The GHS was a terrific step forward in three ways – comprehensibility, globalization (in that it provided a ready-made system for countries that could not develop their own), and trade. But it has a serious flaw compared to the original OSHA Hazcom standard. (Full disclosure – I was a member of the coordinating committee that designed the SDS and labeling systems.) For some endpoints, the GHS takes a “weight of the evidence” approach, whereas the old OSHA standard mandated that a single positive well-conducted study was enough to establish carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, etc.  Weight of the evidence determinations can vary widely, and sometimes for reasons unrelated to the scientific evidence.  We’ve seen wildly different SDSs for the same chemical. Sometimes the same manufacturer will classify the same chemical differently in different jurisdictions. Clearly, this is not a science-based decision.

 

This is less a problem in the USA than in some other countries, because the easiest way for a manufacturer to lose a big product liability case is to withhold information from users. Thank God for our contingent-fee tort system. But we’ve still seen plenty of discrepancies.

 

I’ll leave to the lawyers whether OSHA could go back to the “one positive study” approach without running afoul of trade law. But even if they can’t, they could make it harder for a classifier to ignore positive studies. One way would be to require a transparent, publically available analysis, disclosing the evidence relied on and the evidence rejected, for any “weight of the evidence”  determination. Some of us discussed that possibility with OSHA during the Obama Administration, and some preliminary efforts were underway, but of course they ended in 2017.

 

Fortunately, OSHA’s current Hazcom rulemaking provides a splendid opportunity to push this issue again. The initial comment period ended last week, but hearings are scheduled for September, so there will be plenty of chances for written and oral testimony and post-hearing comments.  I know OSHA would welcome participation by members of the DCHAS.

 

 

 

> Requiring references is the norm in published scientific literature, why not this standard of quality and traceability in SDSs as a key source of information?

 

I think I can suggest the reason for this. The SDS did not begin existence as scientific literature, but as industrial safety information provided by the manufacturer for the _industrial_ user, and that in a much less formal era of the 1960s.  There have been significant modifications since then but dragging it into the realm of scientific literature is clearly a herculean task still in progress and unlikely to be completed in the near future.  That doesn’t mean you should not continue to seek that level, but there is little point in being incensed about the SDS not being at that level now or soon.

Peter Zavon, CIH
Penfield, NY

PZAVON**At_Symbol_Here**Rochester.rr.com

 

 

 

--- For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org Follow us on Twitter **At_Symbol_Here**acsdchas

--- For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org Follow us on Twitter **At_Symbol_Here**acsdchas