Hazards accused the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) of making “unprovable assumptions” about improved occupational hygiene standards and risks, and about the willingness and capability of firms to recognise and control risks. HSE’s own studies have shown many chemical companies had, at least until the mid- to late-1990s, little or no knowledge of their duties under the chemical control regulations and most were unaware of relevant occupational exposure limits. An August 1997 HSE contract research report found that a quarter of “heavy users” of chemicals and a third of “users” did not have a “reasonable unprompted response when asked what they understood to be the principles of COSHH [the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health regulations].” Over a third of heavy users (35 per cent) and users (38 per cent) were “not aware” of occupational exposure limits, the official standards for the amount of chemicals in the air breathed in by workers. Only a small minority followed the preferred COSHH solution of eliminating exposures or substituting hazardous chemicals. The HSE report found that firms relied heavily on information from suppliers in deciding measures to control exposures. In a critique of the report, Hazards pointed to the example of medium density fibreboard, which contains the human cancer causes wood dust and suspected (now proven) formaldehyde. The regulator has claimed in an October 1997 statement that the softwood dust in MDF was not carcinogenic, at odds with the IARC classification. It described formaldehyde as “an irritant”, when it causes both asthma and was at the time classified by IARC as “probably carcinogenic to humans.” IARC’s next review upgraded this rating for formaldehyde to known human carcinogen.

Industry’s perception and use of occupational exposure limits. HSE Contract research report, CRR 144, HSE, August 1997. Chemicals calamity, Hazards, number 60, Ocdtober-December 1997.