Introduction
The Safety Data Sheet or SDS is, to people like myself, the only reliable way to determine a paint product’s safety information (paint advertising isn't reliable)
. As I was doing research for Parts one, two, three, and four of an article series designed to make a determination about safe paints, I found a discrepancy amongst SDSs that I’d like to share in this post. The purpose of this will be to focus attention on deceptive advertising. Most of the work here is my interpretation and opinion. Facts are quoted directly from available SDSs.
Discrepancy in SDS Information
I originally found ECOS paints through the website of a company called greenbuildingsupply.com. The website presents itself as an eco-friendly provider of building materials and states “Searching for products that satisfy your safety and performance needs? Since 1991, we have tested thousands of eco-friendly products to identify the best options for our customers.” On their website, they provide links to SDSs for ECOS paints, since they carry their brand and recommend it to their customers. For this review, I went to ECOS’ website and found their “Eggshell Paint” [1] and opened their SDS. I also went on Green Building Supply’s (GBS’) SDS and found their product “Product Name: ECOS Paints Wall Paints” and “Water-based wall paints in Eggshell, and Matte finishes 10017 R” [3].
note: I am aware from the outset that these are not identical product matches. But seeing as they appear to come from the same supplier "Imperial Paints" and the similarity of their product descriptions, and the similarity of carcinogenic identified ingredients (Titanium Dioxide), I thought that the differences in SDSs was significant.
Reviewing GBS’ SDS [3], you can start to see discrepancies with the SDS printed by ECOS themselves:
ECOS’ SDS has issuance and revision dates (in 2016) and under “Identification of the substance” they only have their company information.
In GBS’ version, they provide no emergency supplier phone number, and instead reference a company called Lullaby paints, which I guess may have been commissioned to write the SDS (opinion).
Analysis: this is already odd. Why would a third party be referenced here? were they the writers of the SDS rather than ECOS in this case?
2. ECOS’ SDS clearly identifies, under “hazards identification” states that their product contains a Category 2 carcinogen and provides toxicity and other precautionary statements.
In GBS’ version, they simply write “Noted components appear on the California Prop 65 List”
Analysis: what does that even mean? It gives no information about carcinogenicity. The effect is disappearing carcinogenecity or any mention of it behind this statement (opinion).
3. ECOS’ SDS has a composition section which tells the percentages of the three main products, which may be carcinogens.
In GBS’ version, they write “Hazardous components: none.” and a few sentences below write “This product contains Titanium Dioxide (CAS# 13463-67-7) and Calcium Carbonate (CAS# 1317-65-3) in suspension, thus posing no hazard in normal use. Sanding or crushing when dried may produce small quantities of dust including one or both of these – suitable dust excluding masks should be worn if this is to be undertaken.”
Analysis: This SEEMS intended to mislead. When writing that titanium dioxide is not hazard in normal use, they fail to appreciate that normal use sometimes includes sanding and spray painting activities, which might create some amount of respirable toxins. Though they note tha sanding or crushing creates small amounts of dust, note the word "small" as though to minimize the impact of the product on health to make people not worry about it (opinion). Furthermore, they don't mention exposure limits to Titanium dioxide or other chemicals like ECOS does, which if its a carcinogen is an important thing to do.
4. ECOS provides a series of appropriate first aid measures
GBS writes that inhalation of vapors produce “No hazard.” and at the same time to “Remove contaminated clothing” if it comes into contact with paint.
Analysis: How can a product, that is dangerous to apply onto skin have no respirable negative effects (opinion, question)?
5. ECOS produces in their “exposure controls” section, a series of reasonable procedures for reducing risk and states the permissible quantities of product in an environment.
GBS simply writes “Workplace parameters: none”
Analysis: if GBS genuinely believes that the paint is not a carcinogen, then they’re acting in accordance with proper standards. However, if they’re lying about it, then this is irresponsible writing (opinion).
Conclusions
The only conclusion that I can reach here, is that GBS is engaged in misleading advertising. By minimizing and omitting certain key information that their ECOS counterparts include, their SDS create a sense of security when using the paint, which is in line with what they promise to their customers on their website. .
References
Comments