Hi Steve OSHA and individual state requirements tend to be much more prescriptive where they exist. But effectively no regulation where they don't exist. For example, in some states there are no regulatory standards for the prevention of dust explosions. Google "Imperial Sugar" explosion - some years after the Chemical Safety Board recommended a national standard for dust explosions. They are also into back supports as an alternative to avoiding dangerous manual handling operations. I've never come across a UK ergonomist who would recommend this "PPE". ....and overall the approach in the US appears inferior to that in Europe, with higher fatal accident rates than all but one EU states (prior to expansion to the east) and HSE research indicating higher rates of less sever injuries also. You'll be aware that they are heavily into behavioural safety but don't seem to learn that BS programmes may lead to situations where the low probability, high consequence events are not adequately managed. Ditto occupational health risks. Check out the Telos report BEFORE the Texas City disaster, or three releases from the same Du Pont facility in the last couple of weeks. Lots of evidence that BS programmes can lead to underreporting and inadequate incident investigation. Also overreliance on PPE. Google "Nancy Lessing". There's a BS video "Remember Charlie" where the injured party takes all the blame for his injury despite the video recognising that a valve had been recognised as being dangerous several years earlier but with its replacement being repeatedly deferred. Also the video doesn't consider the implications as regards risk of heat stress if Charlie had worn protective clothing in, I think it was 130 degrees fahrenheit. Regards, Peter Regards, Peter

There are significant differences between H&S in the UK and the US. These differences are not just legal, but cultural. Generally, the subject is more advanced in the UK and the stats clearly demonstrate that. I've recently written an article on the US approach that will appear in the March issue of SHP that will overview some of these differences. For these reasons and numerous others I would stick with you UK materials. James Pomeroy

Just an additional angle that you need to bear in mind. Many US companies have corporate legal departments who, for claims reasons, seem to have Stalinesque control over the business. Watch your back - check out the position if you haven't already in case some spotty Ivy League law graduate kyboshes your efforts the moment you are perceived to have stepped out of line. I've seen it too often for comfort in US companies in the UK. Jim