The UK’s standard setting system for hazardous substances frequently makes setting tighter standards difficult or impossible, a feature in Hazards magazine warns. It warns chemicals at work can be the one thing at work where you always get more than you bargained for.  The article says “three things stand in the way of better standards: The current protocols for standard setting; bureaucratic inertia; and, sometimes, an industry veto on potentially costly controls.” It cites as an example the case of methylene chloride (also known as dichloromethane).  “In 1998, the US safety enforcement agency agreed a more stringent exposure level for methylene chloride, one quarter the current UK limit. Getting exposures down to the level was not a problem – the US solvent industry association was party to the agreement that ushered in the new standard. Over here, in July 1999, HSE issued a consultative document proposing not only that the existing lax UK exposure level be retained, but it should also be downgraded from a binding MEL [maximum exposure limit] to a less stringent OES [occupational exposure standard].” In 2014 the UK was the only EU government to apply for a derogation from the blanket Europe-wide ban on use of the chemical as a paint stripper. It claimed this was needed for specialist work on historic buildings. No such request was made by other governments, which have their share of historic buildings too.

Unhealthy standards: UK review of chemical exposure limits – time for some level thinking, Hazards, number 67, July-September 1999 [not online].

Proposals for maximum exposure limits, occupational exposure standards and biological monitoring guidance values, CD150/99, HSE, July 1999 [not online].