The EU regulation that requires suppliers of chemicals etc to provide SDS is not CLP, but REACH. However, it is via CLP that the classification required for the SDS is undertaken.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/reach/resources/reachsds.pdf



Chemicals not covered by CLP

Source:-
http://www.hse.gov.uk/ch...-covered-by-CHIP-CLP.htm

Most industrial chemicals are covered by the CLP Regulation. Some chemicals that have a more specialised job are covered by more specific legislation.

The CLP Regulation does not apply to the following chemicals:
-radioactive substances and mixtures
-substances and mixtures subject to customs supervision
-non-isolated intermediaries
-substances and mixtures for scientific research and development which are not placed on the market and are only used in controlled conditions
-waste

The CLP Regulation does not apply to the following chemicals which are in the finished state intended for the final user:
-medicines
-medical devices
-veterinary medicines
-cosmetics
-food
-feeding stuffs (i.e. food additive; food flavouring; feeding stuffs used in animal nutrition)

Except where Article 33 applies, the CLP Regulation does not apply to the transport of dangerous goods by air, sea, road, rail or inland waterways. More information on the interface between CLP (supply) and transport labelling can be found in ECHA's guidance:

http://www.hse.gov.uk/ch...-covered-by-CHIP-CLP.htm

Ron,

COSHH Reg 6 requires a risk assessment of any substance hazardous to health. A substance hazardous to health is defined as (not exclusively) dusts greater than 10mg/m3 TWA for inhalable dust or 4 mg/m3 TWA for respirable. Also, because of its chemical or toxicological properties and the way it is used or is present at the workplace creates a risk to health.

Therefore imagine a scenario in which an supplier has provided a 'food stuff' which they've considered to be non hazardous and therefore have not produced nor supplied an msds. By the way the customer uses the product it either generates a high dust level or some other method that results in the customer deeming it to be 'hazardous'. How do you produce a COSHH assessment of the now hazardous substance when you dont know what its composition is etc?

The counter to that is that there is a responsibility on the downstream user to make the supplier aware of the their method of use and what makes the substance become hazardous; but it could be due to the nature of the workplace e.g. insufficient/inadequate LEV system resulting in a dusty environment. Therefore yes the substance is hazardous in its use but not in its nature and therefore should be covered via a task based RA or similar.

. Is this what you were driving at?

You refer back to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, specifically section 6-1:
=
It shall be the duty of any person who designs, manufactures, imports or supplies any article for use at work:-
(c) to take such steps as are necessary to secure that there will be available in connection with the use of the article at work adequate information about the use for which it is designed and has been tested, and about any conditions necessary to ensure that, when put to that use, it will be safe and without risks to health.
=
This requirement is not fulfilled by the safety data sheet, which merely informs you about the properties of the product as supplied. It is what in my work I have to do frequently as many of the chemicals that I am involved with for clients have never been assigned a risk phrase or hazard statement and therefore will not appear on the safety data sheet anyway.

Chris

The advice offered is going to all be correct - but it depends on what your doing with the ingredient that determines whether you need to take further steps yourself.
So for example - getting small bags of flour delivered that you send on to others is not really going to warrant masses of assessments - but using 22 tonnes of flour a week that you process etc will.
Start with EH40 - good to trawl throughfor ingredient headings (remember the all encompassing "dusts"), use google for MSDS ***** searches, have a chat with your Food Section or QA or QC department who may have technical spec sheets for the ingredients, don't forget DSEAR and powder explosions etc.
If you feel that you are dealing with a known substance that causes issues, or handle a substance in a way that could cause issues - then you know you need to move on to assessments.

Edible food may be safe for consumption but not necessarily safe to be handled for a sensitiser person. I have had to deal with a client whose workforce were developing allergic contact dermatitis when handling iceberg lettuce (but not the other varieties being handled). If you consult German statistics bakers are one of the occupations most at risk of occupational dermatitis, some of which seems to be to the flour itself and some to what are termed 'flour improvers'. 'Foods and flour' features as an occupational high risk category in the HSE's Work-related skin disease in Great Britain document. In Contact and Occupational Dermatology by Marks and DeLeo the list of foods that may cause contact urticarial and contact dermatitis includes 31 different food types, such as cheese, egg, various fish, banana, flour, beans, garlic, etc. it is perfectly possible for someone to be able to eat a foodstuff without reaction but react on skin contact.

Of course, it can go the other way. How about someone allergic to nickel who changed their diet to a 'health food' one that, unknowingly increased her dietary intake of nickel, resulting in facial allergic contact dermatitis?

Chris

If they did produce a safety data sheet (which they don't have to do) it wouldn't be helpful to you. If you know that there are health risks in your process eg because dust is generated, then you can assess those just as well without a safety data sheet in this case.

http://www.theguardian.c...-party-taiwan-water-park

This explosion was caused by cornstarch and food colouring, the explosions properties of cornstarch, flour dust, custard powder are well known in the food manufacturing industry, however put them to use elsewhere uncontrolled and this is what can happen.

Maybe: explosive dusts (from food or non-food), wood dust that are carcinogenic, welding fumes etc... which are all hazardous should be considered for the CLP regs. Just a thought.

Anything can be hazardous if we use it in the way it is not intended.

Take legionellosis in a pipe as an example. The water that is delivered to the pipe is safe water provided under all manner of rules and regulations. The fact that it might be held in pipework and subject to temperatures that could give rise to legionellosis bacteria is not the fault or responsibility of the water company. It is the responsibility of the person who subjected it to those conditions.

In the case of your food, therefore, how it is the supplier's responsibility if you don't deal with it in the way intended? If it is chicken for example, delivered fresh to you but you decide to thaw it and freeze it half a dozen times before you cook it and then someone contracts salmonella or listeria - is that the fault of the supplier?

It is the process you are putting in place that turns a harmless product into a harmful product, so this is the bit you need to assess.

How so Kate? You'll be able to determine that there is the potential to be exposed to high levels of dust but without knowing what is in the dust how can you determine whether its a general dust WEL or a specific WEL for a particular ingredient?

How do you know whats in it if you're not provided a data sheet?

That is just the most obvious answer in the world. Every foodstuff must have it's ingredients labelled by Law - we're all so busy look at H&S law and getting caught up on MSDSs we forget the basics sometimes. Duh!

Having worked in health & social care for 20 odd years I can tell you that the most commonly encountered class of hazardous substances we encounter, human bodily fluids, does not come with a MSDS. And we very often do not know what the ingredients of the substance are either. Nevertheless we do develop effective COSHH RAs, and it should be quite possible to do the same with foodstuffs,

John