No change in "the rules" Safety Data Sheets are used to communicate information along the supply chain. In the UK the employer would use these with other sources to conduct a COSHH assessment for the use of the substance or mixture in their unique work environment. It is the controls from this assessment employees should act upon as the information in an SDS is in respect of the material "as supplied". Poor practice to deny access to an SDS but there is the alternate view that with the new regulations meaning a lot more data is contained that an average employee would struggle to comprehend the content. If you have real concerns about information communicated five minutes on the web can usually locate the current supplier SDS but note most sites now require registration as the supplier needs to identify recipients (a true rule change now permitting electronic distribution of SDS as opposed to the old system of posted documents)

I think this is very poor practice. Chemical knowledge is not necessarily the exclusive preserve of management and I believe that employees should be allowed access to the data. If they don't understand it, then explain it! Luckily your colleague can probably access the information very easily from the internet.

There is no legal requirement in the UK to give employees access to the safety data sheet - the requirement is to give them information about the risk assessment. It is very odd to refuse it though.

Just a quick comment, in addition to agreeing with the various responses above. Under the Global Harmonised System, the term we should all be using now is SDS, not MSDS. I know there's no real difference, (other than that SDSs are often more bulky, as is pointed out above) but surely OSH professionals shouldn't be using out of date terminology?

In what way is it dangerous for people to have access to the safety data sheets of the materials they work with?

Section 3 is the "danger" - under the new GHS/REACH/CLP system all items identified as hazardous in their own right are listed together with the Hazard statements associated with the component as if it were the 100% constituent. Section 2 is the one that carries the derived classification for the sum of all constituent parts taking in to account cumulative and diluent effects acting within the combination of substances AND the physical form of supply (gas, liquid, solid). You then end up in protracted discussions regarding why an SDS is showing as not classified in Section 2 when there is a component which on its own would carry the signal word Danger and one of the more provocative symbols - skull & cross bones / bronchial man. Another issue with SDS from the global community is the application of local rules in interpretation of GHS - Talc which we happily dab babies bottom with carries a warning (generally listed in Section 8) in a US derived SDS arising from the ACGIH concern about Asbestos contamination of Talc due to its source for that market. Chris Packham in many posts has highlighted the limitations of (M)SDS and that these should not be a definitive source of information. In respect of ingestion and hospitals they generally contact the National Poisons Centre not regarding a particular SDS but the constituents listed in Section 3 (or section 2 of an MSDS) - uniquely the UK is a Member State that did not enact the registration of Safety Data Sheets with a National Poisons Centre for commercially available products.

I've had these 'discussions.' I find them not dangerous, but a valuable opportunity to discuss chemical risk and educate people about it. Isn't it beneficial for people working with hazardous substances to understand them better?

Kate - I make no offers of definitive information how long is your piece of string? As with all assessment of Risk the starting point is what do I understand followed by the bigger question of what do we need to understand to control OUR particular risks for our employees. Some substances have clear definitive information whilst others we are only just discovering or like BPA in formula feed bottles jumping to assumed conclusions about. The biggest issue at present is getting the most relevant and up to date supplier information given the delays along the supply chain. In respect of COSHH assessments at least they have taken place - too often in construction I come across a folder full of manufacturer / supplier MSDS (NOTE: I chose the former name to indicate not even a primary effort to obtain the current information). As per my original response 5 minutes on the internet... more than likely you will discover the current revision not held by the employer.

It think the question is what they are seeking to use to SDS for. If it is to assess the hazard that the chemical represents then the next question is whether they have the skills to understand how to interpret the limited information in the SDS when the chemical is used for a particular purpose. Just to rely upon the information in the SDS could certainly lead to a mistaken view on the real hazard and risk and the action they need to take to ensure that the use of the chemical does not result in damage to health. This could result in either unacceptable exposure to risk or excessive control measures. Just to illustrate this I had a case where a compensation claim had been made for an allergic contact dermatitis due to a sensitiser (63% of the total) in a chemical product. However, assessment of how it was being used (and a laboratory test) indicated that for the particular use the sensitiser was not bioavailable, i.e. represented no hazard and risk nor was it the cause of the skin complaint. However, when used in a different part of the workplace the was in which it was used resulted in it becoming bioavailable and hence creating a significant risk for which action was required. Same product, same SDS, different hazards! How many people are - firstly aware of this complication - and secondly able to identify the real hazard when the chemical is used? Chris

98/24/EC - The directive "rules" regarding chemical exposure of workers in Europe which spawned the UK COSHH Regulations - paraphrased as an (M)SDS is a source of information BUT NO substitute for an employer conducting suitable and sufficient assessment. There has never been a requirement to show an employee an (M)SDS - the only ones who routinely see these are the employees of those organisations that call them "COSHH Sheets" in direct dereliction of their legal obligation. http://www.hse.gov.uk/coshh/basics/datasheets.htm - nothing here about employees having access. How an employer sets their arrangements unless in direct contravention of the applicable law is unfortunately in this imperfect world up to them. So "I am not going to let you" is legally acceptable even if we consider it restrictive, dismissive, immoral, unethical and detrimental to the development of an enlightened workforce.

I've already said there isn't a legal requirement. The question is not whether it is illegal but precisely as you say is it "restrictive, dismissive, immoral, unethical and detrimental to the development of an enlightened workforce." If it is those things, it is the wrong thing to do.

We have the data sheet, guidence on how to use and assessment in the same file, some people for some strange reason like to know everything and some like to just know how to use it safely. I don't believe that it is dangerous to allow employees to see MSDS it, maybe they don't understand it, but not letting them see it doesn't help either, employees then start making up thier own reasons why and then 2+2 make 5.

I have always held SDS and COSHH assessments together-I think that became a habit when I was just starting out with COSHH- I highlighted the points in the assessments and where they were found on the SDS- probably more for my own clarification than anything else. With this, I also had instructions of use of product in different situations and also a photo-board for our temp staff who did not speak English as a first language so they could visualise to help them to understand a bit better. We had a folder in each of the storage cupboards and in each office so if there was an emergency the folder could be grabbed quickly and easily. Worked well where I was and is still being done now, though I left nearly 18 months ago. I guess each environment is different and you have to gauge what you do by who you are surrounded by.

And having dusted off the "COSHH Regulations 2002": 12. (1) Every employer who undertakes work which is liable to expose an employee to a substance hazardous to health shall provide that employee with suitable and sufficient information, instruction and training. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (1), the information, instruction and training provided under that paragraph shall include— (a)details of the substances hazardous to health to which the employee is liable to be exposed including— (i)the names of those substances and the risk which they present to health, (ii)any relevant occupational exposure standard, maximum exposure limit or similar occupational exposure limit, (iii)access to any relevant safety data sheet Subsequent ammendments did not remove the access rights of employees afforded by article 12(2)(a)(iii).

Humble pie currently being eaten