# Retailers beware - chemical safety agency is coming!



## adjones (Apr 24, 2013)

http://www.safeware-int.com/2015/11...sales-of-chemicals-under-increasing-scrutiny/

Bit of a development on the recent changes in chemical safety. So DW retailers, you DO have responsibilities! At the bare minimum, you need a safety data sheet for every product. If a customers asks for it, you have to give it to them. If a brand doesn't supply to you, they are breaking the law but you are doing the same by then selling their products. So kick them into shape, kick them into touch or dob them in to the authorities!

I know my pleas have been ignored before but this is a sure sign that a cracking down is coming. So let's get DW and associates being a shining example rather than half the associates being shut down for breaches of chemical safe regs!


----------



## -Kev- (Oct 30, 2007)

Whilst this is a good thing, im not sure what its to do with DW.. Yes we have the sponsers but its on them to do it, not the forum


----------



## Kimo (Jun 7, 2013)

Gonna be interesting ..


----------



## chrisc (Jun 15, 2008)

Does this include home brewers then


----------



## cossiecol (Jun 29, 2014)

chrisc said:


> Does this include home brewers then


If they are selling it then I believe they are classed as a retailer so I would think so.


----------



## stangalang (Nov 27, 2009)

adjones said:


> http://www.safeware-int.com/2015/11...sales-of-chemicals-under-increasing-scrutiny/
> 
> Bit of a development on the recent changes in chemical safety. So DW retailers, you DO have responsibilities! At the bare minimum, you need a safety data sheet for every product. If a customers asks for it, you have to give it to them. If a brand doesn't supply to you, they are breaking the law but you are doing the same by then selling their products. So kick them into shape, kick them into touch or dob them in to the authorities!
> 
> I know my pleas have been ignored before but this is a sure sign that a cracking down is coming. So let's get DW and associates being a shining example rather than half the associates being shut down for breaches of chemical safe regs!


Something we have been looking into with the new range we've been building. Correct labelling, contacts, images, bottles and caps etc. Im sure there will be many that don't do it, a lot aren't doing what they should right now, let alone for whats coming



chrisc said:


> Does this include home brewers then


Of course it does! Lets hope they all have ltd companies and insurance too, cause when it goes wrong its THEM that will bare the brunt, not the company they own.


----------



## chrisc (Jun 15, 2008)

Ok sounds good idea least you know what you're dealing with basically what autostart etc have been doing for years.
Will it stop eBay decanters though


----------



## stangalang (Nov 27, 2009)

chrisc said:


> Ok sounds good idea least you know what you're dealing with basically what autostart etc have been doing for years.
> Will it stop eBay decanters though


Doubt it, nothing seems to stop them doing anything. BUT, it will make it easier to prosecute them i assume. Unless maybe they get a copy of the msds to supply or maybe photocopy the labels? i don't know how that will work. They seem to be a law unto themselves from what I've seen on the bay lol


----------



## Alan W (May 11, 2006)

-Kev- said:


> Whilst this is a good thing, im not sure what its to do with DW.. Yes we have the sponsers but its on them to do it, not the forum


I think Mr. Jones is just informing DW members of their legal right to obtain safety information when purchasing products Kev.

DW member awareness of Safety Data Sheets is no bad thing in my opinion and may make members think twice about the products they are buying, how they are used and the possible effect on the environment.

Unless you know what precautions to take, or how to deal with an accident involving the product, how are you going to stay safe?

Health and Safety is playing an ever greater role in today's society and it's good to know that detailing products will not be exempt from complying with safety requirements.

Alan W


----------



## Nanoman (Jan 17, 2009)

-Kev- said:


> Whilst this is a good thing, im not sure what its to do with DW.. Yes we have the sponsers but its on them to do it, not the forum


I took it as a helpful informative post for sponsors and members.

How many discussions are there where people don't realise that some sellers on the likes of fleabay are 'cheaper' than sponsors because they're selling dangerous chemicals with none of the legally required safety precautions.

If they're willing to do that then they may well be willing to dilute/substitute genuine product so you end up being sent a different product to what you think you bought.


----------



## chrisc (Jun 15, 2008)

would it not be a good idea then if we had a section of pdf's where we can download them.
For us what have already got many items with no data sheets


----------



## SystemClenz (Oct 31, 2008)

We only buy from companies that can supply a data sheet, I have to have them available on site as a hard copy at hand in case anything ever happend.


----------



## macca666 (Mar 30, 2010)

Nanoman said:


> Get out of bed on the wrong side?
> 
> I took it as a helpful informative post for sponsors and members.


Bit unfair there nanoman. Although I did take it as informative OP is also clearly taking a pop as he says "I know my pleas have been ignored before" and "lets get DW and associates....."

Kev is merely asking the question what it is to do with the DW forum. As he rightly points out it is the responsibility of the manufacturers or resellers not the forum.

Unless you're suggesting the mods monitor all sales from all sponsors with a view to banning them if they don't supply a data sheet


----------



## cheekymonkey (Mar 15, 2008)

Are they also going to learn mr average how to read a data sheet and what it all means?. Without that knowledge a data sheet is useless


----------



## Alex L (Oct 25, 2005)

macca666 said:


> Bit unfair there nanoman. Although I did take it as informative OP is also clearly taking a pop as he says "I know my pleas have been ignored before" and "lets get DW and associates....."
> 
> Kev is merely asking the question what it is to do with the DW forum. As he rightly points out it is the responsibility of the manufacturers or resellers not the forum.
> 
> Unless you're suggesting the mods monitor all sales from all sponsors with a view to banning them if they don't supply a data sheet


I think it was more a comment about members, rather than DW. Some members couldn't give two hoots who dangerous something is, as long as it cleans they don't care.

Theres a big detailer whose getting his own shampoo made and from his FB posts doesnt seem to have found many places that can make it care for your skin and clean at a decent rate.


----------



## muzzer (Feb 13, 2011)

Please don't post personal insults, it is in the rules that it will not be tolerated.


----------



## GleemSpray (Jan 26, 2014)

As far as the law is concerned, there is increasingly no longer such a thing as "common sense" in any area. This creates more work sometimes, but it does protect people who have less experience and awareness, so ultimately it's a good thing.

Suppliers of goods and services now have to have a responsibility to consider what impact they are having on people and the environment. The days of being just a "box shifter" are disappearing fast.

This isn't exclusive to chemical products either. Companies involved in the sales and distribution of Electrical and Electronics have to be responsible for waste disposal and hazardous materials in batteries etc.

The OP is just being professional and it's a timely heads-up to us all that we should really be checking and asking what is in the bottles that we buy and what harm it can do us and the environment.

As far as DW is concerned, I am sure that the Sponsors are most likely all ready aware of this and other looming legislation, if they are carrying out the basic diligence of running a business properley.


----------



## DJ X-Ray (Sep 2, 2012)

Can only be a good thing.

Highly suss when a company chooses not to disclose their MSDS.


----------



## Kimo (Jun 7, 2013)

DJ X-Ray said:


> Can only be a good thing.
> 
> Highly suss when a company chooses not to disclose their MSDS.


Like Mainz for example

Refused to give out any data sheets

Good job it's obvious where their stuff used to come from lol


----------



## m4rkymark (Aug 17, 2014)

how would you know the data sheet supplied is correct for the product? 

and as someone else said does the public know how to read a data safety sheet?


----------



## DJ X-Ray (Sep 2, 2012)

Kimo said:


> Like Mainz for example
> 
> Refused to give out any data sheets
> 
> Good job it's obvious where their stuff used to come from lol


Hmmm. Mate, does not surprise me.
That is one company that wouldn't get a penny from me


----------



## DJ X-Ray (Sep 2, 2012)

m4rkymark said:


> how would you know the data sheet supplied is correct for the product?
> 
> and as someone else said does the public know how to read a data safety sheet?


I'd guess it's verified by an independent body? Chemists/ guys with bald heads and white coats But yeah, i suppose they could tell pork pies, but then would risk getting in do do if found out.


----------



## muzzer (Feb 13, 2011)

Ultimately, while this might prove to be a royal pita for the manufacturers and suppliers, for us as the end user it's good news. How many of us have blindly used a chemical without proper ppe? Polishes that turn to powder and get blown around by a breeze? Shampoo that might be damaging to skin without wearing gloves? Inhaling chemical smells from god alone knows what.

The fact we can now check the MSDS should be good news. I know we have always been able to check it if we want but n ow they have to provide it. That's my tuppence anyway


----------



## svended (Oct 7, 2011)

Many of the respectable companies do this already and either have an MSDS data sheet with each item in each order as Bilt Hamber have done when I order from them or have a MSDS PDF file or similar on their webpage like Gtechniq or available on request by phone, fax or e-mail from others. 

While it's good to have the info available I believe it's also on me as a buyer to make myself aware of what it is I'm buying and have it's best used and what precautions are required.


----------



## GleemSpray (Jan 26, 2014)

You know that Halfords have a link to the Safety Data sheet alongside the description for detailing items on their website ?


----------



## adjones (Apr 24, 2013)

DJ X-Ray said:


> Can only be a good thing.
> 
> Highly suss when a company chooses not to disclose their MSDS.


That is not a legal choice to make. Report anyone who refuses to disclose because they are either wilfully breaking the law or ignorant of it (neither being acceptable for a chemical supplier).

Home brewers are a big danger if they sell products. They should not only provide safety data sheets but also need manufacturing product liability insurance. Retailers rarely need such levels of insurance because the manufacturer should have it and be covered by implied warranty and such. As soon as you sell something you made yourself, you jump from insurance premiums of hundreds into the thousands and more. I doubt many realise the insurance required and, given that most have little or no chemical background or expertise, I suspect they would struggle to find an insurer willing to cover them.


----------



## adjones (Apr 24, 2013)

Oh and any pro should not try to use the excuse that they don't know how to interpret a data sheet - that almost would count as proof that you shouldn't be using the products (if your insurer saw it, they might decline to cover you!). Data sheets are pretty simple - forget the ingredients bit, that is there for medical people in case of accident. What is important are things like section 4 (specific hazards to users), section 8 (which tells you what protection you need) and another section which discusses handling and disposal. It is all pretty obvious when you read it. In order to do a coshh assessment (which is something that all pros should do, again for insurance reasons), you should be very familiar with these. 

For a retailer, section 14 is critical as it tells you how to transport the goods. If it says anything beyond non-hazardous, there is a good chance that the goods need special carriage (ie royal mail would be an absolute no). Of course we all know that many sellers routinely ignore this.


----------



## Bero (Mar 9, 2008)

These rules are a good thing.......but it should not affect many/any companies.

I think nearly all companies would already comply with this. Most MSD Sheets are available online now from the manufacturer and/or retailer, I've looked up a good few as a matter of interest.

Companies would already be failing COSHH if they did not have MSD Sheets for their own employees who could be exposed to the chemicals, ether by dropping a container that bursts, or who have a detailing workshop as well as retail, and to cover shipping to and from their facility.


----------



## chrisc (Jun 15, 2008)

so what about the wax brewers what sell on here like odx obseccion bouncers etc.
pressume they will all be provideing these then


----------



## The_Bouncer (Nov 24, 2010)

chrisc said:


> so what about the wax brewers what sell on here like odx obseccion bouncers etc.
> pressume they will all be provideing these then


Chris.

Bouncer's have somewhat moved on from the homebrewers stable.

With a suite of products that we sell in nearly 20 countries around the world. - Every product has it's own full msds and every reseller is provided this information prior to any products being sold.

In this day and age you can't take risks - that includes selling products without the required credentials.

Thx

J


----------



## adjones (Apr 24, 2013)

Bero said:


> These rules are a good thing.......but it should not affect many/any companies.
> 
> I think nearly all companies would already comply with this. Most MSD Sheets are available online now from the manufacturer and/or retailer


You say that but when did you last receive a parcel with a transport haz/lq label on it,together with a dangerous goods note? I have bought numerous flammable products from retailers here and never once have i got these.

Likewise, ive asked for msds from several detailing brands and been stonewalled (and i dont mean the home brew people). In fact one big company accidentally had its msds visible on a private section of their website (so they are right if they felt inclined to make them available) but rapidly removed/password protected the section such that they remain unavailable. In terms of a megs or autosmart, you are dead right but the detailing retailers and the detailing brands are a different story.


----------



## fatdazza (Dec 29, 2010)




----------



## chrisc (Jun 15, 2008)

The_Bouncer said:


> Chris.
> 
> Bouncer's have somewhat moved on from the homebrewers stable.
> 
> ...


that's good to know then to be honest i dont buy your products so would not have known that.


----------



## cheekymonkey (Mar 15, 2008)

adjones said:


> *Oh and any pro should not try to use the excuse that they don't know how to interpret a data sheet - that almost would count as proof that you shouldn't be using the products* (if your insurer saw it, they might decline to cover you!). Data sheets are pretty simple - forget the ingredients bit, that is there for medical people in case of accident. What is important are things like section 4 (specific hazards to users), section 8 (which tells you what protection you need) and another section which discusses handling and disposal. It is all pretty obvious when you read it. In order to do a coshh assessment (which is something that all pros should do, again for insurance reasons), you should be very familiar with these.
> 
> For a retailer, section 14 is critical as it tells you how to transport the goods. If it says anything beyond non-hazardous, there is a good chance that the goods need special carriage (ie royal mail would be an absolute no). Of course we all know that many sellers routinely ignore this.


I agree they should know what there working with,but until it is compulsory for them to know there will always be that choice.
How will supermarkets etc stand with this. now a days you can order on internet from them


----------



## adjones (Apr 24, 2013)

cheekymonkey said:


> I agree they should know what there working with,but until it is compulsory for them to know there will always be that choice.
> How will supermarkets etc stand with this. now a days you can order on internet from them


That's the thing, it IS compulsory already. IMO this sort of stuff woukd be a fab thing for DW to work with. An article or two to inform detailers of their obligations and those of their suppliers towards them.

Supermarkets are almost certainly ok. They cant afford to do it wrong and have regulatory teams bigger than most detailing companies total staff!


----------



## Bero (Mar 9, 2008)

adjones said:


> You say that but when did you last receive a parcel with a transport haz/lq label on it,together with a dangerous goods note?


Of course most detailing products are pretty benign stuff and don't need it. I believe the last time I received a package with a haz label on it was when I purchased a gallon of Tardis from a DW supporter.



adjones said:


> Likewise, ive asked for msds from several detailing brands and been stonewalled (and i dont mean the home brew people). In fact one big company accidentally had its msds visible on a private section of their website (so they are right if they felt inclined to make them available) but rapidly removed/password protected the section such that they remain unavailable. In terms of a megs or autosmart, you are dead right but the detailing retailers and the detailing brands are a different story.


Interesting, anything I've looked for I've found. This law can only be a good think in this respect.


----------



## adjones (Apr 24, 2013)

Bero said:


> Of course most detailing products are pretty benign stuff and don't need it. I believe the last time I received a package with a haz label on it was when I purchased a gallon of Tardis from a DW supporter.


Many products are not. The change in regulations means that almost every tar remover will be flammable for transport. Any glass cleaner with significant solvent level will be the same. Any number of products will be environmental hazards (anything with any useful level of citrus solvent is a good example) and many wheel cleaners are corrosive and cause burns. Even waxes can be flammable solids.

There is a common belief that these products are, as you say, fairly benign. That is precisely why the chemical safety people are moving as they are. If the retailers were to make the hazards clear, it is likely that the users would cease to be quite so complacent.


----------



## Bero (Mar 9, 2008)

adjones said:


> Many products are not. The change in regulations means that almost every tar remover will be flammable for transport. Any glass cleaner with significant solvent level will be the same. Any number of products will be environmental hazards (anything with any useful level of citrus solvent is a good example) and many wheel cleaners are corrosive and cause burns. Even waxes can be flammable solids.
> 
> There is a common belief that these products are, as you say, fairly benign. That is precisely why the chemical safety people are moving as they are. If the retailers were to make the hazards clear, it is likely that the users would cease to be quite so complacent.


yes...and no. IMHO

I think in a lot of respects we've went way too far. We plaster EVERYTHING with warning, hazard, danger, stickers, and notices.

Truth be told the amateur weekend warrior (long term professional use is different, and different laws apply) has VERY little risk from the VAST majority of detailing products. If we start plastering waxes, glass gleaners and mildly caustic/acidic substances with danger labels we WILL destroy the likelihood of SOME people heeding the notices that ACTUALLY matter, substances where damage could happen with the wrong protective measures.

Do the majority of people read and follow the safety instructions when using a manual screw driver.....or....god forbid a hammer? No

Are they more likely to follow them with a table saw or lathe? Yes!

In the above cases people can make a sensible judgement on the risks. With chemicals it's a lot more difficult....you cant visually tell is a container of liquid is benign, will dissolve your skin or expose you to carcinogens. IMHO labels need to be clear and should only expose REAL dangers. Clarting the labels of all chemicals in danger sign will only make things worse.

The laws should be there to protect the public....this may be the easiest way to implement something, but I definitely don't think it's the best way.

All in my opinion etc of course. :thumb:


----------



## Soul boy 68 (Sep 8, 2013)

As the old saying goes, Better safe than sorry.


----------



## moosh (May 8, 2011)

-Kev- said:


> Whilst this is a good thing, im not sure what its to do with DW.. Yes we have the sponsers but its on them to do it, not the forum


I think DW has a duty of care here as they have a manufacturer section which promotes products and the sponsors are sponsor to push product so DW should protect its members much like you would with bullying, trolls and extreme profanity.


----------



## cheekymonkey (Mar 15, 2008)

adjones said:


> That's the thing, it IS compulsory already. IMO this sort of stuff woukd be a fab thing for DW to work with. An article or two to inform detailers of their obligations and those of their suppliers towards them.
> 
> Supermarkets are almost certainly ok. They cant afford to do it wrong and have regulatory teams bigger than most detailing companies total staff!


Is it?. I know this sort of thing is a big importance to you so maybe you would be perfect to do such articles.:thumb:

Dont see how it would be different for supermarkets, chemicals are chemicals never mind who sold them


----------



## Bero (Mar 9, 2008)

moosh said:


> I think DW has a duty of care here as they have a manufacturer section which promotes products and the sponsors are sponsor to push product so DW should protect its members much like you would with bullying, trolls and extreme profanity.


I think DW would be best not starting down the line of 'duty of care'.

If they're involved in this process and something were to happen they become implicated.....and implicated in something they almost certainly don't have insurance for. Retailers will at least have insurance (or should have!).

I don't think it's DWs place to start implementing rules over and above the various laws that already cover these areas.


----------



## gordonpuk (Mar 14, 2010)

Bero said:


> I think DW would be best not starting down the line of 'duty of care'.
> 
> If they're involved in this process and something were to happen they become implicated.....and implicated in something they almost certainly don't have insurance for. Retailers will at least have insurance (or should have!).
> 
> I don't think it's DWs place to start implementing rules over and above the various laws that already cover these areas.


"No good deed goes unpunished"
Springs to mind.

PS: had a delivery of 2 pack filler from toolstation today and the 
package had warning label. (as it should)

Also once had a MSDS with a bottle of tipex. (Yes, I am aware it has solvents) just, you can pick it off the shelf at most stationary shops.
It just amused us at the time, banter about "danger Tipex" notices or keeping
it in a flammables cabinet.

(I shall now scold myself, It's not a laughing matter)


----------



## Bero (Mar 9, 2008)

gordonpuk said:


> "No good deed goes unpunished"
> Springs to mind.
> 
> PS: had a delivery of 2 pack filler from toolstation today and the
> ...


lol, perfectly highlights my earlier point, if you plaster everything with warning labels people become desensitised to it. Guess what happens when they come across something that's actually dangerous.......


----------



## DJ X-Ray (Sep 2, 2012)

Pity companies aren't obligated to reveal the actual ingredients of their wax. What fun that would be I'm sure there is quite a high percentage with more or less identical compositions(give or take a bit of turps,orange oil,beeswax...etc.

If that in certain cases.


----------



## gordonpuk (Mar 14, 2010)

DJ X-Ray said:


> Pity companies aren't obligated to reveal the actual ingredients of their wax. What fun that would be I'm sure there is quite a high percentage with more or less identical compositions(give or take a bit of turps,orange oil,beeswax...etc.
> 
> If that in certain cases.


I'm sure that and/or fear of industrial espionage is a reason that 
they seem to be obfuscated.


----------



## Bero (Mar 9, 2008)

DJ X-Ray said:


> Pity companies aren't obligated to reveal the actual ingredients of their wax. What fun that would be I'm sure there is quite a high percentage with more or less identical compositions(give or take a bit of turps,orange oil,beeswax...etc.
> 
> If that in certain cases.


It would be interesting, although it would inevitably lead into an 'arms race' for manufacturers to get the highest %, or least Y to suit whatever is flavour of the week in the world of detailing, and that does not mean better products!

It would be the same for many things in life, pot noodle and finest hand made pasta would be very similar. Even if the ingredients are exactly the same. Same quality and same % you would not get the same result...just like a couple different people on ready steady cook.

Detailing will be similar, not all ingredients are the same if quality or various other attributes. And they will not all be made in exactly the same process.


----------



## Gleammachine (Sep 8, 2007)

Apologies if this has already been mentioned: But I'm sure it's been a requirement to provide COSH sheets at request for quite a number of years now. If your a mobile valeter/detailer carrying chemicals and get pulled up by VOSA or have a spillage on the public highway you will be required to provide information on the chemicals carried, not sure it will cut it if you just say "it's ok officer it's perfectly safe and PH balanced"


----------



## gordonpuk (Mar 14, 2010)

Gleammachine said:


> Apologies if this has already been mentioned: But I'm sure it's been a requirement to provide COSH sheets at request for quite a number of years now. If your a mobile valeter/detailer carrying chemicals and get pulled up by VOSA or have a spillage on the public highway you will be required to provide information on the chemicals carried, not sure it will cut it if you just say "it's ok officer it's perfectly safe and PH balanced"


I'm glad someone else mentioned this, I didn't because I thought I was being dim, I've had a look at the OP reference and it points to a pilot project/ investigation to compliance not new regulation (yet) or have I miss understood?
If I google
"Chemicals enforcement forum to focus on internet sales"
I don't get much back other than some PDF references from meetings
I do get safeware quasar references to it.
I do get a slight feeling of FUD for financial gain when I'm told this from sources that benefit.
I get more cynical with age when I'm told about such things, Cui bono as they say "To who's profit?"

Anyhoos, as I don't trade in chemicals it matters not and as for MSDS
I've never had a problem getting them.


----------



## scottk (Apr 1, 2014)

COSHH is the law which requires employers to control certain substances and take steps to protect employees. MSD sheets would form part of this but only as a risk assessment. The relevant guidelines for chemicals comes under REACH. 
MSD sheets should be sent out with the chemical or emailed prior to arrival. HSE don't regard giving access to a website to be appropriate and you could be found guilty if something went wrong. It really is a minefield.
Hope everyone re,embers that all these chemicals should be stored in a suitable flame resistant storage cupboard!


----------



## adjones (Apr 24, 2013)

moosh said:


> I think DW has a duty of care here as they have a manufacturer section which promotes products and the sponsors are sponsor to push product so DW should protect its members much like you would with bullying, trolls and extreme profanity.


I agree, to an extent. Like it or not, the paying manufacturers are as often doing it to get prestige or brand recognition. It is assumed by many that the sponsors are knowledgeable and trust worthy about what they are selling. Yes, assumed and not stated. Moreover, there has been perpetuation of mistruths supporting this (ie that so and so is a manufacturer, not just a rebottler, thus they must know a but about chemicals) . It is a tough one for DW but I feel that it is not clear to new members that 'manufacturer' means 'paid a fee to be called a manufacturer' and is absolutely no guarantee that they know what they are doing, that they are insured to be doing it or even if they are manufacturers at all. Very difficult.


----------



## cheekymonkey (Mar 15, 2008)

gordonpuk said:


> I'm glad someone else mentioned this, I didn't because I thought I was being dim, *I've had a look at the OP reference and it points to a pilot project/ investigation to compliance * not new regulation (yet) or have I miss understood?
> If I google
> "Chemicals enforcement forum to focus on internet sales"
> I don't get much back other than some PDF references from meetings
> ...


yea read that as well, its not till 2017 as i recall


----------



## adjones (Apr 24, 2013)

cheekymonkey said:


> yea read that as well, its not till 2017 as i recall


The regulations are in place now. They have been there for years (decades) but there have been recent changes which mix things up.

The act of chasing people may be a pilot project but the regulations are very much there. For any responsible person to take the view that they are safe for the time being would be tantamount to an admission of non-compliance (I suspect the ECHA would love for any retailers to do so, it would save them a lot of hassle in prosecuting them).


----------



## cheekymonkey (Mar 15, 2008)

adjones said:


> The regulations are in place now. They have been there for years (decades) but there have been recent changes which mix things up.
> 
> The act of chasing people may be a pilot project but the regulations are very much there. For any responsible person to take the view that they are safe for the time being would be tantamount to an admission of non-compliance (I suspect the ECHA would love for any retailers to do so, it would save them a lot of hassle in prosecuting them).


I was stating the projects which starts next year and 2017. the project is not in place yet:thumb:

http://echa.europa.eu/view-article/...de-of-chemicals-and-on-substances-in-articles


----------



## AllenF (Aug 20, 2012)

Didn't get one from cadburys for the chocolate body paint kit..
That is something you DON'T want in your eye


----------



## scottk (Apr 1, 2014)

Which eye!!


----------



## Bero (Mar 9, 2008)

scottk said:


> Hope everyone re,embers that all these chemicals should be stored in a suitable flame resistant storage cupboard!


I don't believe that's a requirement. Certainly not for private individuals, nor resellers who have warehouses of products.

And what do you mean by 'all these chemicals'? Even if some required it, not everything would..........water dispensed into a spritzing bottle is also a 'chemical'.


----------



## gordonpuk (Mar 14, 2010)

Bero said:


> I don't believe that's a requirement. Certainly not for private individuals, nor resellers who have warehouses of products.
> 
> And what do you mean by 'all these chemicals'? Even if some required it, not everything would..........water dispensed into a spritzing bottle is also a 'chemical'.


I had a feeling the post was being sarcastic................ (well I hope!)

Ironic too, the slip ~ re,embers in a fire warning


----------



## Bero (Mar 9, 2008)

gordonpuk said:


> I had a feeling the post was being sarcastic................ (well I hope!)
> 
> Ironic too, the slip ~ re,embers in a fire warning


The 1st part is serious. The 2nd may be....slightly reductio ad absurdum. But it would cover the 'all these chemicals' comment. :lol:


----------



## GazNicki (Oct 20, 2015)

I can't find anything under the REACH regulations that specifically states that a MSD must be provided in paper or by email to the end user.

The REACH Regulations is about registering and controlling chemicals - REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and restriction of Chemicals) - and has been in force since 2007. It puts the onus on manufacturers to register the chemicals with the EU and then evaluate and supply the relevant information to the EU about that chemical. The EU then give the chemical registration codes, and the MSDS will need to include this information.

There are rules for importers (importing chemicals from outside the EU) and for users of chemicals (mainly those who use chemicals make other chemicals I believe).

In terms of an MSDS, the following is part of the REACH regulations which matters:

"SDS are a must if a chemical is hazardous and is being supplied for use at work, whether in packages or not. SDS are also needed if your chemical is not classified as hazardous but contains small amounts of a hazardous substance(s)."

Registration of the chemical with the EU requires the SDS to be submitted also. There are no documented instructions that state the MSDS must be available physically or prior to delivery, only that they are available.

As far as I know, the COSHH Regulations put the onus on businesses to manage the risks when it comes to the usage of chemicals, and this is undertaken by conducting Risk Assessments which would require the MSDS to be obtained from the supplier - which in essence makes them a requirement.


----------



## Bero (Mar 9, 2008)

It makes me slightly proud to be on DW as no one is saying MSDS Sheets. :lol::lol:

PIN Number is the only RAS Syndrome acronym that is _almost_ acceptable :lol::lol:


----------



## muzzer (Feb 13, 2011)

Bero said:


> It makes me slightly proud to be on DW as no one is saying MSDS Sheets. :lol::lol:
> 
> PIN Number is the only RAS Syndrome acronym that is _almost_ acceptable :lol::lol:


Thats like people saying PCB boards :lol:


----------



## GleemSpray (Jan 26, 2014)

But we do like our TLA's on DW.


----------



## Alan W (May 11, 2006)

GleemSpray said:


> But we do like our TLA's on DW.


I had to 'google' that! :lol:

Alan W


----------



## adjones (Apr 24, 2013)

GazNicki said:


> I can't find anything under the REACH regulations that specifically states that a MSD must be provided in paper or by email to the end user.
> 
> The REACH Regulations is about registering and controlling chemicals - REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and restriction of Chemicals) - and has been in force since 2007. It puts the onus on manufacturers to register the chemicals with the EU and then evaluate and supply the relevant information to the EU about that chemical. The EU then give the chemical registration codes, and the MSDS will need to include this information.
> 
> ...


The reason that you find no specific MSDS requirement in REACH is because that is the wrong regulation. The regulation you need is CLP (which deals with classifications, labelling and packaging). Formerly it was CHIP or (at EU level) DPD (which ceased to be the case 6months ago).


----------



## GazNicki (Oct 20, 2015)

I see.

Reading the CLP, SDS (also known as MSDS) are a requirement of REACH and the classification of such still comes under the REACH Regulation. So I still can't find the bit of legislation that says the MSDS MUST be provided by paper or email - just that if the chemical is in the correct classification, that it must be available.


----------



## scottk (Apr 1, 2014)

GazNicki said:


> I see.
> 
> Reading the CLP, SDS (also known as MSDS) are a requirement of REACH and the classification of such still comes under the REACH Regulation. So I still can't find the bit of legislation that says the MSDS MUST be provided by paper or email - just that if the chemical is in the correct classification, that it must be available.


http://www.hse.gov.uk/reach/resources/reachsds.pdf
Try this. The televent section is under "how and when an SDS should be supplied". Bit of a minefield for suppliers and distributors.


----------

