This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from the Commonwealth

Under the National Code of Practice for the Labelling of Workplace Substances (NOHSC, 1994a), hazardous substances in containers of greater than 500 mL(g) capacity require the presence of a list of items. Smaller containers require less detail, but need to draw the attention of persons handling or using the substance to the significant hazards involved.

This assessment examined the following core elements:

• 
  Signal word(s);
  

• 
  Product name;
  

• 
  The recognised chemical name of the hazardous ingredient and details of the amount present in the product;
  

• 
  Risk and safety phrases (refer to the Hazardous Substances Information System (DEWR, 2004));
  

• 
  First aid procedures;
  

• 
  Emergency procedures;
  

• 
  Name and address of the Australian supplier and a telephone number where advice can be obtained; and
  

• 
  A reference to the MSDS.
  

Formaldehyde is defined as a dangerous good within the ADG Code and is scheduled (Schedule 6) by the SUSDP. The appropriate signal word for formaldehyde is “POISON” for products containing > 5% formaldehyde.

The appropriate risk and safety phrases for labelling mixtures containing formaldehyde are determined by the concentration cut-off levels of the hazardous substance (DEWR, 2004). In some cases labels gave a range for the concentration of formaldehyde, for example 1% to 5%. It was assumed that the concentration of formaldehyde was the highest in the range specified.
As for MSDS, information supplied on a label for mixtures should be relevant to the mixture as a whole, not its individual constituents, and the information may differ depending on what ingredients are present and in what proportions. A full assessment of labels for mixtures cannot be carried out because an assessment of each ingredient has not been made. If any items of the core elements could not be assessed, its presence or absence was simply noted.
As for MSDS, labels were randomly selected for assessment. However, due to smaller number of labels available, more than one label from the same company were selected. Therefore, the label assessment was not as representative as it could have been as companies tended to repeat the same errors in all their labels.
Table A15-1 shows the number of labels provided to NICNAS in the course of this assessment, and the number selected and assessed against the Labelling Code.