Contents Search publications                                         Previous  Next

Understanding how chemicals are tested for toxicity is very important for trade union safety reps and members as users. The results of these tests often appear in safety data sheets, they are used to decide how chemicals are used, controlled, labelled, and, most importantly, in setting occupational exposure limits. Newly introduced chemicals are now required to have a certain set of toxicity data, but these do not exist for many chemicals already in use before legislation was introduced. It is important to remember that absence of evidence of risk is not the same thing as evidence of absence of risk.

In 1992, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development called on member countries and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to complete toxicity testing for 2,550 industrial chemicals produced in high volumes (at least 1,000 tonnes per year in any member country). In 1998 the OECD announced it had completed 109 tests.

How much (or how little) is known about the toxicity of even the most widely used chemicals sparked a major debate in the US press during 1997, between the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and the Chemical Manufacturers' Association (CMA). The EDF said that toxicity data was inadequate for 71% of the 3,000 chemicals made and used in the USA in the highest amounts. The CMA disagreed, saying the figure was only 53%, but only because they included industrial data that had not been made publicly available. The US Environmental Protection Agency said, "There is a problem with public availability of basic screening information on chemicals."

To try and speed up this voluntary approach to testing, the EDF mounted a 'naming and shaming' campaign. They asked the top 100 chemical companies if they would find and disclose basic toxicity data on the high-volume chemicals they produced by January 2000. The names of those which would not commit themselves were then listed in US newspaper advertisements (Chemical and Engineering News, 8 September 1997, pp. 27-29).

According to UK academic Professor Andrew Watterson of the Centre for Occupational and Environmental Health, "The demands of carrying out complete health assessments on the tens of thousands of chemicals, metals and other substances used in the world today are beyond the resources and abilities of the global scientific community." Instead, he argues for a precautionary approach such as toxics use reduction (A. Watterson, Toxics use reduction: a case study in managing risk in workplace and wider environments with reference to MDF, De Montfort University, 1998).

Contents Search publications                                         Previous  Next