.
MRS Associates

a message dated 11/21/2013 1:11:56 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, rstuart**At_Symbol_Here**CORNELL.EDU writes:
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.