When the Label and Safety Data Sheet Don't Speak the Same Language – Case Study

In practice, I very often encounter questions about the (non)alignment of safety data sheets and labels, where many initially think it is about insignificant details. However, a recent practical example clearly shows that this is not the case.  

In production, during a review of the documentation, they noticed a discrepancy in pictograms: the label of the product contained the pictograms GHS07 (irritant/harmful) and GHS08 (serious health hazard), while the safety data sheet only listed the pictogram GHS07.

 GHS07: GHS08:

The supplier, after checking with the manufacturer, provided an explanation that ''/.../the GHS08 pictogram is mandatory under Japanese legislation, but not under European, so the label is supposed to be prepared according to the GHS system (Globally Harmonised System), while the safety data sheet is already adapted for the European market.''

Such an explanation is often heard in practice, but from a legislative point of view, it is misleading.

The GHS08 pictogram is not specific to Japanese legislation, but is part of the globally harmonized system - GHS  and is fully incorporated into the CLP Regulation. The key question is therefore not, where the product is manufactured or which markets it is globally sold to, but how it is classified according to the CLP Regulation for the EU market. 

The CLP Regulation is very clear on this - the classification of a substance or mixture must be uniform and consistently applied both on the label and in the safety data sheet. If the classification according to the CLP Regulation requires the use of the GHS08 pictogram, it must be listed in both documents. If the classification according to CLP does not require this pictogram, then it must not be used on the label either. 

Pictograms on the label are not a matter of additional caution or an internal decision of the manufacturer, but a direct consequence of the classification according to CLP, so pictograms without a legislative basis in the classification are not allowed. 

In such a case, there are only 2 legislatively correct options.  

The first option is to remove the GHS08 pictogram from the label and the product remains labeled only with GHS07, as stated in the safety data sheet, thus aligning both documents.  

The second option is that the criteria for classification are met, which according to the CLP Regulation require the use of GHS08, which means that the classification needs to be updated, consequently updating both the label and the safety data sheet.  

There are no intermediate solutions or compromises in this case. 

If such a case were subject to inspection, the initial question would be very simple: do the pictograms on the label directly derive from the classification according to the CLP Regulation?  

The inspection generally does not assess which legislation is stricter, it is not interested in the sales strategy, and it does not take into account the requirements of third markets. It assesses exclusively the compliance of the classification with the CLP Regulation and the consistency between the label and the safety data sheet. If there is a pictogram on the label that is not based on the classification according to CLP, it is considered as incorrect labeling. 

Such cases are a good reminder that the safety data sheet should not be treated as a formality, but as a document that must actually reflect the hazards of the product and that determines the mandatory elements of the label.  For the EU market,the safety data sheet and consequently the label must be made according to EU legislation. 

If your company encounters similar discrepancies, it is almost always a sign that a thorough review of the classification and labeling of the product is needed, rather than just cosmetic fixes or additional notes. If you find yourself in doubt, write to me at spela.hudobivnik@bens-consulting.eu – I will be happy to help you clarify the requirements of the CLP Regulation.