Effectiveness of information provision in reducing risks to the environment

Peter Andras (School of Computing Sciences, University of Newcastle)Judith Bush (Population and Health Sciences, University of Newcastle)

James Garratt (Enviresearch Ltd)Jamie Hinks (Enviresearch Ltd)

Angela Kennedy (Enviresearch Ltd)Geoff Piggott (AH Marks Ltd)

Tanja Pless-Mulloli (Population and Health Sciences, University of Newcastle)Katherine Ramskill (Safety Office, University of Newcastle)Vincent Theobald (Safety Office, University of Newcastle)

Ken Willis (Architecture, Planning and Landscape, University of Newcastle)

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank to the following individuals and organisations who gave so kindly of their time and without whom this research would not have been possible:

British Association of Chemical Specialities (BACS)British Hardware Federation (BHF)Hardware and Garden Retail Association (HGRA)Newcastle Allotment Holders Working Group

Neil Addison, Senior Procurement officer, University of NewcastleJennifer Molyneux, House Services Manager, University of Newcastle Louise Witter and Gregor Gibb, QHSE solutions

This research was supported by Defra.

1

Contents

Executive summary 31.0 Introduction 7 1.1 legislation 7 1.2 Product selection, justification and environmental concerns 11 1.2.1 Paint 11 1.2.2 Bifenthrin 14 1.2.3 Creosote Substitute 15 1.2.4 Institutional Toilet Cleaning Product 172.0 Context of study 19 2.1 What makes an effective label? 19 2.2 Graphical Devices 19 2.3 Wording 20 2. 4 layout 20 2. 5 General Considerations 213.0 Qualitative analysis 23 3.1 Research methods 23 3.1.1 Recruitment 23 3.1.2 Topic guide 23 3.1.3 Analysis 24 3.2 Results 25 3.2.1 Risk 25 3.2.2 Information 28 3.2.3 Trust 43 3.2.4 Choice 47 3.2.5 Disposal 51 3.3 Summary 544.0 Network analysis 57 4.1 The data 57 4.2 Text pre-processing 57 4.3 Networks 58 4.4 Text network analysis 61 4.5 Conclusions 665.0 Discussion 67 5.1 General observations 67 5.1.1 Graphical Devices 67 5.1.2 Wording 68 5.1.3 Layout 68 5.2 Themes and the supply chain 69 5.2.1. Risk 69 5.2.2 Information 70 5.2.3 Trust 70 5.3.3 Choice 71 5.3.4 Disposal 71 5.4 Network analysis 72 5.5 Labels 73 5.6 Conclusions 74 5.7 Recommendations for practice 74 6.7 Recommendations for future research 75References 76Appendices 80

2

Executive summary

The quality of modern life is totally dependent on a wide range of chemicals, many of which have hazardous properties. These hazards include phsyico-chemical properties, such as flammability, human health hazards (e.g. toxicity or irritancy) and environmental hazards such as toxicity to fish.

There has been a great deal of legislative effort dealing with information provision. The purpose of the legislation has been to ensure that those people who deal with chemicals have the knowledge with which to handle them correctly. This means that risks can be minimised. However, there is some concern that the mere provision of information is not enough in order to ensure good practice. Other factors also come into play, such as the experience, literacy and motivation of the individual. It is important to understand how people respond to information: only then can information be provided in the best way to ensure risk minimisation.

Good practice with chemicals involves product selection, product use and product disposal. In several previous research projects, the effectiveness of information provision with regard to good practice has been studied. However, most previous research has looked at information provision from the point of view of human health.

Objectives of research

The purpose of this study was to investigate how information provision affects the way people use chemicals, from the point of view of environmental risk.

Methods of research

The core part of this research involved talking to people about how they handle chemicals. These discussions took the form of focus groups. The groups were designed to cover a range of positions in the chain of supply and use of chemicals. Standard focus group protocols were used, which involved using a topic guide to direct the discussion within each group. The following groups were used:

Top tier – regulatory specialists from the manufacturing industry (1 group)Middle tier – suppliers or procurers of chemicals (2 groups)Bottom tier – laboratory staff and warehouse staff, cleaners, allotment holders and ‘general public’ (4 groups)

The transcripts from the focus groups were analysed using two complementary methods. The first was a ‘thematic analysis’, which is a well-established method of determining the themes that emerge from the discussion. The second was a ‘network analysis’, which is an innovative way of determining the differences in the way the various groups discuss chemical safety, using maps of word associations and networks.

3

Products chosen for this study

As part of the discussion, people were asked their opinions on specific information that was given to them during focus group discussions. These sheets were based on real product labels and Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) that were anonymised with regard to the manufacturer. The information sheets were selected from four products, which were chosen because many people are likely to be familiar with them. Each of these products has identifiable environmental issues associated with them.

The first product was an ‘insecticide containing bifenthrin’. This product is highly toxic to fish, and carries the ‘dangerous for the environment’ symbol. The second product was ‘white gloss paint’. This product contains several hazardous chemicals and is high in volatile organic compounds. The third product was ‘creosote substitute’. This product contains the fungicide dichlofluanid and a range of aromatic compounds and phenols. It carries the ‘irritant’ symbol and has a very high volatile organic compound content. The fourth product was an ‘institutional toilet cleaning product’. This product contains surfactants and phosphoric acid. Though it is not classified as ‘dangerous for the environment’, it has an obvious route into water bodies.

Thematic analysis

Five themes were identified from the analysis. These themes were: risk; information / knowledge; trust; choice; and disposal.

Risk: there is clear divergence between the groups as to their understanding of risk. The regulatory specialists have a thorough understanding of risk; whereas in the several of the other groups, a less concrete idea of risk was evident.

Information: key sources of information about risk for the professional groups are the MSDS and other technical information available from the suppliers. For the non-professional groups, labels are the primary source of information, supplemented by the media. There appears to be an understanding that information from the media is often sensationalised. Some non-professionals are aware that additional risk information can be obtained from the internet.

MSDS are considered to be unnecessarily complicated and often incomplete. The regulatory specialists are able to fully interpret MSDS, but for the other professional groups, the length and complexity acts as a barrier. However, there is no consensus on how long a MSDS ought to be.

Labels are not always consulted by end-users. The reasons include product familiarity, assumptions of safety, a perception of ‘common-sense’ being enough and lack of time when selecting a product. Even if consulted, small font size, clutter, and technical language can still act as a barrier to compliance. However, for certain products that require specific knowledge (e.g. dilution rates), labels are more likely to be consulted.

4

The most widely recognised logos are the St Andrew’s Cross and the Skull and Crossbones. Neither the environmental logo nor the volatile organics logos are widely recognised.

There is general dissatisfaction with the amount of information that is given. People acknowledge that there is a lot of information available to those who seek it, but many feel that the right information on environmental risks and alternative products is not accessible.

There are several suggestions regarding improvements to the labelling of products. These include enhancing the prominence, succinctness and specificity of warnings. Several suggestions were made for education. These included media campaigns and improving information at ‘point of sale’.

Trust: there is a range of levels of confidence in sources of information. Professional users of chemicals tend to place a high level of trust in information provided by chemical suppliers, as they recognise that they are governed by statutory obligations. Non-professional users tend to mistrust information from chemical suppliers, as they perceive that vested interests will influence the provision of information.

Choice: there appear to be two polarised points of view regarding product choice. The first point of view is that some people always need to use a substance to fulfil a purpose. This is especially true in manufacturing, where specific reactions are required, but is a theme that runs through all groups. Where products have been withdrawn, there is a common perception that the replacements are not as effective. Word of mouth and the media influence product choice by end users. The second is that there are usually products available that are more environmentally friendly. This point of view is more common among people who consider themselves environmentally aware.

Disposal: there is widespread dissatisfaction about disposal information. Professional groups feel that MSDS and similar data sources rarely contain specific information on disposal, and it is often difficult to persuade councils to take surplus chemicals from trade. Disposal facilities are thought to be inadequate. The general public is uncertain about appropriate disposal procedures.

Network analysis

The transcripts of the focus groups were analysed using network analysis methods adapted for text analysis. The network analysis reveals chemical safety related cognitive profiles of the population groups, which relate to the mental models of chemical safety issues held by the groups.

The first stage of the analysis was to remove stop words from the transcripts (e.g. to, and, with). Finally, the frequencies of individual words were calculated to determine those that are structurally important to the flow of thought. These words may be ‘hubs’ (i.e. words that link to a lot of other words) and ‘words

5

with high betweenness’ (i.e. words that are often used to cross between one clique of words and another).

Certain key words were analysed in each group to see whether they were significant hubs or words with high between-ness. The words used for hub-analysis were: chemicals; safety; kill; clean; risk; environment; hazard; disposal; and trusted. The words used for between-ness analysis were: hazard; damage; risk; waste; safety; kill and trusted.

On the basis of the hub and between-ness profiles for each group, the cognitive profiles could be compared. The analysis showed that retailers and procurers had very similar mental models of chemical safety information. However, their mental model was extremely different from the regulatory specialists in the manufacturing industry. The cleaners, general public, and gardening groups had broadly similar mental models of chemical safety, somewhere in between the extremes of the chemical industry and the retailers / procurers.

These differences in cognitive profiles may signal difficulties in cross-group communications, because different ways of speaking about the issues may imply different, and possibly not fully compatible, ways of understanding issues. This difference may also lead to the development of a lack of trust on behalf of the public if they receive apparently conflicting advice on chemical safety from both retailers and manufacturers.

Conclusions

Chemical safety Information is available but, with the exception of some professional users, is too technical and overly prolific

The primary source of information for many users is that provided by manufacturers

There was little awareness of the environmental logo amongst the subjects in this study

Environmental issues were not central to the subjects’ perception of risk

There is a lack of specific disposal information There is likely to be communication difficulties between members of the

supply chain owing to differences in their mental models

Recommendations

The following recommendations should be considered:

Simplification of the current level of information provision Raising awareness of graphic devices used in the CHIP scheme Revision of current disposal advice, particularly focusing on retailers Investigating trust within the supply chain Addressing the communication problems that may arise within the

supply chain

6

1.0 Introduction

There are close to 100 000 chemical substances registered for use in the EU market place. These registered substances are incorporated into a multitude of different products that are available to consumers and on which the quality of modern life is totally dependent.

These substances, along with any of their inherently deleterious properties, are present in products such as paints, detergents and pesticides – products that improve modern life. Even apparently innocuous products may have hazards associated with them and for this reason care needs to be exercised to ensure their proper use and to minimise risk. The hazardous properties of a material and the manner in which it is used determine the level of risk. These risks drive legislation, which aims to inform users thereby encouraging risk-reducing behaviour. There is a requirement for statutory information to be provided on labels or material safety data sheets (MSDS) although both statutory and non-statutory information can be communicated in a number of ways. The current EU legislative framework that governs the provision of chemical safety information is discussed in section 1.2 below and the factors that influence how effective information provision is are discussed in chapter 2. The hazardous properties of some common chemical products are discussed in section 1.3.

Chemical hazards and the associated risks are often interpreted as those resulting in personal injury. This was especially the case for acute effects to immediate users of chemicals (Lehto, 1998). Chemical users have been reported to have a good general awareness of some of the more dramatic physicochemical properties of substances. Increasingly, hazard awareness is beginning to include an appreciation of chronic health issues as well as an awareness of environmental hazards (Montgomery, 1997).

This study was designed to gauge how environmental risk was interpreted at different levels of the supply chain and to investigate how risk can be more effectively communicated to promote risk-reducing behaviour. Focus groups are useful for obtaining this type of data and were used here, along with network analysis, to investigate the opinions and mental models that exist across the supply chain. Some important questions that we attempt to answer are:

Do people read, understand and act upon information given to them? How does this change across the supply chain? What influences the way people use and dispose of chemicals? How can the environmentally responsible use of chemicals be

encouraged?

1.1 Legislation

It is important for users to appreciate the risk associated with the use of chemicals in order to ensure that they use and dispose of them in an

appropriate manner. Ensuring that people are well informed in this respect should serve to reduce harm to people and the environment. One method of communicating legislative information about chemical hazards to consumers is through the information contained in product labels or in MSDS provided by the supplier for professional users (ECB, 2005). Risk-reducing behaviour can be encouraged by information provision. The labelling of many chemicals is governed by European law, specifically the Dangerous Substances Directive (67/548/EEC) and the Dangerous Preparations Directive (1999/45/EC) (ECB, 2005; HSE, 2005; Riley et al., 2001). Annex I of the directive 67/548EEC contains a list of chemicals along with their approved classification and labelling criteria. Guidelines for the classification of chemicals of concern that are not contained in Annex I of directive 67/548EEC are contained in Annex VI. The classification guidelines laid out in Annex VI are based on a comprehensive list of approved EU testing methods, which are detailed in Annex V of the same document. The classification, packaging and labelling of most substances is covered by this legislation and relates directly to other legislation that, for example, governs the marketing and use of dangerous substances (76/769/EEC) or their transport (94/55/EC) as well as the directive that governs the provision of information in safety data sheets (91/155/EEC). Substances that are subject to different rules of testing and registration, such as biocides – which are registered according to the Biocidal Products Directive (98/8/EC) – are labelled and packaged according to 67/548EEC. However, the labelling of pharmaceuticals and cosmetics are beyond the remit of directive 67/548/EEC and subject to their own special rules.

From time to time 67/548EEC is updated. This is to accommodate changes or additions to existing law – e.g. REACH (Registration Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals) – or to remain abreast of advances in scientific understanding. The latter changes are implemented by formal directives such as the 29th Adaptation to Technical Progress (2004/73/EEC), which included such changes as omitting the need for LD50 testing.

In the UK this legislation is implemented by the Chemicals (Hazard Information for Packaging and Supply) Regulations 2002. This legislation is known as CHIP3 and is administered by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE, 2005). It has three supporting documents:

The Approved Supply List (seventh edition) The Approved Classification and Labelling Guide The Approved Code of Practice: The compilation of safety data sheets

As the content of CHIP3 is based upon European law it will be updated to accommodate the changes in EU legislation with the 29 th Adaptation to Technical Proceedings (2004/73/EEC) being incorporated into CHIP3 by the end of October 2005. The 30th Adaptation to technical proceedings has already been approved and CHIP3 will be updated accordingly.

Manufacturers and suppliers are required to classify and package dangerous substances according to the CHIP regulations. The regulations are

prescriptive and hazard information is communicated in the form of standard risk phrases (R-Phrases), safety phrases (S-Phrases) and symbols. There are

Symbol Wording

‘N’ Dangerous for the environment.

This classification is applicable to chemicals that may present an immediate or delayed danger to one or more components of the environment.

Risk number Risk phrase

R50 Very toxic to aquatic organisms

R50/53 Very toxic to aquatic organisms, may cause long-term adverse effects in the aquatic environment

R51 Toxic to aquatic organisms

R51/R53 Toxic to aquatic organisms, may cause long-term adverse effects in the aquatic environment

R52 Harmful to aquatic organisms

R52/R53 Harmful to aquatic organisms, may cause long-term adverse effects in the aquatic environment

R53 May cause long-term adverse effects in the aquatic environment

R54 Toxic to flora

R55 Toxic to fauna

R56 Toxic to soil organisms

R57 Toxic to bees

R58 May cause long-term adverse effects in the environment

R59 Dangerous for the ozone layer

Safety number Safety phrase

S29 Do not empty into drains

S29/35 Do not empty into drains; dispose of this container in a safe way

S29/56 Do not empty into drains, dispose of this material and its container to hazardous or special waste collection point

S35 This material and its container must be disposed of in safe way

S56 Dispose of this material and its container at hazardous or special waste collection point

S57 Use appropriate containment to avoid environmental contamination

S59 Refer to manufacturer/supplier for information on recovery/recycling

S60 This material and its container must be disposed of as hazardous waste

S61 Avoid release to the environment. Refer to special instructions/safety data sheet

Table 1.1. The CHIP specification environmental hazard warning logo along with environmental R-phrases and S-phrases. A complete list of logos, risk and safety phrases can be found on in appendix i or on the HSE website (http://www.hse.gov.uk/chip/phrases.htm).

seven symbols in total that relate to 22 classes of danger based on the following three categories: (1) physicochemical properties, (2) health effects and (3) environmental effects.

A substance or mixture may be allocated a maximum of three symbols – one for each category – and where more than one classification is arrived at for each category, there is a hierarchy as to which symbol must be designated (CHIP Regulations, 2002). In general, the most severe designation will carry a symbol, thus the designation ‘harmful’ will take precedence over ‘irritant’. Often the message of the less ‘severe’ classification is implicit in those concepts that outrank them thus ‘harmful’ is implicit in the term ‘toxic’. There are also a number of P-phrases that apply specifically to the classification of preparations but these are reserved for special cases. A full list of the symbols and statutory phrases relating to the classification of substances under CHIP can be found in appendix i.

The Approved Supply List (ASL) contains the classification of the substances found in Annex I of the Dangerous Substances Directive along with S-phrases and notes describing any special considerations to be taken into account when making a classification. Preparations are not classified in the ASL but a classification for such mixtures can be arrived at by taking into account the classification and concentration of its components. This can be achieved by reference to concentration limits in the ASL or by application of the conventional method set out in the CHIP regulations (2002) where tables with concentration limits can also be found. Although guidance for the classification of physicochemical properties is given in the ASL, the conventional method cannot be used to classify a mixture’s physicochemical properties – instead, this must be done by laboratory based testing.

The information prescribed by CHIP that relates specifically to the environment includes the orange hazard symbol depicting a fish and a tree (which is designated the symbol ‘N’ and the wording ‘dangerous for the environment’), 10 risk phrases and 7 safety phrases (Table 1.1). There is a requirement in CHIP pertaining to brevity and clarity and to this end some of the phrases can be combined allowing more complex messages to be communicated in one phrase. This gives rise to 13 R-phrases and 9 S-phrases that are pertinent to environmental hazards. Typical risk phrases warn of a specific danger (e.g. R50 – ‘very toxic to aquatic organisms’) whilst safety phrases offer advice on how to avoid these risks (e.g. S57 – ‘use appropriate containment to avoid environmental contamination’).

Table 1.2. Example of concentration limits for the classification of preparations (CHIP Regulations, 2002).

Classification of substance

Classification of Preparation

N: R50/53 N: R51/53 R52/53N: R50/53 25% 2.5%but<25% 0.25%but<2.5%N: R51/53 25% 2.5% but<25%

R52/53 25%

Some of the R-phrases pertaining to environmental hazards are allocated depending on the concentration of the specific components of a formulation. For example, Table 1.2 shows the concentration limits for the classification N:R50/53 – ‘very toxic to aquatic organisms, may cause long term adverse effects in the aquatic environment’. This classification is only necessary if a substance or mixture of substances with that designation in the ASL is present in a mixture at quantities equal to or greater than 25% (Table 1.2). If such substances are present in lower concentrations either one of the following classifications may apply:

N:R51/53 – toxic to aquatic organisms, may cause long term adverse effects in the aquatic environment or;

R52/53 – harmful to aquatic organisms, may cause long term effects in the aquatic environment or;

No classification

For some R-phrases however, e.g. those pertaining to bee toxicity and ozone depleting effects (R57 and R59) it is not possible to communicate a concentration dependant degree of severity and these risk phrases are needed if substances carrying this classification in the ASL are present in preparations at concentrations equal to or greater than 0.1% (CHIP Regulations, 2002).

1.2 Product selection, justification and environmental concerns

This study is based upon the CHIP regulations (2002) and the resulting safety information found on four classes of product: (1) exterior and interior white gloss paint; (2) insecticides containing bifenthrin; (3) creosote substitute and (4) a professional toilet cleaning product. These product types were chosen as they represent substances that most of us are familiar with and, indeed, have used at some point. Environmental issues have been identified for each of them.

1.2.1 Paint

Decorative coatings represent an extremely diverse range of products including paints that, in turn, contain a wide variety of chemicals depending upon their quality and their intended use (ICI 2004a). For this reason it was necessary to select a single product. The product selected, a white solvent-based internal and external gloss, was thought to represent a commonly used product. For the purpose of discussing the potential environmental problems that might be related to paints, a safety data sheet for the product Dulux Professional Liquid Gloss was obtained from the manufacturer (ICI, 2002). The potentially hazardous ingredients in this product, as identified from the MSDS, and the classification of these along with the classification of the preparation can be found in Table 1.3 (ICI, 2002).

The paint contains a number of hazardous chemicals. The classification of the product, however, requires the statutory use of very few risk phrases and no

logos, but the label contains some manufacturer specific safety information. ICI acknowledges that there are some problems associated with the use of solvent based paints and these are stated on the website as being the release of VOC (Volatile Organic Compounds) to the atmosphere, the disposal of post user waste and concerns associated with the pigment titanium dioxide. None of these issues need be addressed on the MSDS although the concerns about disposal and VOC are apparent on the labelling found on the packaging of the majority of paints.

Table 1.3. The classification of white gloss paint and its component ingredients as described on the MSDS for the product.

Chemical Symbol R-phraseCobalt carboxylate Xn - harmful R22 - harmful if swallowed

R38 - irritating to skinR43 - may cause sensitisation by skin contactR51/53 – toxic to aquatic organisms, may cause long term adverse effects in the environment

Ethyl methyl ketoxime Xn - harmful R21 - harmful in contact with skinR36 - irritating to eyes R40 - limited evidence of carcinogenic effectR41 - risk of serious damage to eyesR43 - may cause sensitisation by skin contact

Naphtha (petroleum) hydrotreated heavy

Xn - harmful R65 - may cause lung damage if swallowedR66 - repeated exposure may cause a skin dryness and cracking

Naphtha (petroleum) hydrodesulfurized

Xn – harmfulN - dangerous for the environment

R65 - may cause lung damage if swallowedR66 - repeated exposure may cause a skin dryness and crackingR51/53 – toxic to aquatic organisms, may cause long term effects in the environment

Preparation (label) Not required R10 – flammable R66 – repeated exposure may cause skin dryness and crackingP9 – contains ethyl methyl ketoxime and cobalt carboxylate. May produce an allergic reaction

The function of VOC in paints are as solvents which evaporate after application and result in the desired finish, and are, in this case, the naphtha components described on the MSDS (ICI, 2002). Naphtha is a volatile liquid made up from a number of paraffinic, naphtenic and aromatic hydrocarbons whose exact composition depends on the source, with coal derived naphtha having a higher aromatic content than petroleum naphtha (Mushbrush & Speight, 1995). The heavy naphtha used in this paint is defined as having a boiling range of between 150-205ºC and has been treated to increase the yield of valuable fractions from the feed source (Mushbrush & Speight, 1995). It contains little benzene (<0.01%) and therefore need not be classified as carcinogenic under the conditions set out in the ASL.

Volatile organic compounds contribute to atmospheric pollution and have been implicated in the production of photochemical smog in cities as well as

ozone destruction in the stratosphere (Derwent, 1995; ICI, 2004b). Exactly what proportion of VOC emissions are paint related is difficult to say but on the ICI website, they contrast the 2% contribution from domestic paint use with that of the transport industry which they put at 40% (ICI, 2004b). Terms like ‘domestic’ or ‘household’ use need to be clear as to whether they include emissions associated with both the manufacture and use of the product in question and whether, for instance, these terms cover the professional use of coatings in domestic settings. Derwent (1995) estimates that 50% of the total VOC released to the atmosphere in the UK result from chemical processes. Passant (1995) describes the most significant source of VOC from industry as being solvent use and the major use of solvents is in the coatings industry.

There is a legislative drive to reduce the amount of VOC released into the atmosphere and this is covered specifically by directive 1999/13EC (Ariel Research, 2005). An amendment to this directive (2004/42/EC) focuses on the reduction of VOC in paints and seeks to reduce total community emissions from the 1990 level of 14.1 million tonnes to 5.5 million tonnes by 2010 (Ariel Research, 2005). There is a labelling system in place that is approved by the British Coatings Federation (BCF) to inform consumers of the VOC content of paint products. This is supported by a graphic device that is licensed to the DIY retail giant, B&Q, and which all paint products in their store must carry (B&Q, 1997; ICI, 2004b). This logo represents a globe and briefly describes the problems associated with VOC and states whether the product contains minimal (0-0.29%), low (0.3-7.99%), medium (8-4.99%), high (25-50%) or very high (>50%) amounts of VOC (B&Q, 1997). The gloss paint discussed here has a ‘high’ VOC content.

This labelling scheme allows easy comparison of products and may be a very useful tool to allow consumers to make an informed choice about which products they use. But, as shown by Wogalter and Sojourner (1997), pictograms are only really useful if they are learned and their effect may be negligible without adequate promotion of the labelling scheme and general public awareness of the underlying issues (DTI, 2002). Because of the function of VOC in solvent-based paints, there is no way to reduce their release during normal use. The only way to bring about a reduction in the VOC content of paints is by modifying their formulation. There are water based acrylic products available that contain less VOC but these are unpopular with consumers because they are perceived to be inferior to traditional solvent based products.

Up to 25% of all the paint retailed in the UK is surplus to requirements and, generally after long periods of storage in garages and sheds across the country, ends up being disposed of. The best way to dispose of paint is to use it for its intended purpose and paint disposal can create a problem for local authorities (ICI, 2004b). These problems can be of a regulatory nature because paint can be classified as hazardous waste and practical problems can arise from the illegal disposal of these products such as fly tipping and disposal down drains. The most effective way to solve these problems would be to ensure that consumers do not purchase excessive amounts by helping them to correctly gauge how much they will require for the job in mind. The

British Coatings Federation (BCF) recommends that people donate their excess paint to friends, family or to paint recovery schemes such as those supported by B&Q and Dulux (ICI, 2005b).

1.2.2 Bifenthrin

Bifenthrin is a pyrethroid insecticide with a low application rate (4-45 g a.i/ha) that is manufactured by FMC and is used both professionally (under the trade names of Talstar and Starion) and in a number of amateur formulations such as the Bug Clear range (Tomlin, 1994). Pyrethroids are a large class of insecticides based on the action and structure of the chrysanthemum-derived pyrethrin (Mueller-Beilschmidt, 1990; Fecko, 1999). Bifenthrin is a third generation synthetic pyrethroid ester that is more effective and photostable than earlier pyrethroids although the former is thought to be a function of the latter (Mueller-Beilschmidt, 1990; Fecko, 1999). Bifenthrin has a broad action against all classes of insect and is effective at controlling a range of common pests (greenfly, blackfly, whitefly, caterpillars, ants, cabbage aphid and red spider mite). Bifenthrin is harmful to non-target organisms such as bees but not to the same extent as first generation pyrethroids (Tomlin, 1994).

Bifenthrin is a neurotoxin that, by interfering with cellular sodium channels, first causes spontaneous neuron firing and then paralysis by causing depolarisation of the pre-synaptic channels (Fecko, 1999; Smith et al., 2002). Bifenthrin is extremely toxic to aquatic organisms, especially gill breathers to whom its toxicity can be similar to that of its target organisms (LD50 = <0.003 mg/kg) (Tomlin, 1994). Bifenthrin is hydrophobic (Koc = 1.31 – 3.02 x 105 L/kg) and is readily taken up by the gill where it interferes with osmoregualtion and ionic balance (Tomlin, 1994; Fecko, 1999). Bifenthrin is relatively non-toxic to terrestrial vertebrates (e.g. LD50 > 1000 mg/kg in birds) and has not been shown to have any teratogenic or mutagenic action in experimental animals although it does have a potential bioaccumulation factor of up to 6000 (Tomlin, 1994). Bifenthrin is relatively immobile in soil as it interacts with soil organic matter making it moderately persistent (DT50 = 65-125 d). Bifenthrin is described as moderately hazardous by the World Health Organisation (WHO), as a possible carcinogen by the American Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and as a substance that has reproductive and possible endocrine disrupting effects in the environment by the World Wildlife Fund (PAN, 2001), although little evidence exists to support these claims.

The hazardous ingredients identified in ‘Bug Clear!’ are bifenthrin and a naphtha based solvent. The classification of the components and the final classification of the preparation as found in the safety data sheet are given in Table 1.4 below (Scotts Company, 2000).

Even though the MSDS for the product states that the preparation is not classified, the labelling of the product is consistent with the environmental classification given in Table 1.4 above and carries the ‘dangerous for the environment’ logo along with the wording for the R50/53 risk phrase. Because bifenthrin is also subject to classification under the Control of Pesticides Regulations (COPR), statutory information other than that required by CHIP is

also present on the label. This information describes the intended use of the product, including a maximum permitted concentration, as well as environmental information pertaining to the protection of watercourses and wildlife. In this instance there is a statutory requirement to warn users of the product’s toxicity to bees. The statutory information required under COPR is acknowledged by CHIP in that there is a requirement for all products classified under COPR to carry the wording: ‘To avoid risks to man and the environment, comply with instructions for use’. In light of this, the packaging of preparations classified in this way often contains a lot of regulatory information. This is especially burdensome for products that are packaged in small containers.

Table 1.4. The classification of ‘Bug Clear!’ concentrate and its component ingredients according to the MSDS for the product.

Chemical Symbol R-phraseBifenthrin T - toxic

N - dangerous for the environment

R25 - toxic if swallowedR50/53 - very toxic to aquatic organisms may cause long term effects in the environment

Solvent naphtha Xn – harmfulN – dangerous for the environment

R65 – may cause lung damage if swallowed

Preparation Not required Not classified

1.2.3 Creosote Substitute

Creosote has been the workhorse of the external wood preserving world for decades and is a substance that most will be familiar with, if only because of its characteristic smell. Creosote is a complex mixture of coal tar derived hydrocarbons and because of concerns over the carcinogenic potential of benzo[a]pyrene, an aromatic component of creosote, it was withdrawn for amateur use in the UK in 2003 and restrictions were placed on its professional use (HSE, 2005). Creosote has been replaced by creosote substitutes that, essentially, are still complicated hydrocarbon mixtures although they are petroleum derived rather than coal tar derivatives. They have controlled amounts of water soluble phenols and benzo[a]pyrene and they also contain fungicides such as dichlofluanid (Bartoline, 2002). Creosote substitutes resemble regular creosote in smell and appearance and can be used for the same purpose. The classification for the product that we surveyed here, Bartoline Creosote Substitute, and its components are given in Table 1.5.

Of all the products surveyed here, creosote substitute is classified as the most hazardous according to CHIP regulations. As creosote substitute contains dichlofluanid it is also subject to COPR regulations. This means extra information is required on the label, such as phrases pertaining to the protection of bats and watercourses. As creosote substitute is packaged in 4L containers, there is not a space issue and accommodating these extra regulatory phrases on the label whilst maintaining legibility is achievable.

Table 1.5. The classification of creosote substitute and its component ingredients based on the MSDS for that product (Bartoline, 2002).

Chemical Symbol R-phraseHydrocarbon oil Xn - harmful

N - dangerous for the environment

R65 - may cause lung damage if swallowedR52/53 – harmful to aquatic organisms, may cause long term adverse effects in the aquatic environment

Aromatic hydrocarbon oil mixture

Xn – harmfulN - dangerous for the environment

R22 - harmful if swallowedR65 - may cause lung damage if swallowedR51/53 – toxic to aquatic organisms, may cause long term adverse effects in the aquatic environment

Dichlofluanid Xn - harmfulN - dangerous for the environment

R20 - harmful by inhalationR36 - irritating to eyesR43 - may cause sensitisation by skin contactR50/53 – very toxic to aquatic organisms, may cause long term effects in the aquatic environment

Preparation (label) Xn - harmfulN - dangerous for the environment

R37/38 - irritating to respiratory system and skin R65 - may cause lung damage if swallowed R51/53 - toxic to aquatic organisms, may cause long term effects in the aquatic environment

Creosote is interesting from a hazard perspective. The main justification, it seems, for withdrawing creosote from the market place for amateur use only, is the perception by regulators of low amateur compliance with guidance regarding the use of protective equipment (HSE, 2004). This may well be justified as Riley et al., (2001) describe label compliance in terms of cost and benefit, that is users are only willing to expend effort on reading or complying with a label if they can perceive a benefit in line with that expenditure. This has made creosote the subject of regulatory scrutiny and attempts have been made to control the hazards associated with its use. This has resulted in the withdrawal of creosote for use by the general public and coal tar products for professional use must contain no more than 0.1% benzene, less than 0.005% benzo[a]pyrene and fewer than 3% water soluble phenols. This withdrawal was enforced through the UK COPR (1986) as amended in 1997 and to enforce the European Commission Directive 2001/90/EC (HSE, 2004).

Dichlofluanid is a neurotoxin. It is very toxic to aquatic organisms has been withdrawn for use in the EU as a plant protection product (Bartoline, 2002; PAN, 2001; HSE, 2004). It seems that there has been a trade off for a chemical that is carcinogenic (benzo[a]pyrene) for dichlofluanid which is not know to be a carcinogen. From a human toxicological viewpoint this may be beneficial but creosote substitutes still include many of the ecotoxins that creosote contained, i.e. aromatic compounds and phenols as well a persistent fungicide (Bartoline, 2002, Padama et al., 1999).

Creosote products contain PAH and Phenols and their toxicity is well documented. Because of soil interaction processes, the PAH component of creosote is more likely to persist in the environment and therefore has

potential as a long-term low-level contaminant (Padama et al., 1999). The phenolic compounds are, on the other hand, more likely to fractionate into the water phase and are more mobile and easily degraded. Therefore, they are more likely to be of concern in an acute sense following their release into the environment (Padama et al., 1999). It must be stressed here that the apparent ecotoxicological concerns with new formula creosote should only be relevant in instances of misuse or in the event of an accident.

Another problem associated with creosote is analogous to the issues discussed under paint regarding the release of VOC to the atmosphere. The gloss paints surveyed at B&Q had a ‘high’ VOC content where as creosote substitute had a ‘very high’ VOC logo. Still, there is evidence that creosote substitutes are ‘greener’ than the more traditional formulations and they have been shown to contain less water-soluble phenols and less VOC (Bartoline 2002, Kohler & Kunniger 2003).

1.2.4 Institutional Toilet Cleaning Product

Detergents are high volume consumer products whose annual consumption exceeds over 9 million tonnes in Europe. Domestic products claim the most significant market share, followed by industrial and institutional detergents (Madsen et al., 2001; Stalmans et al., 1991). From the late 1980s onwards, there was a boom in public environmental awareness that led to consumers demanding ‘greener’ products (Montgomery, 1997). This ‘green’ movement affected the detergents industry and led to manufacturers developing ‘green’ and ‘eco friendly’ product ranges, many of which have lost their popularity since media coverage of, and thus public interest in, these environmental issues has waned (Montgomery, 1997). Nevertheless, as a result manufacturers have implemented some formulation changes to many cleaning products, both on a voluntary basis and in response to legislative requirements, that appear to be environmentally beneficial. This has led to, for example, the reduction of phosphate in washing powder and the substitution of alkylphenol ethoxylates for other surfactants (Madsen et al., 2001; Stalmans et al., 1991). The cleaning product surveyed here was an institutional toilet cleaner called TD30 that is manufactured by Premiere Products, UK.

Because of the way cleaning products are used, any environmentally damaging compounds that they contain have an easy route into the environment through wastewater systems (Stalmans et al., 1991). It is perhaps intuitive then that, amongst the product types surveyed here, the cleaning product represents the one with the least potential to cause environmental harm. The compounds of concern in most detergents are surfactants, complexing agents, perfumes, bleaching agents, acids, bases and solvents. All detergents depend on the use of surfactants for their action and these ingredients have the potential to cause environmental harm. Such is the case with alkylphenol ethoxylates, which form recalcitrant and toxic breakdown products that have the ability to mimic hormones (Madsen et al., 2001). There has been a move away from ingredients that have been known to be dangerous for the environment towards softer alternatives. This includes

the substitution of anionic surfactants with the milder nonionic or amphoteric types. Indeed, TD30 contains a nonionic surfactant in replacement for the anionic kind (Premiere Products, 1994). The amount of surfactants used for industrial and institutional detergents in Europe was around 250,000 tonnes in 1998 (compared to about 1.5 million tonnes for domestic products) (Madsen et al., 2001)

TD30 contains between 15-30% phosphoric acid, which acts as a powerful descaler and disinfectant (Premiere Products, 1994). The ASL classification for phosphoric acid at this concentration is R36/38 – ‘irritating to eyes and skin’. This combination of risk phrases must therefore feature on the TD30 label along with the irritant logo. There is no specific environmental information given about TD30 but there is a warning that accidental spills should be prevented from entering storm drains (Premiere Products, 1994). Phosphoric acid can affect the pH of water bodies, which can have implications for corrosion in water pipes and treatment systems, as well as being a potential source of phosphate which is linked to eutrophication (Madsen et al., 2001). Generally, primary production in fresh water systems is limited by phosphate whilst marine systems are generally limited by nitrate. The discharge of phosphates from cleaning products into fresh water systems therefore is more likely to promote algal blooms than their discharge to marine systems. There is also some environmental concern with the manufacture of phosphoric acid as it generates phosphogypsum as a by-product, which is impure and creates disposal problems (Defreitas & Albuquerque, 1991).

2.0 Context of study

This chapter discusses the context of the study by reference to available literature. Literature searching was performed mainly using ISI Web of Science via the Athens access portal. Search terms included chemical, label, effective, safe, risk, hazard, and perception and these were used in their truncated forms using the ‘begin with’ option and different combinations of Boolean search operators. Papers were selected using the following criteria: relevance, availability and date of publication. Relevant papers were used to generate further searches using the ‘find related records’ option. This usually generated a large number of hits and papers were selected using the aforementioned criteria. The bibliography of relevant papers was also consulted as a source of literature as were other sources of information including commercial search engines such as Goggle Scholar and other relevant websites.

2.1 What makes an effective label?

There is already a body of evidence in existence to describe how effective labels are at conveying their intended message to the end user (Argo & Main, 2002; DTI, 2002; Fischoff et al., 1998; Lehto, 1998; Riley et al., 2001; Wogalter et al., 2002; Wogalter & Sojourner, 1997). Product safety labels and MSDS are intended to communicate risks and influence behaviour (Wogalter et al., 2002) and the ultimate test of their effectiveness is a measure of these parameters (Wogalter, 2002; Argo & Main, 2002). The main method of communicating risk information on a label is through a combination of text, graphics and tactile devices (DTI, 2002; Lehto, 1998; Wogalter et al., 2002; Wogalter & Sojourner, 1997). This information can be presented in such a manner that may influence how the user perceives its message. Such presentational techniques include the use of colour, bullet points, bold typefaces and ensuring appropriate positioning on the container – the latter is especially true of tactile devices that are specifically designed for the visually impaired (DTI, 2002; Lehto, 1998; Riley et al., 2001; Wogalter et al., 2002).

2.2 Graphical Devices

The main graphical devices that are used to convey safety information are hazard warning symbols. Symbols or pictograms are also used in many voluntary labelling schemes (DTI, 2002) to convey information about certain virtues of the product in question. In this sense they often function as marketing tools rather than a device to convey safety information. Pictograms or symbols are appealing because potentially they can communicate complex ideas at a glance. There is also evidence to suggest that consumers prefer pictograms to complicated written instructions (Wogalter et al., 2002; DTI, 2002). Pictograms are thought to be universal (Wogalter & Sojourner, 1997) as they can be understood by people regardless of their language, literacy level, and other linguistic or physical impedance. However, elderly users have been reported to be less responsive to pictographic devices (Hancock et al., 2001; Wogalter, 2002).

A study by Wogalter and Sojourner (1997) showed that pictograms are potentially useful devices for conveying safety information and that once learned, the message conveyed by a pictorial device is ‘almost indelible’. However, they also observed that labels are most effective if they carry some explanatory text, which has implications when considering their perceived universality. They attributed this finding to the fact that the brain processes verbal and visual information differently. For a subject to process these two types of information both hemispheres of the brain are used and this, they reason, results in a more ‘resilient’ memory. Wogalter and Sojourner (1997) show that complex pictorials were the most widely misunderstood amongst their subjects, meaning that the safety message of many pictorials is likely to be lost. It is this type of complex pictorial that showed the most marked increase in comprehension when training was provided to participants in the study. Franz et al (1991) showed that the presence of pictograms might discourage some subjects from reading further in order to obtain more detailed information (Lehto, 1998).

2.3 Wording

As well as graphical devices, the wording found on labels is very important. Based on the findings of past research, the American National Standards Institute (Edworthy et al., 2004) along with Wogalter et al. (2002) and Rogers et al. (2000) found that an effective written safety warning must consist of the following four components:

A signal word Hazard identification

Hazard explanation Hazard avoidance advice

The signal word serves to attract attention and different words are associated with varying degrees of severity. For example, the word ‘danger’ is perceived as communicating the highest degree of risk. ‘Caution’ and ‘warning’ have been shown to represent an intermediate level of menace with ‘notice’ perceived as communicating least. Research shows that using signal words increases the effectiveness of warning labels (Wogalter et al., 2002). The second, third and fourth components of effective warnings should include a description of the hazard along with the danger of non-compliance and a way to minimise risks. All of these components, it has been found, should be both specific and concise if they are to be effective (DTI, 2002; Lehto, 1998; Riley et al., 2001; Wogalter et al., 2002). It is also unnecessary to duplicate information if it is obviously implicit in another part of the warning (Wogalter et al., 2002).

2. 4 Layout

The way in which the graphics and wording are laid out is important and can affect compliance. Salience and devices that serve to increase this (graphic devices, order of instructions, bold text, colour, contrast, text boxes and borders etc.) also increase the chance that the label will be read and therefore will increase compliance (Lehto, 1998; Riley et al., 2001; Wogalter et al., 2002). Lehto (1998) emphasises that labels need to be complete but that they

must also be concise to be effective and, similarly, labels must not be too cluttered if they are to communicate their intended messages successfully. Bullet points are a good way to communicate complicated information and this is preferable to continuous prose (DTI, 2002; Wogalter, 2002). Cluttered labels can reduce legibility, particularly on small packs, and sans serif fonts are easier to read, especially for the visually impaired (DTI, 2002). As consumers are only likely to read the top few lines of text, the positioning of warnings is also important and, for maximum effect, warnings should be on the front of a product and should be printed horizontally with logos appearing to the left of the text (DTI, 2002; Riley et al., 2001). The label should also be encountered when using the product, which is especially relevant to the positioning of tactile warnings (they are better positioned on a surface which must be handled in the normal utilisation of a product). For warning labels to be effective, a balance between salience, content and placement must be achieved. Wogalter et al. (2002) describe novel labelling systems (such as interactive labels and pull out tags) that are effective but which do not conform to some of the provisos for success. For example, fold out labels may not afford easy access to the information contained within them, but the increased salience along with the increase in surface area, which, in turn, serves to reduce clutter and allow an increase in content, makes this type of label suitable for communicating a relatively large volume of safety information, particularly on small packages.

2. 5 General Considerations

It is evident that a lot of design factors influence how effective warning labels are. In a meta-study of the literature concerning the effectiveness of warning labels, Argo and Main (2002) point out that, despite the plethora of work on the effectiveness of labelling schemes, we still may not fully understand what characteristics actually make up an effective warning label. The reasons they cite are: a general tendency of studies to report weak to moderately correlated findings and to rely on, for example, student participants, who do not represent the general population. Indeed the latter tendency was also observed in many studies consulted here (e.g. Lehto 1998; Wogalter & Sojourner, 1997) and may account for some of the contradictory findings, especially those by Lehto (1998), which play down the importance of layout as opposed to content.

Added to this uncertainty is a range of other factors that also reduce the effectiveness of a label. These are manifold, and even if a theoretically perfect label could be agreed upon it would be of little benefit if, as suggested by some studies, only 5% of consumers actually consulted the label (Riley et al., 2001). Of course this Figure is unreliable and the tendency of individuals to consult a label is a complicated process and governed by personal variables such as perceived risk, educational background, personality type, age, gender, cultural background, familiarity, and training (Rogers et al., 2000; Wogalter et al., 2002).

Some of these personal variables could be addressed, for example, by using larger text for the visually impaired or the elderly (DTI, 2002, Hancock et al.,

2001). For consumers to read a label and act on its advice, they have to be convinced that their effort is going to be rewarded. For this reason the advice offered to reduce risk must be the most efficient for the likely use of the product as it might be hard convincing consumers to wear protective clothing if, for instance, they are only going to be using a product for a short time (Riley et al., 2001).

It also seems that consumers become jaded with warning labels and they are less likely to read those with which they are familiar or those that they perceive to be overly technical or misleading (DTI, 2002; Edworthy et al., 2004; Riley et al., 2001; Wogalter et al., 2002). This familiarity can be countered if labels are targeted to particular groups by using a selection of warning labels to maintain consumer interest (Wogalter, 2002). Using the pronoun ‘you’ along with presenting instructions in a chronological order also increases compliance (Edworthy et al., 2004).

Many logos, for example the ‘corrosive’ hazard-warning logo, are not widely recognised and for this reason they either need to be revised or learned by consumers (Venema et al., 2005). A study commissioned by the department of Trade and Industry (DTI, 2002) found that labels are frequently overburdened and - given that consumers react positively to brevity, simplicity and the ease of finding information - including additional ‘explanatory’ information for existing, revised or proposed logos would most likely prove to be counter-productive (Riley et al., 2001, Wogalter et al., 2002). A more likely solution is having an instruction on the packaging directing people to supplementary information if they require it (Edworthy et al., 2004).

A universally effective label is a theoretical concept that is not likely to be realised in the near future. This is difficult to address and, seeing as labels are designed to cater for a majority, there will always be a trade off between target groups based on the interpretation of past research. There are, therefore, tacit exclusion criteria inherent in any labelling scheme and these are difficult to address without accepting them and therefore justifying them in some way (Fischoff et al., 1998).

3.0 Qualitative analysis

In this chapter we report the findings from the qualitative analysis of seven focus group discussions with participants from different stages of the supply chain of chemicals. We begin by outlining the research methods, analysis and recruitment techniques used in the project and then go onto examine the findings from the analysis which are presented in relation to five themes: risk, information, trust, choice and disposal. We conclude with a brief summary of the findings.

3.1 Research methods

Focus groups were undertaken in this project to enable us to examine how views and experiences relating to (i) sources of information on the environmental risks of chemicals, (ii) the usefulness of the information in terms of clarity, quality and accessibility, and (iii) the factors that influence the choice and disposal of chemicals, were articulated, justified, censured and opposed through group interaction (Kitzinger and Barbour 2000). Previous research has also identified that focus groups are also well suited to exploring views on existing chemical safety data sheets and labelling (EC 1999, cited in DTI, 2002).

3.1.1 Recruitment

Owing to the relatively short time frame of the project, recruitment was targeted to groups that meet regularly. Seven focus groups were undertaken and each group covered a different stage of the supply chain of chemicals:

Figure 3.1. The position of each group in the chemical supply chain. The numbers represent their designation for the analysis in carried out in chapter 4.

3.1.2 Topic guide

The focus groups were based on a semi-structured topic guides so that similar topics were brought up for discussion with each group but participants were encouraged to interpret and develop topics in their own way. One topic guide was developed for the focus groups with end users (i.e. members of the general public, cleaners and allotment holders) and another for those with chemical manufacturers, suppliers and retailers (i.e. professional groups). The topic guides can be found in appendix ii. Both topic guides collected information on the following:

factors influencing the choice of chemicals purchased for use in the home, garden and at work;

views on general risks to the environment and health from chemicals used at work and in the home;

sources of information on the above risks; factors influencing the disposal of chemicals;

23

views on how information on chemicals should be provided to the public to minimise risks to health and the environment.

In addition, the focus groups examined views on existing labels and safety data sheets. Generic, anonymised labels were made up based on the exact wording found on the labels of the product types used in the study. Each of the four product labels was presented slightly differently with regards to font size and layout but in keeping with the packaging for each product type that is commonly found on the market. Large font versions of each were made up to cater for the partially sighted. MSDS were obtained from the manufacturer and used exactly as they were provided except that identifying particulars were removed. Four product types were used in the study:

An insecticide for domestic use A wood preservative

A paint A toilet cleaner

The information discussed in the focus groups was dependent upon which tier of the supply chain each focus group represented. It was initially intended that the upper two tiers of the supply chain were given safety data sheets whilst the end user groups were given labels. Upon conducting the focus groups however, this did not always seem appropriate and the suppliers and procurers were given both safety data sheets and labels. In the case of end users the laboratory and warehouse staff were given MSDS instead of labels. Each group discussion would be based on two of the example chemicals with the exception of the allotment gardeners who were given three:

Table 3.1. A table showing the information given out at each focus group.Group Product Type of informationManufacturers Toilet cleaner, gloss paint MSDSCleaners Gloss paint, toilet cleaner LabelsGeneral public Gloss paint, toilet cleaner LabelsAllotment holders Wood preserver, insecticide, paint LabelsProcurers Wood preserver, insecticide MSDS & LabelsRetailers Wood preserver, insecticide MSDS & LabelsLaboratory & warehouse staff

Wood preserver, insecticide MSDS

3.1.3 Analysis

The focus groups were recorded with participant permission and then typed up verbatim by contract typists. The focus group coordinator checked the accuracy of each transcription. One of the focus groups was of relatively poor quality and, although there was enough material to include it in the qualitative analysis, it was not of sufficient quality to be included in the network analysis described in chapter 4.

Group data were analysed using ‘whole group analysis’ which treats the data as a whole without delineating individual contributions. The unit of analysis thus becomes the whole group and was treated in the same way as a unit of individual data (Ritchie and Lewis 2003). The focus group transcripts were analysed using a process of ‘analytic induction’ to interpret and structure the meanings that can be derived from

24

data (Hammersley and Atksinson 1995) . This technique was used to identify key themes and provide an understanding of substantive issues in the data (Bloor 2001).

Themes are defined as units derived from patterns such as "conversation topics, vocabulary, recurring activities, meanings, feelings, or folk sayings and proverbs" (Taylor and Bogdan 1984). Themes are identified by bringing together components or fragments of ideas or experiences. Themes that emerge from the informants' stories are pieced together to form a comprehensive picture of their collective experience.

The focus group analysis was managed and facilitated by QSR NVivo 2.0 software that was used for coding re-ordering the data on the basis of the analytical themes produced.

3.2 Results

Five, inter-related, themes were identified by the analysis: risk, trust, information/knowledge, choice and disposal. Each of these themes will now be described in detail. When quotes are given, M denotes a male participant, F denotes a female participant and C denotes the moderator of the discussion.

3.2.1 Risk

Focus group participants were asked what risks were associated with the two sample chemicals used in the discussion. For chemical manufacturers the concept of risk as being distinct from hazard was fully understood:

M: One of the things that we do within product safety is to distinguish between hazard and risk.

M: Hazard is the intrinsic property of something. For me…what I’d look for in a safety data sheet is a clear description of the inherent hazards of whatever is there, and then recommendations on what to do in the event of fire, spillage, personal protection, etc. I mean…they’re both fairly hazardous substances particularly the paint, and …the TD30 is less hazardous than the paint, but in many ways the starting point for me is what is the hazard, and is it correctly classified and labelled.

(Chemical manufacturers)

For participants in other focus groups risk was conceptualised in a less specific way:

M: Well it might kill more than just the bugs. It could kill plants and wildlife.

C: Right okay, so that could be one risk.F: Can be very dangerous to children.M: Misuse. Used in the wrong way.M: Could be a skin irritant.F: Used indoors instead of outdoors: people don’t read the

product labelling very often.

25

(Retailers)

Participants from all stages of the supply chain highlighted risks to health from the products used in the discussion. Among end user groups, paint was associated with cancer causing chemicals and smells from paint and some cleaning products were perceived to be damaging to health:

M: These one coat paints they contain like cancer-causing things you know, because I used to use them in the ship yards all the time you see because I’m a painter and decorator.

C: Right, any others?F: Well, the smells. I’m asthmatic so I’ve got to be careful which

ones I use. I try and go for the water one, its not always the cheapest, well, its never the cheapest, but its safer for me and….

F: I’m always very chesty after I’ve used paint, it gets on me chest.F: I tend to use the breath-easy ones now.C: Okay, how about toilet cleaner, do you think there’s any risks

associated with just using the toilet cleaner?F: Yes, there is.C: Right okay.F: The acid content in it.F: Gives off toxic fumes if you…F: Yes, that’s right.F: You know, if you were to mix them or anything it could be

really dangerous.(Cleaners)

M: My mother had bought some cleaner for the oven and when she opened it all her eyes were very red and she had to throw it out, so it just goes to show, and the strength of it when you opened it you could feel it actually on your skin and your eyes.

(General public)

Some focus group participants felt unsure about how smells from paint and other products could affect health:

F: There’s such a strong smell with paints and things when you’re inhaling them you know, and especially with paint I felt quite ill before, so you think it is affecting you but I just wouldn’t know in what way.

M: How much damage it was doing.F: Yes.M: Yes there’s certain chemicals like that that end up killing brain

cells with certain smells, like paint, petrol.(General public)

26

Lead in paint was mentioned on two occasions during focus groups with end users although on both occasions it was acknowledged that lead is no longer used in paint. The cleaners felt that health risks from the chemicals used at work were minimised due to a range of regulations that governed their use and the high level of information provision.

Whilst there were frequent references to health risks associated with chemicals during the focus group discussions, risks to the environment were usually only articulated following prompting by the moderator. This was the case for focus groups at most stages of the supply chain. As with health risks, risks to the environment were largely non-specific:

C: Do you think there are any risks associated with using paint and toilet cleaner?

M: Yes, I think the majority of people know the main [health] risks.

C: Right. Do you? Do you think most people do?M: Well, yes, I mean you wouldn’t drink it for example would you,

but you know, maybe if it was smelling a bit you’d still use it, you know, it depends on how bad it got you know.

C: Right okay. Alright, now what about risks to the environment then with using chemicals we use in the home?

M: Well bleach has a pretty devastating affect on the environment.

M: YesC: Right.M: I think it kills just about everything doesn’t it.M: I would imagine some of the products you buy like for

removing hard dirt and stuff from ovens and…could be quite damaging.

(General public)

Organic gardeners were concerned about the environmental impact of chemicals, particularly the effect chemical use was having on nature, and felt that not enough was known about these effects:

M: There is another big issue as well, and that’s the affect that these chemicals are having on those things that are beneficial in the environment. Bees, bumble bees for example, which are there for a specific purpose, are being killed by these chemicals to no end, and then there is nothing to replace them to serve the purpose for which they’re there, pollinating fruit trees for example… chemicals are essentially now out of control, and its only from time to time that somebody looks at one and says, ‘ah, the non-benefits of that outweigh the benefits, we better take it off the market for a while’…We allow chemicals to be used without fully understanding the effects of them, and that has gone on and is continuing to go on.

27

(Gardeners)

3.2.2 Information

Focus group participants used a range of sources to obtain information about chemical safety and the sources varied at different stages of the supply chain. Chemical manufacturers, cleaners, procurers, retailers and laboratory and warehouse staff all used safety data sheets as the principal sources of information on risks associated with chemicals they used at work. In addition, professional groups used other ‘standard sources of information’ including technical specifications, general supplier information (including) contacting suppliers direct, company internal databases, promotional literature and posters. All professional groups used the Internet and the retailers were aware of telephone helpline services provided by many manufacturers, particularly the larger ones.

The main source of information on chemical safety used in the home and garden by general members of the public and cleaners were the product labels (although, as will be discussed below, not all participants had read this information). The media (both newspaper and television) was also sometimes mentioned as a source of information by end users although there was an awareness that this source of information tended to be sensationalised:

F: Well there was that thing about that Mr. Muscle Oven Cleaner…F: Well there’s another one, there’s a feller had a heart attack

and he was using this Raid Ant Spray.F: He’d had a heart attack and recovered from it, and he used

this Raid, and he had another heart attack. (Cleaners)

M: I mean [information in the media] normally comes around as spillages or disasters or accidents. You know, its always negative, its very rarely that they’ll actually say anything positive so you tend to see the worst side of what chemicals can do.

C: Right.M: I think the media always try to blow things…M: Over play it yes.C: Yes, exaggerate things.M: And try and get more attention to it to sell a few more

newspapers.(General public)

The cleaners felt access to information associated with chemical products used in the home and garden was much poorer than information provided at work:

C: And the sheets that you get at work, what sorts of information is on there?

28

F: Gives you what’s in it, the different…erm…[pause] the Ph values and things like that.

F: How you would dispose of it.C: Right, okay.F: If its irritant if its harmful, or corrosive or an irritant or whatever.F: The dilution rates.C: Do you ever come across any information on risks associated

with paint or toilet cleaner.F: Only what’s on the bottle.(Cleaners)

Allotment gardeners were the only group among end users that actively went searching for information although most of the information sought related to specific products as opposed to environmental risks associated with these products. Such information searching was undertaken on a regular basis. A comprehensive range of information sources were consulted by this group including the internet (e.g. specific sites for certain chemicals/products where information can be downloaded), labels on the products in retail outlets, books (such as the National Pesticide Guide). Information would also be collected via word of mouth from other allotment holders and occasionally the media. Organic allotment holders did search specifically for information relating to the environmental effects of chemicals used in the allotment from sources including the Organic Association, Organic Way Magazine and the Pesticide Action Network.

C: So what sources of information do you use for your allotments for you know…I mean you’ve given us some information today, and where do you search for your information you need on the products that you use?

M: The web.C: Do all of you use the web?M: Most of us.F: But sometimes I like to go in the shops and have a look at all

the different bottles and read them and…C: So you read the labels on the bottles right okay.F: Yes.M: Press occasionally. Word of mouth.M: With the extreme wing I just have to avoid them (laughs)

don’t do it, don’t go there, read to much, don’t want to do it!C: I mean do you just do that generally, or would it be if you

wanted to tackle a specific problem?M: If you’re looking for a specific problem, like you can go onto

the Armillatox site now, and it will give you at least a 10 page download, and it will tell you how to dilute it, how to use it, how to use the sterilizer, what quantity to use, everything’s there for it.

M: The Henry Doubleday Research Association is the Organic Association, and they have a fairly comprehensive member’s area at which problems can be discussed, and those

29

problems come from all sorts of different gardeners. I use that occasionally. And they do run experiments every year as well, which frequently involve a form of pesticide control, so you can get information from that source as well.

M: The Pesticide Action Network.(Gardeners)

Safety data sheets

There were mixed views on safety data sheets. Whilst most professional groups felt they were a “necessary evil,” the procurers felt the information contained in the safety data sheets was too technical and contained too much specialist jargon. For the retailers the length of the safety data sheets acted as a barrier and also represented ‘red-tape’ and ‘paper-work’:

M: From a retailers point of view, to me it’s a necessary evil, and everyone’s got to cover their backs. But its another form of red tape, everything just seems to be more red tape, and more red tape, and one day we’ll actually serve a customer, rather than sorting through everything that…

M: They’re too long and then you just don’t read any of it sort of thing…rather than it being fairly concise, and you might read a page, but you don’t want to read 8 pages or whatever.

(Retailers)

M: There’s so much information to try and get through you probably miss what’s actually there.

M: What we used to do where I used to work was when you’d issue things like this (safety data sheet), you’d give them the COSHH sheet and generally you’d hand them one of them, and I used to find that these would go straight in the bin.

(Procurers)

Retailers had had problems trying to obtain information sheets from suppliers:

M: The first problem with that is that a lot of the time you can’t get hold of the information, they say they haven’t got the current sheet, or they’ve you know…they…

F: I’ve asked suppliers and they’ve said ‘oh we haven’t got those’, or they say ‘yes’ and it doesn’t ever, ever come.

(Retailers)

Views on safety data sheets used in the discussion

30

Focus group participants from the chemical manufacturers, retailers, procurement and laboratory and warehouse staff were asked how they felt about the safety data sheets based on two example chemicals. It was generally felt that the longer length of the wood preservative and paint safety data sheets acted as a barrier, although there was some disagreement in terms of whether all important information could be reduced to two pages. Some felt reducing information to this length meant that some details were left out whilst others felt this was important to encourage people to read the entire sheet:

M: On the insecticide one it says it may ‘cause long term adverse effects in the aquatic environment’, it doesn’t say what mind.

C: Are they clear would you say?M: Not particularly that clear, I mean I don’t think they’re

particularly that clear. I think there’s too much information.(Procurers)

C: In terms of the length would you say that you can get all the information required on these sheets in 2 pages?

M: It depends on the product.M: It depends on the product yes.F: We always aim for 4 pages. But quite often we struggle withit.M: If it’s a particularly complicated one, which has got a

suspected carcinogen which the paint has, then you might need to take more space to explain that than you do on some on some of them with the very simple formulations. So…

F: I don’t think you would ever get it on 2 though would you?M: No, 2’s too few.M: No, we get them on 2. I’m not saying its good, but that’s what

happens. (Chemical manufacturers)

The wood preservative safety data sheet contained too much technical jargon in the view of the procurers and laboratory and warehouse staff:

M: Yes, a lot of it is the amount of information, there’s so much to try and get through really, you probably miss what’s actually there.

M: I mean the creosote one is very technical to start with, so an average user is not going to read past that first page. If the tanker spills, maybe the guy who comes to clean it up later on would read all of that if they’ve got a technical knowledge, but as a user, I wouldn’t go past the first page.

(Procurement)

C: Right…Any comments on, I mean would you say the information is easy to understand?

F: I think the insecticide one is easier to understand than the wood preservative one.(Laboratory and warehouse staff)

31

Labels

A small number of participants in the end users focus groups stated they did read labels. This was usually done if the participant was wanting to buy a low odour paint or because they wanted to identify any risks to the environment associated with using the product:

M: I tend to read on the back of them. But I don’t actually buy a lot of them, so its not…you know, if I was buying them I would take some interest on what was actually written on the back of them, ozone friendly and things like that you know, for the environment.

(General public)

Most stated they didn’t look at the labels because they tended to presume they know the risks or assumed that the product was safe, especially if they have used it before, or because it is ‘common sense’.

C: Do all of you read the labels on the products then? M: No not always.M: Very rarely.C: Right that’s interesting.F: You tend to with your food, but you don’t really think about it

with…F: No.M: With you’re food though, is that just looking at the instructions

how to cook it or…?F: No I think you look to see what ingredients are in it and

additives and whatnot. But you don’t need to do that with like shampoo and any other things, you just tend to presume that it’s safe.

(General public)

The chemical manufacturers felt that the public didn’t read labels because they ‘weren’t interested’ or because they simply ‘ignored’ information on products:

M: If you buy most windscreen de-icers they’re both toxic and flammable and it doesn’t seem to stop people buying them. They’ve got skull and crossbones on.

F: I don’t think people even look.M: No I agree with you. I don’t think people know and they just

think, well its de-icer, you know, the fact that its got a flashpoint of minus 3 and is toxic when in contact with the skin…

F: They’re not interested.(Chemical manufacturers)

32

M: …if you’re actually doing some home decorating and you’re cleaning out your gloss paintbrush if you use a paintbrush cleaner and its got on it the dead fish, dead tree symbol, and I very much doubt that any home user takes any notice of that whatsoever, it goes straight down the drain. So they’re ignoring that and if because they’re ignoring that it then opens the question ‘well what else are they ignoring?’

(Chemical manufacturers)

The allotment holders felt that whilst they wouldn’t read a label for a paint tin as they assumed they knew the advice on the label they would read the label on chemicals used in the allotment to obtain information on diluting etc:

M: Well like I say, especially for the paint, who looks at a paint tin?

M: You’re looking for white paint, that’s all you’re after.M: Its either gloss or satin or whatever, that’s you done.F: You think you know what it says, assume.C: Okay, so you wouldn’t look for that reason.M: You certainly read these more carefully because you need to

know the dosage.C: Right okay.M: Well with chemicals you do, because you’ve got to dilute

them at the right rates.(Allotments holders)

In the group of cleaners whilst some stated they now read the labels ‘automatically,’ others stated they didn’t have the time to read them when trying to decide on which product to buy in the supermarket:

C: Right. I mean can you remember what sorts of things….do you read the stuff that’s on the tins and containers?

F: YesC: So you do make a point of…F: I think we do, naturally we do.F: That’s right, you just do it because you’re so used to doing it.F: yes, its just automatic yes.F: You do it at home as well, but I’m not saying everybody does

that because…F: I maybe look to see if there’s a cross.F: But if I buy anything from like the supermarket, I don’t, to be

honest I don’t stand and read the back of it. Its maybe a product I’ve seen on the television, and I’ve seen it doing the job, and I’ve rushed to the shop and I’ve bought it, and it hasn’t done the job that they’re telling me that its done.

(Cleaners)

When participants who had read the labels were asked what information they could remember reading on the tin, most mentioned technical terms that they didn’t understand and logos, particularly St Andrew’s cross:

33

C: So those of you that have read the labels, can you remember what sort of information it gives you on there?

M: It’s a lot of long words, polyphene...F: And it has a big cross on it doesn’t it or symbols on it and

hazardous like flammable.M: Because some of it will say ‘environmentally friendly’ with a

green tick on it.M: So you know it’s a better product to buy for the environment

as well.M: You know, if its got a big black X on it you know its…F: Just normally advising you to wear like protective gloves, like

oven cleaners and not to inhale and to use in well-ventilated areas.

C: So that was from the labelling then?F: YesF: Just from labelling yes.M: If you get it on your skin to make sure you wash it off

immediately.(General public)

Views on the labels used in the focus groups

In terms of views on the labels used in the discussion the longer length of the paint and insecticide labels in comparison with the other labels was viewed as a barrier to people reading the labels:

C: Do you think that they (labels) give you enough information.F: I think they’ve gone over the top (general agreement)C: Over the top, so they’re too long would you say?F: Well the paint one certainly is.(Cleaners)

The small font size, particularly on the insecticide label, was also viewed as a barrier to reading the labels and from this perspective the paint label was larger and more accessible. Small font size was the most common concern to be expressed by end user groups, and this was felt to be a particular problem for older people:

C: Okay, so I mean if you had to say which was the better label which one would you ay? Would it be the paint or the toilet cleaner?

F: The paint.C So for what reasons?F: Its more detailed and the font’s larger as well.C: Right okay. Yes it is isn’t it.F: Yes, I mean this little writing most people don’t read the small

print, most people are going to read big print.(Cleaners)

34

C: I mean do you think most people would read these labels for a start?

M: No, not to any degree.M: Not to any great extent.C: What would put them off?M: Probably because they’re printed too small.C: Right, okay, so the print, its not clear is it, yes.M: Especially for us older people.C: Yes, its very small isn’t it….(Allotment holders)

The paint label was subdivided into sections which made the information clearer in the view of allotment holders, especially in comparison to the insecticide label:

F: I think the insecticide one is the most difficult one to read, because its not giving clear headings. Here at least you can go straight to what you need to know.

C: Is that compared to the paint one?F: Yes, compared to A (the paint label). I prefer A. (Allotment holders)

All of the labels were criticised for containing too much jargon that they weren’t familiar with and didn’t understand:

C: Okay, I mean how clear do you think this information is?F: I think its good but some of the words they use probably so

people wouldn’t understand.F: That’s right yes.F: You know like the chemical names and things.F: Yes, and especially, yes the chemical names, you know, not

everybody would know what it actually means no.F: I know the Methanol one is something alcohol isn’t it so…But

that’s about the only ones I recognise.(Cleaners)

Views on the logos printed on the labels

Participants were also asked for their views on the logos printed on the product labels discussed during the group discussions. The most recognisable logos, and the one that most people could remember seeing on the back of products, was the St Andrew’s cross and the skull and crossbones:

M: I feel that this cross, that harmful cross, is very easily recognised by everybody I think.

F: There are other symbols like that too.M: Like the skull and crossbones, I mean it’s instantly

recognisable that there is something, you know, not quite right about that, so they’re drawing attention to it.

(Retailers)

35

C: And what about the sort of cross on this label (moderator points out St Andrew’s cross)…

M: Yes, that’s visually high impact.C: And do you all understand what it means?M: Well its familiar, its been around.F: A skull and crossbones are better.(Allotment holders)

Participants were far less familiar with the other logos on product labels used for discussion, particularly the VOC logo on paint and creosote and the harmful to the environment logos. These symbols were also felt to be much less visual impact than a cross or scull and crossbones. This wasn’t just the case for end users this was also true for retailers and procurers:

C: The one on the paint, like if you look there’s like a globe one, anyone come across that before? Sort of does it mean anything to anyone? So that’s no for coming across it?

M: That, I’ve seen it before yes.C: You’ve seen it before?M: Yeah.M: Its pretty self-explanatory though when you….M: …but I’ve never seen it before.M: It spells out what it means kind of thing though doesn’t it.M: But its not quite as good as that one (black cross - check) is

it?…M: It doesn’t grab you.M: …straight away that it means don’t do it you know what

mean.M: Yes, you’re right, that’s not as gripping, it wouldn’t make you

look twice, because the way its been done would be like the globe and the colours as well.

M: And the white background at the top, you can hardly see it.M: So you know, it doesn’t stand out as much as the black cross.M: Yes, it just looks like it could even be some kind of company

logo.(General public)

M: I’ve not even noticed the dead fish and the dead tree, quite long time after I’ve been looking at it.

M: It took a while but I’ve not seen that one before, and it took a while for it to sink in.

(Allotment holders)

C: Yes, what about this (indicates harmful to the environment logo), the one there, does that make any sense to you?

M: None at all.F: Not unless you’ve read it.F: I think you have to read it to get it…M: Is that supposed to be a tree?

36

C: YesF: It’s a dead fish.C: A fish and a tree yes.M: It’s a big fish is that!(Retailers)

Additional information needed on risks to the environment from chemicals

When participants were asked if they had access to enough information about risks to health and the environment associated with using chemicals, responses varied at different stages of the supply chain. Chemical manufacturers felt that safety data sheets were sometimes incomplete and that there was a lack of flow of information between different stages of the supply chain:

M: You tend to find that when you look at safety data sheets on the net for whatever reason you’re investigating chemicals you tend to find in the vast majority of cases, not all, there’s little or no effort made to find things out. For instance Ecotox information will often say….

M: No data available.M: No data. And all it takes is a search on EPA’s Ecotox

database and you come up with a whole range of things or other equally easy sources, but there’s very little effort made by some companies to actually find this information out, and supply it to you.

M: I mean in a way it comes down the supply chain because somewhere you’ve got your components in I guess….and…

M: There’s definitely a lack of flow of information between the chemical companies who are actually producing it down the chain through the, you know, through the formulators and formulators of the products to us and then we give that to the consumer because certainly if an old age pensioner’s home is buying our washing up liquid, then we’re supposed to supply them with a safety data sheet.

(Chemical manufacturers)

Information was also only restricted to those chemicals for which testing had been undertaken. Procurers felt there was a lot of information available ‘out there’ but that much of it was presented in an inaccessible way and more simplified information was needed:

C: do you feel that there’s enough information on this associated with products, like the ones we’ve looked at today, and how they impact on health and the environment. Is there enough information there?

M: There’s probably enough but it’s the way that it’s presented that…

C: What's the best way of providing this information?

37

M: Simple and easy is always the best. People like simple and easy.

M: More use of symbols.(Procurers)

Some of the retailers felt there was little information available on environmental effects of chemicals whilst others felt they had too much information. For end user groups it was felt more information should be available to the public. In particular, more information on specific health risks associated with specific chemicals in the products should be made available, in a similar way to the information provided in medication:

M: If you get a pill from the doctor it comes with a little leaflet inside saying ‘the possible side affects of this pill are…’, and I think its beholden on chemical product companies to do the same for their products, and then people can see the affects on them and their environment.

M: Are you saying you think it is beholden, you mean that they are already meant to do it, or it would be a good idea if they had to do it?

M: Well it was time it was beholden that’s all.M: Yes, its not though is it.M: No it isn’t.(Allotment holders)

Organic allotment holders and general members of the public felt more information should be provided around environmentally friendly alternatives to products containing chemicals:

C: And what further information do you think should be made available and how should it be made available?

M: Maybe if there is any alternatives that aren’t as dangerous and that can be used for the same purpose, and even if they are more expensive or whatever, they should be…the information should come across and people have a choice, if they’ve got the choice to pick a safer product.

(General public)

F: I think we don’t get enough information because these people want you to buy their products and they’re giving you what they have to tell you, they’re telling you what they have to tell you, but of course it would be useful to have access to why not to use it. There’s too much playing down of the problems these things cause. Probably because of the amounts of money involved and the political shenanigans that go on as a result of that.

(Allotment holders)

The responsibility for providing this additional information in the views of end users was national government and chemical companies in particular:

38

C: Okay, so who should be responsible for doing this do you think? Providing the additional information?

M: I think if it’s legislation then its got to come through government, but also…

M: ….they need to put their foot down and say ‘look’. I mean I think the actual company should be made responsible and it should have to pay for it.

C: Okay.M: They make enough money don’t they?M: If you want to try and get the companies involved though you

would have to like make them do it, because I don’t think they would participate.

M: Yes, just make them do it so there’s no choice, like with cigarettes its basically….

(General public)

C: What’s the best way of getting some information across?M: Well what’s the chemical companies doing about it? These

are the ones making the money out of us. So really they should be giving us a safer product and the government allow them to put the product on the market, because them that’s saying what’s in it and them that’s saying that its…..the government is saying its safe. So if its not safe, the government is accountable.

(Allotment holders)

Views on the most effective ways of providing information to the public

Participants were asked for their views on the most effective ways of getting information associated with risks from chemicals across to the public. Chemical manufactures, procurers, laboratory and warehouse staff, and retailers stressed the importance of providing simple accessible information on product labels and more use of symbols and logos. However, it was acknowledged it can not be assumed that the public understand/are familiar with all logos:

M: I think the symbols, if that’s what they’re going to be, need to be fairly obvious, especially with the dead tree and dead fish, most people don’t even know what it is. And they cant see it’s a fish and a tree. They can’t just assume that people know what they mean can they so…whereas if you’d got a skull and crossbones or a big flame, you know, you can see that.

(Chemical manufacturers)

There were several ways in which it was suggested product labels could be improved. Firstly, participants from all stages of the supply chain felt the number of different logos on labels should be reduced to the most striking ones that are most understood by, and most familiar with, the public: the skull and cross bones and the black cross (St Andrew’s cross):

39

M: How many people actually understand the symbols on clothes for washing?

M: YesM: There’s so many of them on there.M: Absolutely that’s right, and you just look for some words to

tell you about that.M: And how many people are going to take heed of that crossed

out wheelie bin that’s going to come in on all sorts of things.M: But at least that’s one symbol though, that’s one symbol its

not 10 of them, but you’re right, that was most likely agreed around some table in Brussels where they thought ‘I tell you what everybody knows that’s what a wheelie bin looks like we’ll put a cross to it’ and they didn’t go and discuss the theory behind it I think.

(Chemical manufacturers)

Secondly, there was a common view that the warnings need to be in bigger writing, of high visual impact and be printed and on the front of the product, like health warnings relating to smoking on packets of cigarettes:

C: Okay, right….do you think there’s any way that the labels could be improved. If you were to improve those labels, I mean how could those be improved?

F: Put them on the front instead of the back. Then it hits you in the eye.C: Right.C: Yes, a bit like cigarettes.F: YesC: Anything else?F: Bigger writing for me.C: Bigger writing.(Cleaners)

M: I think we need visual signs…I mean you know, there’s nothing more succinct like a packet of cigarettes ‘this product can kill’, you know, it’s the same sort of thing, its got to be a hard-hitting message if it is done.

M: I feel that this cross, that harmful cross, is very easily recognised by everybody I think.

(Retailers)

Thirdly, messages contained on the labels also needed to be succinct and to the point:

F: I have had products, very recently, and you’ve got all these precautions about your animals and whatever else, but where you’re actually looking for the directions of how to use it, which is in the majority of cases, you cant see it. And by the

40

time they’ve looked through you just go ‘oh I cant be bothered’, open it, and there it goes. So its more dangerous in a way putting so much information on which they’re never going to read and just having it so clear ‘this is how you use it,’ that’s it.

M: The major hazards should be much clearer I would have thought, and more prominent and then everything else will go underneath.

M: Bullet points yes.(Retailers)

A range of potentially more effective ways of providing information to the public were suggested by focus group participants. Retailers suggested providing information on a Defra website, laminated posters to display in their retail outlets with all symbols etc on and reference to further sources of information on product labels where the public could get further advice if they needed it:

M: Does Defra not have a website where people, rather than asking for a retailer for the COSHH sheets could they not go to Defra’s website and actually find out as much information on any given product if they felt that way inclined?...I mean a lot of these products, the gardening products they’re all licensed aren’t they? The products that have toxicological effects, toxic effects, presumably they’re controlled in some way, so I mean it would be quite simple wouldn’t it to make it a condition of registration that the health and safety data is submitted to Defra and that could be available on some central database then couldn’t it.

(Retailers)

M: I don’t think I’ve been offered for example a laminated poster with

F: With the symbols on?F: That would be very helpful.M: If there’s an industry standard of X number of symbols we

could all have a laminated sheet and you know people could be…

M: I definitely think on the labels, either it should be incumbent on the supplier, or on the governing body, whoever that may be to put on the labels ‘for any further information or to be able to download files visit this website’ because most people now have got a computer, and if somebody’s that way inclined and they want to go to the 8th degree about a product they can actually download it.

(Retailers)

Among end users there was a perceived need to increase awareness and to educate the public about the effects of chemicals to decrease risks to the environment and health. This was felt to be particularly important among older and younger people:

41

F: I think there’s enough information around if you understand itF: Its understanding it. I mean you get an 18 year old girl just

starting out, and just got a flat on her own, she doesn’t have a clue about what enzymes are and this that and the other, you know, because she hasn’t got the knowledge.

(Cleaners)

F: I think we need to increase awareness really, campaign on the telly or something, you know, just for older people. I know my dad would never…he wouldn’t bother looking at it, he would just leave it, so…but you know older people aren’t aware of all the problem.

M: I think, I mean…I think for young people its got to be something that if you make it enjoyable to learn, whether its in the format of different games, or board games, or whatever, you know, with different chemicals and different…that sort of thing, but I think its got to go through education really.

M: Maybe informally. Not formally. You know, informal education.

C: Okay.M: Or even get some big celebrities that kids look up to to get

involved.M: Maybe pop stars, bands yes, footballers.(General public)

Methods of increasing awareness and educating the public suggested by end user groups included adverts on television, documentaries, leaflets through doors, posters and committees:

M: Well you could have some type of documentary on TV about implications and affects on the environment and stuff like that.

M: Questionnaires, hand-outs, information sent out to people’s homes, so people actually get to read things at a level that they can understand it at, broken down in plain English.

M: Some kind of national environmentally friendly week or something like that.

C: I mean they are doing that with recycling aren’t they? Because you often get the adverts on the TV for recycling.

M: People sat on committees and panels where Joe Public is basically to have a representative from different areas that will sit on a panel with the chemical companies and local government, and say ‘right, this is the new products that are coming out, this is the legislation around it’ so they’ve got to say, and that can be taken back and filtered through back into communities by certain representatives, like focus groups and things like that.

42

M: Leafleting and stuff like advertising sort of raise people’s awareness.

M: Yes, it’s difficult isn’t it, because like, you know, advertising is the easiest one because most people watch the TV.

M: So that’s going to get the biggest audience.(General public)

3.2.3 Trust

Participants were asked which sources of information on risks associated chemicals they trusted the most. Participants from the professional groups (chemical manufacturers, procurers and retailers) tended to trust suppliers information and other accredited, peer reviewed sources of information such as OECD SIDS. Having personal contacts who they could speak to about any queries they had further nurtured a sense of trust:

C: Okay, is there any one source that you trust the most, if you need information?

F: It would have to be the suppliers data sheets as a starting point.

C: Really, right, for what reasons?F: And then I would contact them if it was like...I wouldn’t trust

that, I would contact the supplier and then discuss it.M: I would say I trust the most the bloke in our office who deals

with it.C: Right okay.M: You can get things like, certainly for well known things you

get OECD SIDS, or…M: That’s exactly right, and that’s what I’d trust, yes, exactly.M: Which has been, well it has been peer reviewed and rated,

and that entrusts over anything you see in a MSDS.(Chemical manufacturers)

C: Right, which sources of information would you say that you do trust the most then out of all of them?

M: Certainly the suppliers because it’s in their interest to get it right.

F: Yes, I think so.F: It’s the basic place you’d expect it to come from.(Retailers)

In the procurement group manufacturers were trusted on the basis of the rules and regulations that govern information provided on their products:

C: I mean which information would you trust the most? Would it be one of those detailed sheets, would it be one of these labels, or would it be say something you’ve looked at and you are aware, which ones are…?

F: Something which was accredited by a well-known body.

43

C: Right any other ones that you’d judge how much you trust the information?

M: I would generally judge what the manufacturers said on the grounds that they wouldn’t be able to sell it or there’s a regulation that says how they have to, you know, what information they have to put on it before you actually get to use it.

M: You know, these people can’t just grab at anything. There’s European-wide rules so.

(Procurers)

Among end user groups the cleaners felt they trusted the information they had about the products they used at work more than the limited information they had about household cleaning products:

C: What sorts of information do you trust the most on risks associated with these products, would it be the stuff that you get at work, or what’s on the tins? What information would you trust?

F: I think if the stuff we use at work was available on the shelves in the supermarkets we’d tend to buy that rather than the other stuff, because we’ve got all the availability of what’s in it and everything so…

F: And I think at work you have to trust a bit more at work because there’s a wider you know, spectrum for using it, whereas at home there’s only sort of like yourself really maybe at risk, whereas at work you’ve got to consider other people’s safety haven’t you.

(Cleaners)

When participants were asked which source of information they would trust the most from the media, university scientist and a chemical company the general members of the public group and the cleaners both stated they would most trust a university scientist and were less trusting of information provided by the media:

C: Right okay. I mean if you were given information from say a University Scientist, the media and a chemical company, which of those sources of information would you trust the most?

F: University.M: The scientist.M: I think the scientist. Obviously the media, well…C: What about the media? I mean have you ever seen anything

in the media about the chemicals used in the home? What sorts of things?

M: I mean its normally comes around as spillages or disasters or accidents. You know, its always negative, its very rarely that they’ll actually say anything positive so you tend to see the worst side of what chemicals can do.

C: Right.

44

M: I think the media always try to blow things…M: Over play it yes.C: Yes, exaggerate things.M: And try and get more attention to it to sell a few more

newspapers(General public)

For allotment holders the source of information that they trusted the most was word of mouth:

M: If you’re in an association or a group of allotments, you’ll find you’ve got a problem with something, and somebody else has had that problem, and they’ll help tell you what the cure was and automatically you go and try it yourself. It might not work for you but it’s worked for him so you try it.

M: Then somebody else will tell you something else. Its amazing how your cupboards build up (laughs).

M: Boils down to word of mouth. Word of mouth and experience.(Allotment holders)

In contrast to the focus groups with professionals, a general sense of mistrust of chemical companies was expressed by most of the end user groups:

C: Right okay. And what about what the chemical companies say?

M: They always try to cover things up as you know.C: Right okay, so there’s a bit of suspicion there about chemical

companies?M: Yes, I would never really believe anything that the chemical

companies say.M: If they say it’s like not too dangerous, you’d think disastrous.

(laughter).M: Yes, I think you’d have to research it yourself if you wanted to

know more about them, because obviously you couldn’t believe in what they were going to tell you because it’s a massive, massive market isn’t it. You’re talking millions and billions of dollars and pounds.

(General public)

M: There’s a lot of stuff and that they don’t tell you. That if you spray it long enough it stunts the growth, and they don’t tell you about that.

M: They’ve got to be more honest, they’ve got to tell us what the side affect are, and you made the point about insects becoming immune to a chemical after a given length of time.

(Allotment holders)

Trust and safety data sheets

45

When participants had been given safety data sheets for discussion during the focus groups there were mixed views on whether they trusted the information contained within these sheets. Procurers and retailers felt that they would trust safety data sheets as they came from the manufacturer:

C: Would you say the information (on the safety data sheets) is accurate?

M: Yes.C: What makes you say that?M: Well presumably its come from a manufacturer.(Procurers)

C: Do you trust the information that’s on the data sheets?F: I do yes.C: You do, right.F: Well I don’t have any other, and if that’s your access to help.M: You do tend to feel that the manufacturer probably had their

legal team all over the labels anyway.F: Quite yes.M: So you wouldn’t imagine that they wouldn’t put themselves in

a position where they could be sued.F: Yes.M: We live in a very litigious society so…C: Yes, right, okay…so would you think the information is

accurate then?M: I would have said the information was accurate, more than

accurate.(Retailers)

In contrast, chemical manufacturers and laboratory and warehouse staff felt that they would treat the safety data sheets with caution due to errors in the data sheets:

C: I mean would you say you can trust the information on the safety data sheets?

F: You would hope so.M: Well I think I probably would trust it yesC: Anyone feel differently to that? F: I think it might be because there’s always something wrong

with them that I don’t trust any of them.(Laboratory and warehouse staff)

M: I’d treat it with caution. I mean some of the information’s actually wrong. If you look at it in some sort of detail, the transport information in the paint, it talks about UN number 1263, fine, and then it says Technical Name NOS entries, there isn’t one. Its not an NOS entry, it doesn’t have a technical name. So immediately that would say to me whoever entered this data doesn’t know the transport regulations. I mean that’s a minor detail but the information,

46

they’ve got some idea, but they’re not…whoever did this is not really competent in the field.

(Chemical manufacturers)

Trust and labels

There were mixed views among participants on whether it was possible to trust information contained in product labels. Some felt it was possible to trust the manufacturer as they were governed by regulations which meant they had to tell the truth about what was in the product. Other participants were less trusting of this information as they felt the manufacturers were trying to sell products to the public and they wouldn’t tell them anything that would prevent them from buying the product:

C: Right okay, I mean would you trust this information (the labels)? [pause]

F: Well I would hope so.F: Otherwise we could get themselves in real trouble wouldn’t

they … is there not some body that actually looks at things like this, you know to….? So I would hope so.

(Cleaners)

C: Do you trust the information that’s on tins and containers and things?

M: Well they’ve got to cover their backside these days because if they don’t they can get a lawsuit or other off somebody.

M: Yes, but how often do ordinary users like us take action against a large chemicals company?

M: Not very often.M: Quite, and this is why there is a tendency for them to be fairly ….M: Ambivalent.(Allotment holders)

There was also a feeling expressed by some participants that they couldn’t trust information they couldn’t understand:

M: I think it depends on what bits of the label. I would trust whatever they say the ingredients is, but then again they use words that half of them you don’t know what they mean.

(General public)

3.2.4 Choice

Participants were asked what things influenced the choice of products they purchased for work or the home/garden. Among the chemical manufactures there were conflicting views on this. Some felt there was no choice as to make certain

47

products certain chemicals were needed. However, others felt there was a choice and that they would try to avoid purchasing environmentally hazardous products:

C: For those of you that use chemicals in the workplace can you tell me a little bit about if you have a choice of which chemicals are used and if so what sorts of things influence the choice of products?

M: If you’re manufacturing, if you’re doing chemical reactions to make substances, then often the answer is you don’t have a choice.

C: Right.M: If you want to make optical brightener X you cant choose to

use substance B instead of substance C, you’ve got to do it in order to make. So for people making substances by chemical synthesis, often there is, well, often there’s not a lot of choice. If you’re using things as surfactants or cleaning agents or solvents or whatever, then the answer is yes, you do have a choice. But within our industry the hazard of the substance doesn’t necessarily cause you to look elsewhere in that as a chemical manufacturer we are set up to handle reactive hazardous substances and we wouldn’t shy away from using something that’s quite hazardous because of its hazardous nature. Maybe it does the right job for us.

F: That’s in contrast to what we do because the first thing when we’re looking at new formulations it comes to me and I check what the classification will be, and if it’s a dangerous environment or whatever…

F: …certainly if it’s CMR or anything like that I would go back and say “no’- don’t go there”.

(Chemical manufacturers)

Choice of products was also governed by government legislation in different countries:

M: We’re formulators as well, as I said, of disinfectants, detergents and stuff like that, and we manufacture in the USA and we have formulations developed there and there might be about 30% of our products that we’re not allowed to sell in the EU because the legislation is different, and so it would be checking the formulations saying ‘yes’ or ‘no’. And in the development process we look at the properties of the reactive substances or the other constituents to decide whether or not they should go in or not, and then its just a debate about which market. Do we need it for Europe or not?

(Chemical manufacturers)

Among retailers the choice of products purchased were mainly determined by customer demand, brand name and price:

48

C: Okay then, so what things influence which products you actually purchase for your store?

M: Customer demand, one point.M: I think probably price and brand sometimes comes into it.M: I think sometimes we stock things that may be slow sellers

but maybe they are items that people would expect our shop to sell. So that its sometimes easier to say ‘yes we’ve got it’ than say ‘no we don’t’ and why we haven’t and all the rest.

(Retailers)

There were conflicting views on environmentally friendly products among the retailers:

M: If I perceived something to be very environmentally damaging I wouldn’t stock it.

C: Would you not? M: No.M: Can I just…I’m here as a customer rather than a retailer, but

there we go! From a customer’s point of view, if I go into a hardware shop and there’s two products, you often find that the environmentally friendly product doesn’t seem to work so well, because its been so down-graded in terms of being safe that it doesn’t do the job…So I think I would imagine the hardware shop has to make sure its selling what the customer’s going to be happy with what they bought eventually, and not do it for the planet, but a product that’s doing what they want.

(Retailers)

Among two of the end user groups (cleaners and general members of the public) the main influences on the products bought were price, brand name and whether it was a product they’d used before. Some participants also stated they looked for environmentally friendly products and low odour paint (although not all participants were aware of low odour paint):

C: And if you were in a store with all these paints in front of you, what would influence which paint you bought? What sorts of things?

M: Cost.M: Yes, it would certainly matter to me.M: To me as well yes. (general agreement round table)M: Product name.C: So why would you go for a particular name?M: Just, I don’t know, probably quality.C: Right, any other things that would influence what you went

for? Would anyone go for the ‘low odour’ ones?C: You do? Any particular reason for that or…?F: Just because the smells make me feel quite ill.

49

M: I didn’t know you could get that…They’d be more expensive though are they?

C: I’m not sure actually.(General public)

Adverts in the media also appeared to influence choice among participants although it was acknowledged they were often misleading:

M: I would go for a product that you’ve seen advertised and that you’re familiar with.

M: If something’s got more advertising or you see something that you’re more aware of in advertising you expect good quality products.

(General public)

F: I think the media highlight products and you do trust what you see on the telly and what you read newspapers and you go and buy them. ‘Oh one coat paint, that will do the job’. You go and buy it and you don’t look at the label.

F: I know sometimes…it can be misleading.F: There’s one on the telly at the minute.F: [participants states name of product]F: YesF: It’s a photograph of a bath on actually.F: What a load of rubbish! It doesn’t work.(Cleaners)

Among allotment gardeners the choice of insecticides purchased for the allotment was largely influenced by which pest they were trying to eradicate:

C: And for those of you that use chemicals what things influence which insecticides you use?

M: It all depends on what sort of pests you’ve get. Whitefly you’re using your Sybol, that’s a typical one. That’s usually…when you get…we usually find we get it when we’ve got to the greenhouse stage, outside we use a lot less than what we do inside. Because when the plants is young and very vulnerable to all these sorts of things, so you spray them more in the greenhouse than what you do when they’re outside.

(Allotment holders)

Organic allotment holders would buy products that they felt would preserve nature:

C: Okay then so for organic gardening what products would you use instead of an insecticide?

M: I’ve used soft soap before…But generally I rely on nature. I mean I have bundles of twigs and things like that around for ladybirds to live in and so on and so forth and ladybirds, as soon as they start to come out I’m inundated with them. So

50

we provide the means for them to live so that they can look after your plants when they come out of hibernation.

(Allotment holders)

Allotment holders also based decisions on which product to purchase on the active information searches and research that they undertook on a regular basis as described above.

Among allotment holders and retailers, product choice was restricted to products that were still on the market, due to a large number of chemicals being banned. Replacement products were felt to be far less effective:

C: Do customers ever ask specifically for more environmentally friendly products?

M: YesF: Yes, sometimes they do.M: Certainly low odour products.F: Equally at the moment customers, traditional customers, are

still crying out for the traditional brands which more and more are being discontinued and they’re getting very, very frustrated about it.

M: Yes, I mean you see, because there is an issue, of not only whether a product is damaging, often its more to do with the fact that the supplier or the manufacturer isn’t prepared to spend the money on getting an item certificated…

M: I mean one example of that is use of that wood preservative, creosote was a good example because it contained like coal tar. The new stuff does a job but its nowhere as good as the old stuff, and people keep coming back and saying ‘I want creosote’ and they cant have it. Because I mean its because its not got the essential ingredient in it, it becomes a second-rate product now.

(Retailers)

M: What happened was there was a big panic about 2 years ago when the Common Market issued a banned list, these would be going off the market, there was such a surge in demand it was unbelievable. I mean I got 5 litres of Armatillox.

M: And everybody just stocked their cupboards up (laughs).M: Because it was the only effective treatment. You know, so if

you know it and love it why not…(Allotment holders)

3.2.5 Disposal

The main sources of information on disposal available to the professional groups were safety data sheets and COSHH sheets although many participants felt these sheets were of only limited value:

51

C: What sources of information and guidance are there on...disposal of chemicals?

M: I think on safety data sheets that’s the weakest bit. Because you know, it normally says ‘refer to local regulations’ because they are designed to cover the EU the US, China, wherever.

M: And so nobody, well you guys may do it differently, but certainly focuses on each country or each region’s rules on disposal…

M: …certainly we would use the information in a safety data sheet to determine whether a particular waste was hazardous or not, and probably not to decide on how to dispose of it because if it says ‘incinerate only’ I’m not sure that we would actually act on that.

(Chemical manufacturers)

In the procurement group some participants had had experience of contracting suppliers to come in to give guidance on disposal and/or to carry out disposal. Barriers to acting on guidance provided on disposal in safety data sheets included restrictions imposed by local rules and shortage of incineration capacity:

C: Are there ever any barriers to accessing and using information and guidance on disposal or actually putting this advice into practice?

M: Well yes use the local rules and you don’t know what they are then your average Joe Bloggs isn’t able to do that.

C: Any other barriers?M: Waste disposal issues of hazardous waste, shortage of

incineration capacity possibly or the recent ban on co-disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous waste and landfills? I mean there’s all sorts of….

C: Big practical issues there…M: I think it depends on where the stuff’s going as well, because

certainly for consumers you may put something on there that says ‘do not put in the drain’, but if you’re only talking about 500 mils, then how is the consumer going to get rid of that, you know, once its gone then there isn’t anything on there. It tends to deal with the raw materials or the large quantities rather than retail packs.

(Chemical manufacturers)

In the retailers group severe barriers had been experienced in relation to disposal of certain substances that have been withdrawn for sale in the EU marketplace:

C: Okay, are any of you involved with disposing of any of the chemicals that you might stock?

F: No.C: It’s not something you need to do?M: A sore subject with some of us, because…it can be tricky.M: …because you take it off the shelves, you’re not allowed to

sell it after March 31st.

52

M: What do we do with it? We lost the money on it for a start, so we’ve just got a load of stock we can’t sell, what do we do with it? You go up to the local council you know recycling depot, but they don’t let trade people in and they’re only for the public, so if you want to take a pint of some preservative up there and get rid of it you can put it in a tub, but as a retailer we can’t take a box of stuff that we’ve got left. So what do we do with it? So surreptitiously or not, don’t record it (laughter) it goes in the skip, it goes in, you’ve got to get rid of it, so what do you do, it still stays in the corner of your building rotting away.

F: I’ve been fortunate that my suppliers have taken away things that I’ve had from them that haven’t sold.

C: Okay, so some will do that, but obviously there’s some problems with…

M: Oh yes, well you know, if you haven’t got a large amount of any one product they’re not interested, you know, you’ve got 6 bottles of this, 2 bottles of that, 3 bottles of that and 5 litres of this, you know, you’re stuck with it, nobody wants to know because there’s a liability.

(Retailers)

There were also frustrations with lack of recycling facilities for businesses expressed by retailers:

M: There’s a lot of effort being put into recycling by local authorities around the houses, around people’s homes, but there’s absolutely no effort really being put into making it simple for businesses to recycle waste, whereas I would have thought probably businesses generate a hell of a lot of waste.

F: I mean…we live above our own premises, I’ve got two children, they’re 11 and 13 now, I cannot get out local council to come and get newspapers, separately, and yet if I walk 50 yards round the corner to the lady who helps me out once a week I can take them to her house and they’ll collect them from her house, literally as easy as (click) that, same as the glass, plastics, everything else, but they will not do it for a business.

C: Right, that’s very interesting.F: I know that a number of small shop keepers down the street

by my shops take their shop rubbish home and they have to put it out with their own weekly collection.

(Retailers)

Allotment holders stated they would contact the council if they needed advice on disposal and that they recycled product containers:

C: If you need guidance on how to dispose of chemicals if you did ever have any left, where would you go for that?

M: Well obviously to your local council.

53

M: Because most of us here are on council sites, so if we wanted to dispose of something that we’re not sure of we always get in touch with the council anyway…

C: And for those of you that use chemicals, if there’s a bit left over how would you dispose of it?

M: There’s never any left over!M: If there is a little bit left over and there are leeks in pots, I just

pour it into the pot where the leeks are.(Allotment holders)

General members of the public were much less knowledgeable about disposal of household products containing chemicals. Few could remember seeing advice on disposal on product labels and, although when probed were aware of unsafe disposal methods, it seems that there is a general air of uncertainty regarding disposal:

C: So how have you disposed of, if you’ve got any paint left, or if you’ve got any toilet cleaner left, how would you dispose of those products?

F: You tend to just leave it in the tin, I do, until it goes solid (laughs).M: Its in black bin liners at the moment with the tops sealed.M: Are you supposed to call the council for taking that off the

premises?(General public)

M: I think a lot do have something on that back [about disposal] don’t they?

C: Do they? Right okay.M: I’m sure they do, but you know, but I can’t find where they do.M: The paint that we just bought didn’t, because there’s nothing

on about disposal of it. It was quite a cheap paint.C: Right.F: I think you just know in yourself not to pour it down a drain, so

you don’t, but as you say you just end up storing them because you don’t know what else to do with them.

(General public)

3.3 Summary

It was apparent that focus group participants had access to a range of sources of information about chemical safety and these sources varied at different stages of the supply chain. The top tier of the supply chain tended to use MSDS, technical specifications, approved supplier lists, the internet, internal databases, promotional literature, posters and other standard sources of information. Procurers, cleaners, retailers, manufacturers and laboratory and warehouse staff were all aware of MSDS. However, for the retailers and procurers, the length, complexity and technical jargon contained within these sheets acted as barriers to them consulting this information on a regular basis.

54

Product labels were the main source of this information for the middle and bottom tiers of the supply chain. Gardeners regularly searched for information on the internet (including specific sites for certain chemicals/products where information can be downloaded), labels on products in store, books (national pesticide guide) etc. However, this information predominantly related to product use as opposed to product safety although one would imagine a degree of overlap. Organic allotment holders did search for environmental safety information from sources such as Organic Association, Organic Way magazine and the Pesticide Action network.

The level of trust afforded to the different sources of information varied between different tiers of the supply chain. The top and middle tiers of the supply chain tended to trust suppliers’ information and other accredited, peer reviewed sources of information such as OECD SIDS. In the procurement group manufacturers were trusted on the basis of the rules and regulations that were perceived to govern information provided on their products. General members of the public and allotment holders were less trusting of this information.

There were conflicting views on the accuracy of the information provided by chemical suppliers among the bottom tier of the supply chain. Some felt they there were regulations whereby chemical companies had to be honest about what is in the labels or felt that they didn’t have enough information to assess the accuracy of labels. These people were more likely to feel the information given to them was accurate. However, others didn’t trust information provided by chemical companies because they were suspicious of the chemical companies providing this information in terms of lack of transparency of operations (concealing incidents etc.). The bottom tier of the supply chain stated they would most trust information provided by a university scientist and were less trusting of information provided by the media. For allotment holders the source of information that they trusted the most was word of mouth and their own experience and knowledge.

The middle and top tiers of the supply chain tended to feel that they did have adequate access to information on the safety of chemicals. However, whilst generally commenting on the excess of technical information (particularly the retailers) some suggested that there was a lack of information on the precise nature of the risks associated with particular chemicals. The main source of information for the bottom tier of the supply chain was product labels.

A lot of people in the bottom tier of the supply chain said they don’t read the labels as they tend to use products they had used before and assumed they knew what information was on the label or else they felt the information was ‘common sense’. Others felt they didn’t have time to read this information in a shop. The allotment holders were the group most likely to read the product labels. However, a small number of participants in the end users focus groups stated they did read labels if they wanted to buy low odour paint or because they wanted to identify any risks to the environment associated with using the product. Generally, members of the bottom tier of the supply did not consult further sources of information relating to environmental risks associated with chemicals although some felt there was enough information if you go and look for it. Organic allotment holders felt there wasn’t enough information available on what chemicals are in gardening products and felt

55

there should be much more information, presented in a similar style to the information accompanying medication.

The main sources of information on disposal available to the available to the top and middle tiers of the supply chain were safety data sheets and COSHH sheets although many participants felt these sheets were of only limited value in relation to disposal. Barriers to acting on guidance provided on disposal in safety data sheets by these groups included local restrictions and lack of incineration capacity. In the retailers group severe barriers had been experienced in relation to disposal of certain substances that have been withdrawn for sale in the EU marketplace (including having to pay for disposal of such products) and there were also frustrations around lack of recycling facilities for businesses. Awareness of how chemical products used in the home and garden should be disposed was lower in the discussion with general members of the public. Many would put any excess products in household bins or down the sink.

Many suggestions were given for how information should be presented in order to raise the overall influence of environmental risks on chemical production, use and disposal. Among the middle and bottom tiers of the supply chain there were different views on data sheets: some felt they were a ‘necessary evil’ and, although few people read them all the way through, the information was there if ever they needed it. As length and technical jargon acted as barriers to reading data sheets it was felt data sheets should be more to the point, shorter and more user friendly data.

It was felt product labels could be improved in three main ways. Firstly, whilst participants from all stages of the supply chain felt logos were a useful means for conveying safety information, there was a general agreement that the number of different logos on labels should be reduced to ones that are most understood by the public. The ones with which they familiar or were described as the most striking were the skull and cross bones and St Andrews cross. Secondly, there was also general agreement that warnings needed to be in bigger font, have good visual impact and be printed on the front of the product, like warnings on cigarette packets. Thirdly, it was felt messages contained on the labels also needed to be succinct and to the point.

In addition to the labels a range of other methods were also suggested which it was felt may be more effective in terms of getting information across to the public. These included education in schools, leaflets through doors, and posters in hardware and DIY stores explaining different logos. Also the national recycling campaign and adverts were mentioned as effective ways of getting information across and it was felt something similar could be done for chemicals.

56

4.0 Network analysis

The objective of the project is to analyse how various groups of the population discuss chemical safety related issues and how their awareness about such issues is structured. To perform the analysis we collected speech data from six focus group discussions involving people who belong to different groups within the chemical supply chain. The considered groups were: chemical manufacturer regulatory specialists, retailers, procurers, general public, laboratory and warehouse staff, gardeners and cleaners.

This component of the project aimed to analyse the collected data using network analysis methods (Albert and Barabasi, 1999; Andras and Idowu, 2005; Ferrer y Cancho, 2001; Idowu and Andras, 2005; Idowu et al., 2004). The speech data was recorded and transcribed as text data. The text data was analysed using network analysis methods adapted for text analysis. The advantage of the network analysis methods is that they combine quantitative and qualitative analysis in a novel way and in a consistent manner. The network analysis of the text data reveals chemical safety related cognitive profiles of the considered population groups, which can be seen as a cognitive skeleton of mental models used in relation to chemical safety issues by individuals belonging to the considered groups.

The rest of the chapter is structured as follows. Section 4.1 describes very briefly the data that we used. In Section 4.2 we discuss the text pre-processing that we applied to the data. Section 4.3 introduces the network analysis methodology. In Section 4.5 we describe the application of network analysis to our text data. Finally, in Section 4.5, the conclusions and recommendations are formulated.

4.1 The data

The text data that we analysed is the transcribed version of focus group discussions organized in the context of the project. There were six focus groups for which useful data were generated (for one group the data were not sufficient). These groups had as participants: regulatory specialists, retailers, procurers, general public, laboratory and warehouse staff, gardeners and cleaners. The details of the collection of the focus group data are described in chapter 3.

We note that for each of the mentioned groups we had one focus group discussion. This implies that there are too few data to draw statistically robust conclusions. However, the data were sufficient to perform a pilot study in order to show the applicability of the proposed methodology.

4.2 Text pre-processing

The text transcripts were made available as Microsoft Word documents. These were transformed into plain text files, and names and speaker identifiers were removed from the text, together with behavioural marks included in the text (e.g. notes about laughter).

Texts are collections of words organized according to the rules of the language into sequences of words and punctuation marks. Texts represent the mental models of those who author these texts. In the case of transcripts the text represents mental models of participants of the discussion. The aim of text analysis is to extract a simplified cognitive profile of the authors, which constitutes a skeleton of their mental models. Such simplified cognitive profiles can be extracted, for example, as the set of most common words used by the authors or as the most common ways of formulating sentences.

In order to prepare the text for such analysis we need to remove elements of the text that constitute noise for the purposes of the analysis. For example, frequently used filling words or auxiliary words (e.g. to, and, with) do not contribute to the discriminative features of the text. Such words, called stop-words, are removed from the text by filtering (Steibach et al., 2000). Many words may be used in various forms (e.g. clean, cleaner, cleaned, cleaning). To reduce ambiguity that may be caused during analysis by inflected words, a common technique is to use a stemming process that reduces all considered words to their stems (Porter, 1980). The disadvantage of stemming is that words may change their cognitive function as an effect of their modification, eliminating such modifications may reduce the reliability of cognitive profile extraction. For our analysis we performed the stop word filtering, but we did not use word stemming.

A simple way to view text is to consider it a bag of words (Steibach et al., 2000), i.e., the order of words is ignored and only the frequency of words is considered. The obvious disadvantage of this approach is that it ignores most of the effects of grammar. However, even such simplistic approaches can have significant success, for example, in text classification, and consequently the classification of authors of texts (e.g. Beil et al., 2002; Erosheva et al., 2004). A more detailed view of texts considers the consecutiveness of words in terms of a word network, which contains all words in the text as nodes linked together if the words appear consecutively in the text. In addition we also consider the frequencies of words and the frequencies of consecutive appearances of pairs of words (Andras and Idowu, 2005; Ferrer y Cancho, 2001). In our analysis we consider such word networks.

To prepare the texts for analysis each focus group transcript was filtered against stop words and then we calculated word frequencies, word networks and link frequencies for each of them. We found in total 2120 words in all texts, with an average overall frequency of 8.06 occurrences, with standard deviation of 25.1. The number of words used in a single focus group discussion varied from between 516 – 1005, with an average of 710.17 and a standard deviation 175.96.

4.3 Networks

Networks are interlinked sets of objects. The links between objects usually represent some functional interaction between the objects. Networks can be used as models of complex systems. Such models provide an abstract view of the system, highlighting components of the system and some important

interactions between these components. Network models of systems can be seen as information flow models of systems, which specify how information is processed within the system by its components.

The aim of network analysis is to find important components of the system, which contribute significantly to the information processing integrity of the system. The main assumption of this analysis is that structural integrity of the network is closely related to the functional integrity of the system represented by the network (Albert and Barabasi, 1999; Idowu et al., 2005; Jeong et al., 2001). In order to find important components the network is considered as a graph (i.e., objects are nodes of the graph, links between objects are arcs or edges of the graph depending on whether the links are oriented or not). The network graph is analysed in order to find structurally important components of the graph. Based on the previous assumption it is expected that such components will have an important contribution to the functional integrity of the system represented by the network.

.Figure 4.1.Important components of a network: hubs, nodes with high betweenness and cliques

The most usual important components of graphs are: hubs, nodes with high betweenness and cliques (see Figure 4.1 for examples). The hubs are nodes which have many connections with other nodes (Albert and Barabasi, 1999). Such nodes are likely to play a critical role in the information flow of the system, because many other nodes send information to them and many other nodes receive information from them. Nodes with high betweenness are those nodes which are likely to be traversed when information travels between nodes of the network (Idowu et al., 2004). These nodes are not necessarily

the same as the hubs. Often, nodes with high betweenness are those that act as bottlenecks between relatively densely interconnected clusters of nodes. Cliques are those groups of nodes that constitute a fully interconnected set of nodes. Such groups of nodes are likely to be in the centre of some functional aspect of the whole system represented by the network (Spirin and Mirny, 2003).

To determine the hubs of a network we count the incoming and outgoing links of all nodes and add these two numbers together. This will give us the connectivity number of each node. The nodes are ranked according to their connectivity number and those nodes which come in the top of the ranking list (e.g. top 5%) are considered as the hubs of the network.

To determine the high betweenness nodes of the network we need to calculate the shortest pathway between any two nodes of the network. The shortest pathway between two selected nodes is the smallest set of nodes, which need to be traversed so that we get from one selected node to another selected node (if the links are directed arcs, the direction of arcs need to be considered when traversing from one node to another). Considering all such shortest pathways, we count for each node of the network the number of shortest pathways in which this node appears. This count is the betweenness measure of the node. The nodes are ranked according to their betweenness measure and those ranked in the top of this ranking list (e.g. top 5%) are the nodes with high betweeness.

To find the cliques in the graph we start from each node of the graph and determine the largest set of nodes to which the selected node belongs and which form a fully connected clique. If a node is already considered as a member of a clique there is no need to repeat the clique calculation for that node.

Recent works on network analysis also highlighted further analysis methods that may reveal important characteristics of networks and of systems represented by these networks. Such methods include the flux analysis of the network (Almaas et al., 2004), which aims to decompose the network into elementary fluxes (these can be seen as elementary circuits of information flow) and then find components of the network which contribute significantly to many elementary fluxes (we note that such elements are sometimes hubs or high betweenness nodes). Another recent approach is to analyse the motif distribution of networks (Berg and Lassig, 2004), i.e., the distribution of types of local sub-networks (e.g. the neighbourhood networks of nodes). This analysis can find frequent and rare sub-networks, which may indicate particular functional features for the nodes that are highlighted by them.

4.4 Text network analysis

We use the network analysis to define the cognitive profile of the considered groups with respect to chemical safety issues. The frequency weighted network of words extracted from the transcribed group discussions represents the common mental models used by the analysed groups (Figure 4.2 shows the word graph for the group of regulatory specialists). We define the cognitive profile of chemical safety issues in these groups as the importance profile of representative words of our topic (i.e. chemical safety), which are most commonly important across the groups. This definition of cognitive profile allows us to compare them across to groups.

Figure 4.2. The word consecutiveness network extracted from the transcript of the safety experts focus group discussion. Circles represent words, edges represent consecutiveness relations. The size of circles and the width of edges are proportional to the frequency of represented words and consecutiveness relations. Dashed lines represent consecutiveness relations with few occurrences. Consecutiveness relations with a single occurrence are not displayed.

First we built the list of representative words that are relevant for chemical safety issues. We considered in the first instance a list of 37 words (see Appendix ii). From this extended list we selected 11 words as most commonly important representative words (see Appendix iii).

We determined the hub ranking and betweenness ranking of all words of the networks extracted from the focus group discussions. As there were no larger cliques of words, we did not consider the determination of cliques of the word consecutiveness graphs.

To build the chemical safety related cognitive profiles of the groups we considered the most commonly important words from the full list of representative words. The cognitive profile of each group is given by the

ranking position of the selected words according to the hub and betweenness ranking lists calculated for the appropriate discourse (i.e., focus group discussion). Hub words are those words which frequently occur in the discourse before and after many other words, constituting thus information flow hubs in the mental models of their users. High betweenness words are those which link relatively distinct clusters of words, thus being key connective components of mental models (see section 4.3).

Tables 4.1 – 4.5 show the calculated cognitive profiles of the groups. Note that some words were considered only as hubs, others only as high betweenness words, and some were considered in both rankings. These choices were based on the rankings of these words. If they were commonly ranked around the top 100 of hubs or high betweenness words (i.e., they were in around the top 100 for at least three groups) they were considered in the hub or betweenness sub-profiles. If they were commonly highly ranked with respect to both measures they are included in both sub-profiles. We note that other words of high rank are not included because they were not included in the list of words that we considered representative for the topic. For example, the words ‘orange’ and ‘go’ come in the top of the lists, while they are not strictly relevant for the determination of views about chemical safety.

Table 4.1. The chemical safety cognitive profile of the group of regulatory specialistsHub ranking rank Betweenness ranking rankChemicals 11 Hazard 3Safety 6 Damage -Kill - Risk 97Clean 81 Waste 16Risk 98 Safety 24Environment - Kill -Hazard 25 Trusted 61Disposal 40Trusted 76

Table 4.2. The chemical safety cognitive profile of the group of cleaners Hub ranking rank Betweenness ranking rankChemicals 16 Hazard 29Safety 34 Damage 15Kill - Risk 90Clean 36 Waste 33Risk 41 Safety 43Environment - Kill -Hazard 40 Trusted 97Disposal 74Trusted 93

Table 4.3. The chemical safety cognitive profile of the group of general public Hub ranking rank Betweenness ranking rankChemicals 22 Hazard 33Safety 45 Damage 22Kill - Risk 45Clean 42 Waste 36Risk 66 Safety 59Environment 86 Kill -Hazard 50 Trusted 91Disposal 90Trusted 100

Table 4.4. The chemical safety cognitive profile of the group of gardeners Hub ranking rank Betweenness ranking rankChemicals 21 Hazard 12Safety 51 Damage 38Kill 47 Risk 110Clean 50 Waste 55Risk 70 Safety 81Environment - Kill 58Hazard 99 Trusted 110Disposal -Trusted -

Table 4.5. The chemical safety cognitive profile of the group of retailers Hub ranking rank Betweenness ranking rankChemicals 28 Hazard 14Safety 59 Damage 51Kill 58 Risk 56Clean 74 Waste 67Risk 77 Safety 95Environment 107 Kill 65Hazard 109 Trusted -Disposal -Trusted -

Table 4.6. The chemical safety cognitive profile of the group of procurersHub ranking rank Betweenness ranking rankChemicals 29 Hazard 22Safety 67 Damage 57Kill 59 Risk 103Clean 77 Waste -Risk 81 Safety 108Environment 103 Kill 38Hazard 78 Trusted -Disposal -Trusted -

To compare the calculated cognitive profiles we analysed separately the hub and betweenness sub-profiles. The comparisons are presented in Figures 4.3 and 4.4.

Figure 4.3. Comparison of betweenness cognitive sub-profiles of considered groups. Group labels are: 1 - regulatory specialists, 2 - cleaners, 3 - general public, 4 - gardeners, 5 - retailers, 6 - procurers.

Figure 4.4. Comparison of Hub cognitive sub-profiles of considered groups. Group labels are: 1 - regulatory specialists, 2 - cleaners, 3 - general public, 4 - gardeners, 5 - retailers, 6 - procurers.

On the basis of comparison of hub and betweenness sub-profiles we can evaluate how close these groups are to each other in terms of their cognitive profiles. In other words, we can evaluate to what extent they speak the same language with respect to chemical safety issues.

We use the comparison charts to evaluate the distances between cognitive profiles of considered groups. This cognitive profile similarity-based arrangement of the groups is presented in Figure 4.5, considering both sub-profiles.

Figure 4.5. Cognitive sub-profile similarity – based spatial arrangement of groups. Group labels are: 1 - regulatory specialists, 2 - cleaners, 3 - general public, 4 - gardeners, 5 - retailers, 6 - procurers

This analysis shows that there are two expert groups and a public user group, which are separated from each other in the space of cognitive profiles. The two expert groups are: the group of consultants and safety experts, and the group of gardeners, retailers and procurement specialists, which constitute together the group of practitioners. The public user group is made of the general public and cleaner groups in our study. The analysis indicates that public users are between the experts and practitioners, and their views are closer to those of safety experts. The gulf between the views of the regulatory specialists and practitioners it is cause for concern, suggesting that these two groups may diverge in their discussion and understanding of chemical safety related issues, under different pressures on their discourses. Such divergence may create difficulties in practical implementation of safety guidelines designed by safety experts.

4.5 Conclusions

The six of groups participating in the focus group discussions that were analysed can be grouped into three generic groups, which are: regulatory specialists, public and practitioners. These three form a triangle in the space of cognitive profiles, the public being closer to both other groups than those to each other.

The cognitive profiles that we determined using network analysis of word consecutiveness graphs extracted from the transcripts of focus group discussions, represent the mental models used in these groups to generate their own discourse about chemical safety issues. These mental models represent specialist languages of these groups which take their form under pressures that mould the relevant discourse of these groups. Such pressures are, for example, the practical use of chemicals and the desire to avoid their harmful effects, the interpretation of regulatory information, the way chemicals are stored and transported, the way in which the media reports about chemicals, and various other constraints of similar nature. The difference between cognitive profiles may signal difficulties in cross-group communications, because of differences in ways of speaking about the issues may imply different, and possibly not fully compatible, ways of understanding these issues. In particular, the relatively large difference between safety experts and practitioners suggests that there is a potential to develop diverging discourses about chemical safety in these segments of the supply chain. This may lead to difficulties in implementing chemical safety guidelines, and the proper understanding of such guidelines on large scale within society. This difference may also lead to the development of a lack of trust on behalf of the public in safety experts and official communications about chemical safety, if these are not reflected in ways in which practitioners (e.g. retailers) discuss and communicate with their public about the same issues.

We note that our analysis is based on a very small amount of data, which does not allow an estimation of the statistical significance of our findings. And these findings should be treated with the appropriate reservation.

If these findings are confirmed by further, more extensive studies, this would suggest that particular attention should be paid to harmonising the discourse between regulatory specialists and practitioners. This could be achieved by investigating to what extent the understanding of one another’s mental models – as opposed to adapting different mental models – would enhance cross- group communication. Further guidance in this respect can be gained by analysing the neighbourhood motifs of representative words in the context of discourses. This can indicate the contexts in which these words are used and may help in identifying ways to formulate topics of discussion that may improve understanding between chemical safety related discourse and the rest of society. This analysis may also be used to determine and address key pressures that contribute to misunderstanding between regulatory specialists and other members of the supply chain.

5.0 Discussion

All of the products surveyed here are manufactured by reputable companies, whose regulatory staff are experienced and highly skilled. Therefore, an assumption has been made throughout this project that the information provided by the manufacturers is accurate. It was not the intention of this study to comment on the accuracy of information provision but rather to gain some insight into its effectiveness. After a review of the literature, focus groups were conducted in order to solicit the views of chemical users regarding chemical safety issues. Two different methods were used to analyse these data. These methods have been introduced in chapters 3 and 4 and consist of a more traditional and qualitative approach to textual analysis of the group discussions whilst the other consists of a more quantitative approach to inform us about the relationship between the word use amongst different groups. The former technique is useful for canvassing general opinions but it is difficult to quantify these and therefore draw solid conclusions. The second technique is more novel and although it allows quantitative relationships between focus groups to be explored, it reveals little about the detail of those relationships. These two techniques have complementary potential and, when used in combination, could prove invaluable for this type of research. The relatively short timescale of this project meant that only seven focus groups were conducted. Whilst this is useful to address the compatibility of the two methods and for coveting opinion, it would be cavalier to assume that these groups necessarily represent the population as a whole.

5.1 General observations

Many of the views offered whilst conducting the focus group interviews were in agreement with the findings of other research as described in chapter 2. These will be discussed in general terms before attempting to look at the relationships between the focus groups.

5.1.1 Graphical Devices

Some of the most interesting findings were those concerned with the graphical devices. There was a general lack of recognition of the fish and tree symbol that denotes the potential for environmental harm as there was with the VOC label. This was in stark contrast to the St Andrew’s cross with which most people were familiar. The skull and crossbones symbol, which is used under the CHIP scheme to denote toxicity, was mentioned in several focus groups without prompting, indicating that it is a well-understood pictogram. Few people could recall seeing the VOC logo and few understood its meaning before reading the accompanying text, indicating that text/pictogram combinations are indeed effective (Wogalter and Sojourner, 1997). There was even poor understanding of the fish and tree symbol amongst the allotment gardeners and the garden and hardware retailers. The reasons for this are unclear but may be explained by the fact that both pictograms are complex

relative to, for instance, the widely recognised St Andrew’s cross. Wogalter and Sojourner (1997) reported that complex pictograms were the most likely to be misunderstood. In reality, however, there are likely to be a number of factors that contribute to this lack of understanding.

Even though there was a lack of understanding of many pictograms, it was generally agreed by participants that logos were a useful device for communicating safety information. The observations made in this respect are positive in that it clearly demonstrates that logos have the potential to be well understood by the public. Some suggestions for improving the understanding of logos were the use of explanatory posters that could be displayed in shops, TV advertising campaigns and leaflets. There is a potential for confusion caused by non-statutory logos that may hint at product safety by the use of words that imply it is ‘green’. When discussing this in one focus group it was apparent that some people might not understand that some logos are mandatory whilst others act as marketing devices. This is in keeping with other studies (e.g. DTI, 2002).

5.1.2 Wording

The prevailing opinion regarding the wording of labels and MSDS was that it was overly technical. This can create misunderstanding and suspicion (DTI, 2002) and people appeared to focus on this more than the intended message. Even the groups in the supply chain that the safety data sheets were aimed at agreed that the information prescribed under CHIP was too technical. The exception was the manufacturers who appeared at relative ease with the technical content of MSDS. Previous studies have suggested, labels containing lots of technical information do not encourage compliance and users generally do not put much effort into searching for information (Edworthy et al 2004, Wogalter et al., 2002). Participants did not seem able to understand the exact message of some of the risk phrases, perhaps because they were too numerous or complicated, were embedded in other information or, as in one example, too vague.

5.1.3 Layout

Comments regarding layout were in keeping with the findings of past research especially with regard to font size and salience (e.g. Riley et al., 2001). In particular, cluttered labels with small font size were described as being more difficult to understand compared to labels with more spaced out or bullet pointed text. This is particularly relevant for certain pesticide products that can be purchased as concentrate in small containers. Because the pesticides surveyed are classified according to COPR there is a requirement for them to carry more statutory information on their labels than products classified under CHIP only. These products may have the potential to cause environmental harm and because of large amounts of regulatory clutter, their labels may also offer the greatest potential for misunderstanding. In contrast, the paint product and the creosote substitute are packaged in larger containers than the pesticide (>1L compared to 150 ml) and therefore their labels can accommodate a lot of regulatory information. The paint label is well laid out

with bulleted text and salient graphics and was generally preferred. This, in keeping with other studies (e.g. Wogalter et al., 2002) suggests that both excessive length and clutter may initiate a negative response to labels by end users. Most participants agreed that there was too much information on all of the labels. Comprehension time is reduced as text density around a warning increases (Wogalter et al., 2002) therefore, even with the best intentions, manufacturer specific information may serve to temper the message of the regulatory information (Fischhoff et al., 1997).

Participants in this study were asked to read the label or MSDS. In reality it has been shown that persuading people to read safety information can be difficult. In one study, as few as five percent of subjects actually read safety information even though as many as 18% claimed that they did (Small et al. as cited in Riley et al., 2001). This demonstrates the difficulties inherent in interpreting data of this type. In this study, it was often the case that participants would suggest that others did not consult product safety information. There was a mixed response when participants were asked if they read safety information regularly. Some participants, in agreement with past research, expressed a degree of complacency with familiar products (e.g. Edworthy et al., 2004).

5.2 Themes and the supply chain

In the following text each of the themes discussed in chapter three will be addressed in turn. The relationship between these themes and the different groups in the supply chain will be discussed.

5.2.1. Risk

The manufacturers were able to communicate a clear and precise idea of risk. This is to be expected although what is surprising is that such specific concepts of risk were not communicated elsewhere within the supply chain. For the middle tier of the supply chain and below, risk was conceptualised in a non-specific manner and was normally concerned with possible health effects. Environmental risks were often not discussed without prompting, indicating that either there is little environmental awareness amongst many members of the supply chain or that environmental issues take second place to health matters. It isn’t surprising that people would be more concerned with personal injury than they would be with the state of the environment but the consistency with which it was overlooked was unexpected. Specific risks were mentioned in some groups, such as the procurers, when reading directly from the labels or MSDS, which is testament that, if read, the R-phrases prescribed under CHIP do have some communicative value. Not surprisingly, the organic gardeners were able to articulate complex concerns about the environmental effects of using chemicals. These individuals were in the minority, not only amongst all participants but amongst the gardeners also.

5.2.2 Information

There was a range of information sources used by people in the different groups. The interesting finding here is that labels are the predominant source of information for both the middle and bottom tiers of the supply chain. The procurers, retailers, cleaners, manufacturers and the laboratory and warehouse staff groups were all aware of MSDS and many had seen them before. However, only the latter two groups were likely to gain anything meaningful from them. For example, the manufactures and laboratory and warehouse staff groups were aware of the different headings contained in MSDS and that these can be individually consulted depending on the information being sought. Members from these two groups were less likely to be discouraged by lengthy MSDS and one manufacturer even stated consulting particular headings to assess the quality of the whole MSDS. In contrast, those in the middle tier of the supply chain expressed an active dislike of MSDS and felt them to be of little use. In this sense there is a definite stratification amongst the supply chain showing that only those that technically aware were likely to benefit from MSDS.

5.2.3 Trust

For the manufacturers the issue of trust is not, like most others in the supply chain, dependant on regulatory information about a particular substance as often they are responsible for generating this information themselves. Thus they have specific ideas about trusted sources of information and are able to objectively assess what constitutes a trustworthy source as well as being able to confidently comment upon the accuracy of information provided by others. There were mixed views about trust amongst the middle and lower tiers of the supply chain. When trust of the information provided by manufacturers was expressed it appeared, for example, out of resignation, a perceived lack of choice or an idea of regulatory compliance on behalf of the manufacturers rather than a natural tendency to trust manufacturers. When end users expressed mistrust in chemical safety information it was in reference to a desire by manufacturers to gloss over potential safety issues in order to increase a product’s marketability. The manufacturers did not trust end users, perceiving that their efforts to comply with regulatory mandates were often squandered on a public that did not read labels. Another issue regarding trust was a perception of regulatory meddling by a ‘nanny state’. Some participants believed that effective products were taken off the market for no real reason to be replaced by inferior products. For this reason some people were reluctant to comply with EU guidelines and some even admitted to using withdrawn substances.

The manufacturers point out that the public do not use the information available to them, but perhaps don’t appreciate the difficulties a layperson may have in gaining anything meaningful from the glut of information that many product labels and MSDS contain. Conversely, those further down the supply chain appear unaware of the strict regulatory requirements that govern the content of labels and MSDS and that the guidance exists for their own protection. The suspicion with which manufactures can be treated is perhaps

unfounded as there is no reason to believe that it is the sole purpose of manufacturers to poison their customers nor blind them with technical phrases in order to misguide them. Mistrust of manufacturers may arise from the overuse of technical information (DTI, 2002). This demonstrates a lack of understanding as to the origins of chemical safety information and it may be the case that legislative complexity helps fuel this mistrust. Another source of mistrust raised in one focus group is the hyperbole of advertising. Consumers may confuse ‘creative marketing’ by manufacturers as a desire to be equivocal in general. This is a serious issue as any measures designed at enhancing communication throughout the supply chain may be hampered if there is a lack of trust between its members.

5.2.4 Choice

Manufacturers might be limited to the substances that they can use as a particular reaction may only commence with specific chemicals. This is not necessarily the case with formulators, who may have more choice and be more acquiescent to regulatory pressure. The procurers and suppliers in this study felt that they had little choice as to what chemicals they bought stating that they were mainly driven by end user demand. It thus appears that the onus of product choice may be on consumers. To some extent this is true and consumers can certainly influence manufacturing. There is a potential for education to increase public awareness and drive market reforms (DTI, 2002; Montgomery, 1997). For this to work a viable alternative must be available if the commonly held notion that only the most noxious of substances are effective is to be dispelled. This is particularly true for substances like paint and wood preservative that are not high volume products compared to, for instance, detergents. The relative infrequency of their use and a demand for resilience means that consumers will insist on a high level of quality from these substances. Quality is often associated with brand recognition and this notion of quality can only be held through experience, marketing and word of mouth. It may be a slow process to convince people that there are decent alternatives. Price also figures highly in end user product choice and people must feel that they are getting value for money and are only likely to pay a premium for products that they perceive to be superior. As environmentally friendly alternatives commonly demand a premium, it may be difficult to convince end users who are not environmentally aware of their value. On the other hand, making them competitively priced may also reaffirm public perceptions about their inferior quality.

5.2.5 Disposal

This is one area where there seems to be a genuine dearth of information and regulatory guidance, at best, offers advice where not to dispose of chemicals but no specific advice on where to dispose of them. This is, in part, due to the different disposal policies and schemes offered by local councils across the UK, making it difficult for regulators or manufacturers to offer specific advice on how and where to dispose of chemicals. The chemical manufacturer group acknowledged that this was the weakest part of the MSDS and that a general disclaimer such as ‘refer to local regulations’ under the disposal section in a

MSDS is often sufficient. The retailers felt that not enough disposal options were available to them and felt aggrieved by the fact that that they were sometimes burdened with the disposal of withdrawn substances. Some admitted to the improper disposal of these chemicals but most vented frustration at the lack of a coherent system for disposal and recycling. Some members of the general public were not sure about precise disposal methods and admitted to pouring chemicals down the drain or leaving them in their sheds. The cleaners and procurers had encountered professional collection services at work but were less sure of how to dispose of chemicals safely in the home. It is clear then that there is some stratification within the supply chain. The middle and bottom tier of the supply chain seem to lack awareness of correct disposal methods and proper disposal was encountered more frequently in a professional setting than a domestic one. This is not always the case as the retailers expressed some dissatisfaction with and lack of access to disposal facilities. The correct disposal of chemicals offers an the best solution for controlling their entry into the environment and statutory guidance given in this respect need not be overly technical and, if it is straightforward and specific, will have a fair chance of encouraging compliance (DTI, 2002).

5.3 Network analysis

Although the qualitative data extracted from the transcripts of the focus group discussions offer some very interesting points of view, it is difficult to establish the prevailing opinions that occur within and between groups. When conducting the focus group interviews it was clear that there were differences in the discourse between the manufacturers and the rest of the groups. It was also apparent that there were other differences between the groups although it was difficult to comment more precisely on this from textual analysis alone. From the type of analysis described in chapter 4 it was possible to determine a spatial relationship between the mental models of the focus groups. The greater the distance between groups the greater the difference in their mental models based on the way each group uses specific words and forms sentences (Fig. 4.3 and 4.4). From this it is clear that the way in which the chemical manufacturers used words was very different to all the other groups. This was not only obvious from observation of the focus groups and subsequent textual analysis but it is also to be expected as manufacturers will fully understand the definitions of the words used in this context as well as being confident with regulatory jargon. From Figure 4.3 and 4.4, it appears that there is some similarity between the mental models of groups that inhabit the same tier of the supply chain and apparent differences between different tiers of the supply chain - with the biggest observed difference between the manufacturers and procurers. This relationship highlights the potential for misunderstanding between groups. This may be exacerbated by the fact that the upper two tiers of the supply chain display quite divergent mental models. This may contribute to confusion or mistrust of chemical safety information if, for instance, this resulted in lower tiers of the supply chain receiving conflicting messages.

That the mental models of the middle tier of the supply chain were very different from the manufacturers, and the lower tier of the supply chain possessed mental models closest to the manufactures is counter intuitive. Exactly why this is so is unclear but the fact that only the procurers are concerned with both the giving and receiving of safety information whilst the other groups are concerned with only one or the other may explain it. However, there may be alternative explanations for the observed patterns. These include, for example, the type of information given and the inclusion of moderator dialogue in the network analysis. This is one aspect of the study that would benefit from further investigation and statistical validation - something that was not possible with so few groups.

The network analysis backed up observations made earlier with regard to the low status of environmental issues in the mental models of many individuals used in this study. This is evident given that the word ‘environment’ was only present in the cognitive profiles of three groups (the procures, retailers and the cleaners) where it was also given a low ranking.

5.4 Labels

It is clear that the issue surrounding the effectiveness of labels is highly complicated and the design of a universally effective label that is complete in a regulatory sense is unlikely. Even though the number of subjects studied here were relatively few, it is clear is that overly technical and detailed labelling can act as a barrier to accessing chemical safety information and over labelling reduces its credibility (Fischhoff et al., 1998). With this in mind, it would be prudent to aim for simplicity when considering new labelling schemes or updates to existing ones. The current framework relies on a two tier system of information provision where more detailed and technical safety information for professional users is provided separately from the product, whilst information for the general public and other users is contained on the product label. With this in mind it would be wise to determine the most basic and necessary warnings that need be included on a label and which end users can relate to. By doing this, risk and safety phrases can be kept as concise and specific as possible. This should encourage people to read labels and hopefully compliance by eliminating some technical information and encouraging brevity (Fischhoff et al., 1998; Wogalter et al., 2002). For completeness, all other technical information could be included on the MSDS which could be made available to a wider audience.

Some of the logos in this study were misunderstood although logos were generally well liked by participants. The fact that some pictorials, such as the St Andrew’s Cross and the Skull and Crossbones, are well understood demonstrates their potential in communicating safety information. Evidence exists to back this up and a study by Wogalter and Sojourner (1997) demonstrates that logos can be easily learned and that supporting logos with basic wording, much like the current system, can be effective. Further evidence suggests that public awareness of the underlying issues may also reinforce the message of logos (DTI, 2002). In light of this, raising awareness of the current labelling scheme may be advisable. Suggestions made in the

focus groups to accomplish this included making available laminated sheets detailing the meaning of logos that could be displayed in stores and the deployment of leafleting and television advertising campaigns. If public awareness of the underlying issues can be raised in addition to this, then it is likely to prove more effective.

Even if all of these measures could be successfully implemented or the issues fully addressed some in some other way, the fact is that many people do not read labels. For this reason there is perhaps and argument to rely more on logos to convey the most basic of safety information and to place these on the front of packaging where they will be more easily noticed (DTI, 2002, Riley et al., 2001). If the meaning of the logos can be precisely communicated in this manner then making them obligatory on the front may have several effects:

It will increase salience and therefore audience (especially for online shopping)

It may encourage people to learn their meaning It may counter the message of other non statutory logos that may be

confusing or make misleading claims It may encourage people to further read the label It may help consumers make a more informed choice It may encourage manufacturers to reformulate their products so as to

avoid having to carry hazard logos on the front of packaging

5.5 Conclusions

The following conclusions can be drawn from the observations made in this study:

Chemical safety Information is available but, with the exception of some professional users, is too technical and overly prolific

The primary source of information for many users is that provided by manufacturers

There was little awareness of the environmental logo amongst the subjects in this study

Environmental issues were not central to the subjects’ perception of risk

There is a lack of specific disposal information There are likely to be communication difficulties between members of

the supply chain owing to differences in their mental models

5.6 Recommendations for practice

The following recommendations should be considered:

Simplification of current level of information provision Raising awareness of graphic devices in CHIP scheme Revision of current disposal advice, particularly focusing on retailers Investigating trust within the supply chain

Addressing the communication problems that may arise within the supply chain

5.7 Recommendations for future research

This research has shown the potential for the two methods of analysis to complement one another. More research of this type is needed to reveal the limitations implicit in combining these two research methods. A project on a scale approximately four times the size of this one would be sufficient to achieve this whilst allowing for more statistically robust assessment of the issues addressed here. From these finding it would be possible to more fully investigate to what extent people understand or misunderstand each other as a consequence of divergent mental models. This could be further refined by identifying key words for analysis and investigating how their meanings and use may differ between members of the supply chain. These findings, along with better defined mental models, would be useful in a regulatory context to distinguish between universally understood words and those that promote ambiguity. Online shopping is likely to increase over the coming years. It may be prudent to investigate the way in which this could impact the current scheme of safety information provision.

References

Albert, R., & Barabasi, A. L. (2002). Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Reviews of Modern Physics, 74, 47-97.

Almaas, E., Kovacs, B., Vicsek, T., Oltvai, Z. N., & Barabasi, A. L. (2004). Global organization of metabolic fluxes in the bacterium Escherichia coli. Nature, 427, 839-842.

Andras, P., & Idowu, O. C. (2005). Kohonen networks with graph-based augmented metric, Prcoeedings WSOM'05.

Ariel Research (2005). New EU restrictions on VOC Content of Paints May Impact Other Industries. Mclean: Ariel Research Corporation.

Ariel research Corporation (2005). New EU Restrictions on VOC Content of Paints May Impact Other Industries. McLean: Ariel Research Corporation.

B&Q (1997). Paint Policy. Chandlers Ford: B&Q plc.

Bartoline (2002). Safety Data Sheet 8133 & 8137. Beverly: Bartoline ltd.

Beil, F., Ester, M., & Ester, M. (2002). Frequent term-based text clustering, Proceedings SIGKDD'02 (pp. 436-442).

Berg, J., & Lassig, M. (2004). Local graph alignment and motif search in biological networks. PNAS, 101, 14689-14694.

Bloor, M. (2001). Focus Groups in Social Research. London: Sage.

Defreitas, B. J., Albuquerque, P.C.W. (1991). Alternatives to Industrial Recycling of Phosphogypsum in Brazil. Water Science and Technology, 24, 245-254.

Derwent, R. G. (1995). Sources, Distributions and fates of VOCs in the Atmosphere. In R. E. Hester, Harrison, R.M. (Ed.), Volatile Organic compounds in the Atmosphere (pp. 140). Cambridge: The Royal Society of Chemistry.

DTI (2002). The Impact of Labelling Schemes: Department of Trade and Industry.

EC (2001). Strategy for a Future Chemicals Policy (pp. 32pp). Brussels: Commmission of the European Communities.

Edworthy, J. E., & Hellier, E. (2004). Linguistic and Location Effects in Compliance with Pesticide. Human Factors, 46, 11-31.

Erosheva, E., Finberg, S., & Lafferty, J. (2004). Mixed-membership models of scientific publications. PNAS, 101, 5220-5227.

Fecko, A. (1999). Environmental Fate of Bifenthrin. Sacremento: University of California.

Ferrer y Cancho, R., & Sole, R. V. (2001). The small world of human language. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 268, 2261-2265.

Fischoff, B., Riley, D., Kovacs, C., & Small, M. (1998). What Information Belongs in a Warning. Psychology and Marketing, 15, 663-686.

Hammersley, M., & Atksinson, P. (1995). Ethnography: Principles in Practice. New York: Routledge.

Hancock, H. E., Rogers, W.A., Fisk. A.D. (2001). An evaluation of Warning Habits and Beliefs Across the Adult Lifespan. Human Factors, 43, 343-354.

HSE (2005). HSE website. Health and Safety Executive. http://www.hse.gov.uk

ICI (2002). Dulux Professional Liquid Gloss Safety Data Sheet (SDSR403) Slough: ICI Paints.

ICIa (2004). Look up a Product Data Sheet or MSDS. Slough: Imperial Chemicical Industries.

ICIb (2004). Health and Safety. Slough: Imperial Chemical Industries.

Idowu, O., & Andras, P. (2005). Identification of functionally essential proteins from protein interaction network, Proceedings CIMED 2005.

Idowu, O. C., Lynden, S. J., Young, M. P., & Andras, P. (2004). Bacillus Subtilis Protein Interaction Network Analysis, Proceedings IEEE Computational Systems Bioinformatics Conference (pp. 623-625). Stanford, USA, California.

Jeong, H., Mason, S. P., Barabasi, A. L., & Oltvai, Z. N. (2001). Lethality and centrality in protein networks. Nature, 411, 21-42.

Kennedy, I. R., Sanchez-Bayo, F., Lee, N., Shivaramaiah, S., Crossan, A., Baskaran, S., & Hill, A. S. (2000). Protection of the Environment and Produce from Contamination with Pesticide Residues. In G. I. Johnson, TO, L.V., Duc, N, D., Webb, M.C. (Ed.), ACIAR Proceedings 100.

Kitzinger, J., & Barbour, R. S. (2001). Introduction: the challenge and promise of focus groups. In J. Kitzinger & R. S. Barbour (Eds.), Developing Focus Group Research (pp. 1-20). London: Routledge.

Kohler, M., Kunniger, T. (2003). Emissions of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) from creosoted railroad ties and their relevance for life cycle assessment (LCA). HOLZ ALS ROH-UND WERKSTOFF, 61, 117-124.

Lehto, M. R. (1998). The Influence of Chemical Warning Label Content and Format on Information Retrieval Speed and Accuracy. Journal of Safety research, 29, 43-56.

Madsen, T., Boyd, H. B., Nylén, D., Pedersen, A. R., Petersen, I. P., & Simonsen, F. (2001). Environmental and Health Assessment of Substances in Household Detergents and Cosmetic Detergent Product: Danish Environmental Protection Agency.

Montgomery, D. M. (1997). Ecoefficiency in Consumer products. Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society of London, 355, 1405-1414.

Mueller-Beilschmidt, D. (1990). Toxicology and Environmental Fate of Synthetic Pyrethroids. Journal of Pesticide Reform, 10, 32-36.

Mushbrush, G. M., & Speight, J. G. (1995). Petroleum Products: Instability and Incompatability. Washington D.C.: Taylor and Francis.

Padama, T. V., Hale, R. C., Roberts, M. H., & Lipcius, R. N. (1999). Toxicity of Creosote Water-Soulble Fractions Generated from Contaminated Sediments to the Bay Mysid. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 42, 171-176.

PAN UK (2001). The List of Lists. London: Pesticides Action Network UK.

Passant, N. R. (1995). Source Inventories and Control Strategies for VOCs. In R. E. Hester, Harrison, R.M. (Ed.), Volatile Organic Compounds in the Atmosphere (pp. 140). Cambridge: The Royal Society of Chemistry.

Porter, M. F. (1980). An algorithm for suffix stripping. Program, 14, 130-137.

Premiere Products (1994). Safety Data Sheet: TD30. Cheltenham: Premiere Products.

PSD (2004). PSD website. Pesticides Safety Directorate. York: Pesticides Safety Directorate. http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/

Riley, D. M., Fischoff, B., Small, J. M., & Fishbeck, P. (2001). Evaluating the Effectiveness of Risk Reduction Strategies for Consumer Chemical Products. Risk Analysis, 21, 357-369.

Ritchie, J., & Lewis, J. (2003). Qualitative Research Practice. London: Sage.

Rogers, W. A. (200). Warning Research: An intergrative Perspective. Human Factors, 42, 102-139.

Smith, P. A. (2002). Estimating Occupational Exposure to the Pyrethroid Termiticide Bifenthrin by Measuring Metabolites in Urine. Journal of Chromatography, 778, 113-120.

Spirin, V., & Mirny, L. A. (2003). Protein complexes and functional modules in molecular networks. PNAS, 100, 12123-12128.

Stalmans, M., Matthijs, E., de Oude, N.T. (1991). Fate and Effect of Detergent Chemicals in The Marine and Estuarine Environment. Water Science and technology, 24, 115-126.

Steibach, M., Karypis, G., & Kumar, V. (2000). A comparison of document clustering techniques, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Technical Report #00-034: Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Minnesota,.

Tariq, M. A., Afzal, S., & Hussain, I. (2004). Pesticides in Shallow Groundwater of Bahawalnagar, Muzfargarh, D.G. Khan and Rajan Pur Districts of Punjab, Pakistan. Environment International, 30, 471-479.

Taylor, S. J., & Bogdan, R. (1984). Introduction to qualitative research methods: The search for meanings. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

The Scotts Company (2000). MSDS No 216 (1). Godalming: Scotts Company.

Tomlin, C. (1994). The Pesticide Manual. Surrey: The British Crop Protection Council and The Royal Society of Chemistry.

Wogalter, M. S., Conzola, V. C., & Smith-Jackson, T. L. (2002). Research Based Guidelines for Warning Design and Evaluation. Applied Ergonomics, 33, 219-230.

Wogalter, M. S., Sojourner, R.J. (1997). Comprehension and Retention of Safety Pictorials. Ergonomics, 40, 531-542.

Appendix i

Symbol Abbreviation Hazard Description of hazard (Physicochemical)

E explosive Chemicals that explode.

O oxidising Chemicals that react exothermically with other chemicals.

F+ extremely flammable

Chemicals that have an extremely low flash point and boiling point, and gases that catch fire in contact with air.

F highly flammable

Chemicals that may catch fire in contact with air, only need brief contact with an ignition source, have a very low flash point or evolve highly flammable gases in contact with water.

(Health) T+ very toxic Chemicals that at very low levels cause

damage to health. T toxic Chemicals that at low levels cause damage to

health. Carc Cat 1 category 1

carcinogens Chemicals that may cause cancer or increase its incidence.

Carc Cat 2 category 2 carcinogens

Carc Cat 3 category 3 carcinogens

Muta Cat 1 category 1 mutagens

Chemicals that induce heritable genetic defects or increase their incidence.

Muta Cat 2 category 2 mutagens

Muta Cat 3 category 3 mutagens

Repr Cat 1 category 1 reproductive toxins

Chemicals that produce or increase the incidence of non-heritable effects in progeny and/or an impairment in reproductive functions or capacity. Repr Cat 2 category 2

reproductive toxins

Repr Cat 3 category 3 reproductive toxins

Xn harmful Chemicals that may cause damage to health.

C corrosive Chemicals that may destroy living tissue on contact.

Xi irritant Chemicals that may cause inflammation to the skin or other mucous membranes.

(Environmental)

N dangerous for the environment

Chemicals that may present an immediate or delayed danger to one or more components of the environment

Risk phrasesR1 Explosive when dryR2 Risk of explosion by shock, friction, fire or other sources of ignition

R3 Extreme risk of explosion by shock, friction, fire or other sources of ignition

R4 Forms very sensitive explosive metallic compoundsR5 Heating may cause an explosionR6 Explosive with or without contact with airR7 May cause fireR8 Contact with combustible material may cause fireR9 Explosive when mixed with combustible materialR10 FlammableR11 Highly flammableR12 Extremely flammableR14 Reacts violently with waterR14/15 Reacts violently with water, liberating extremely flammable gasesR15 Contact with water liberates extremely flammable gasesR15/29 Contact with water liberates toxic, extremely flammable gasesR16 Explosive when mixed with oxidising substancesR17 Spontaneously flammable in airR18 In use, may form flammable/explosive vapour-air mixtureR19 May form explosive peroxidesR20 Harmful by inhalationR20/21 Harmful by inhalation and in contact with skinR20/21/22 Harmful by inhalation, in contact with skin and if swallowedR20/22 Harmful by inhalation and if swallowedR21 Harmful in contact with skinR21/22 Harmful in contact with skin and if swallowedR22 Harmful if swallowedR23 Toxic by inhalationR23/24 Toxic by inhalation and in contact with skinR23/24/25 Toxic by inhalation, in contact with skin and if swallowedR23/25 Toxic by inhalation and if swallowedR24 Toxic in contact with skinR24/25 Toxic in contact with skin and if swallowedR25 Toxic if swallowedR26 Very toxic by inhalationR26/27 Very toxic by inhalation and in contact with skinR26/27/28 Very toxic by inhalation, in contact with skin and if swallowedR26/28 Very toxic by inhalation and if swallowedR27 Very toxic in contact with skinR27/28 Very toxic in contact with skin and if swallowed

R28 Very toxic if swallowedR30 Can become highly flammable in useR31 Contact with acids liberates toxic gasR32 Contact with acids liberates very toxic gasR33 Danger of cumulative effectsR34 Causes burnsR35 Causes severe burnsR36 Irritating to eyesR36/37 Irritating to eyes and respiratory systemR36/37/38 Irritating to eyes, respiratory system and skinR36/38 Irritating to eyes and skinR37 Irritating to respiratory systemR37/38 Irritating to respiratory system and skinR38 Irritating to skinR39 Danger of very serious irreversible effectsR39/23 Toxic: danger of very serious irreversible effects through inhalationR39/23/24 Toxic: danger of very serious irreversible effects through inhalation and

in contact with skinR39/23/24/25 Toxic: danger of very serious irreversible effects through inhalation, in

contact with skin and if swallowed

R39/23/25 Toxic: danger of very serious irreversible effects through inhalation and if swallowed

R39/24 Toxic: danger of very serious irreversible effects in contact with skin

R39/24/25 Toxic: danger of very serious irreversible effects in contact with skin and if swallowed

R39/25 Toxic: danger of very serious irreversible effects if swallowed

R39/26 Very Toxic: danger of very serious irreversible effects through inhalation

R39/26/27 Very Toxic: danger of very serious irreversible effects through inhalation and in contact with skin

R39/26/27/28 Very Toxic: danger of very serious irreversible effects through inhalation, in contact with skin and if swallowed

R39/26/28 Very Toxic: danger of very serious irreversible effects through inhalation and if swallowed

R39/27 Very Toxic: danger of very serious irreversible effects in contact with skin

R39/27/28 Very Toxic: danger of very serious irreversible effects in contact with skin and if swallowed

R39/28 Very Toxic: danger of very serious irreversible effects if swallowedR40 Limited evidence of a carcinogenic effectR41 Risk of serious damage to eyesR42 May cause sensitisation by inhalationR43 May cause sensitisation by skin contactR42/43 May cause sensitisation by inhalation and skin contactR44 Risk of explosion if heated under confinementR45 May cause cancer

R46 May cause heritable genetic damageR48 Danger of serious damage to health by prolonged exposure

R48/20 Harmful: danger of serious damage to health by prolonged exposure through inhalation

R48/20/21 Harmful: danger of serious damage to health by prolonged exposure through inhalation and in contact with skin

R48/20/21/22 Harmful: danger of serious damage to health by prolonged exposure through inhalation, in contact with skin and if swallowed

R48/20/22 Harmful: danger of serious damage to health by prolonged exposure through inhalation and if swallowed

R48/21 Harmful: danger of serious damage to health by prolonged exposure in contact with skin

R48/21/22 Harmful: danger of serious damage to health by prolonged exposure in contact with skin and if swallowed

R48/22 Harmful: danger of serious damage to health by prolonged exposure if swallowed

R48/23 Toxic: danger of serious damage to health by prolonged exposure through inhalation

R48/23/24 Toxic: danger of serious damage to health by prolonged exposure through inhalation and in contact with skin

R48/23/24/25 Toxic: danger of serious damage to health by prolonged exposure through inhalation, in contact with skin and if swallowed

R48/23/25 Toxic: danger of serious damage to health by prolonged exposure through inhalation and if swallowed

R48/24 Toxic: danger of serious damage to health by prolonged exposure in contact with skin

R48/24/25 Toxic: danger of serious damage to health by prolonged exposure in contact with skin and if swallowed

R48/25 Toxic: danger of serious damage to health by prolonged exposure if swallowed

R49 May cause cancer by inhalationR50 Very toxic to aquatic organismsR50/53 Very toxic to aquatic organisms, may cause long-term adverse effects in

the aquatic environmentR51 Toxic to aquatic organismsR51/53 Toxic to aquatic organisms, may cause long-term adverse effects in the

aquatic environmentR52 Harmful to aquatic organismsR52/53 Harmful to aquatic organisms, may cause long-term adverse effects in

the aquatic environmentR53 May cause long-term adverse effects in the aquatic environmentR54 Toxic to floraR55 Toxic to faunaR56 Toxic to soil organismsR57 Toxic to beesR58 May cause long-term adverse effects in the environmentR59 Dangerous for the ozone layer

R60 May impair fertilityR61 May cause harm to the unborn childR62 Possible risk of impaired fertilityR63 Possible risk of harm to the unborn childR64 May cause harm to breast-fed babiesR65 Harmful: may cause lung damage if swallowedR66 Repeated exposure may cause skin dryness or crackingR67 Vapours may cause drowsiness and dizzinessR68 Possible risk of irreversible effectsR68/20 Harmful: possible risk of irreversible effects through inhalation

R68/20/21 Harmful: possible risk of irreversible effects through inhalation and in contact with skin

R68/20/21/22 Harmful: possible risk of irreversible effects through inhalation, in contact with skin and if swallowed

R68/20/22 Harmful: possible risk of irreversible effects through inhalation and if swallowed

R68/21 Harmful: possible risk of irreversible effects in contact with skin

R68/21/22 Harmful: possible risk of irreversible effects in contact with skin and if swallowed

R68/22 Harmful: possible risk of irreversible effects if swallowed

Safety phrasesS1 Keep locked upS(1/2) Keep locked up and out of the reach of children S2 Keep out of the reach of children S3 Keep in a cool place S3/7 Keep container tightly closed in a cool place S3/7/9 Keep container tightly closed in a cool, well-ventilated place S3/9/14 Keep in a cool, well-ventilated place away from ... (incompatible materials

to be indicated by the manufacturer) S3/9/14/49 Keep only in the original container in a cool, well-ventilated place away

from ... (incompatible materials to be indicated by the manufacturer) S3/9/49 Keep only in the original container in a cool, well-ventilated place S3/14 Keep in a cool place away from ... (incompatible materials to be indicated

by the manufacturer) S4 Keep away from living quarters

S5 Keep contents under ... (appropriate liquid to be specified by the manufacturer)

S6 Keep under ... (inert gas to be specified by the manufacturer) S7 Keep container tightly closed S7/8 Keep container tightly closed and dry S7/9 Keep container tightly closed and in a well-ventilated place S7/47 Keep container tightly closed and at temperature not exceeding ... OC (to be

specified by the manufacturer) S8 Keep container dry S9 Keep container in a well-ventilated place S12 Do not keep the container sealed S13 Keep away from food, drink and animal feedingstuffs S14 Keep away from ... (incompatible materials to be indicated by the

manufacturer) S15 Keep away from heat S16 Keep away from sources of ignition - No smoking S17 Keep away from combustible material S18 Handle and open container with care S20 When using do not eat or drink S20/21 When using do not eat, drink or smoke S21 When using do not smoke S22 Do not breathe dust S23 Do not breathe gas/fumes/vapour/spray (appropriate wording to be

specified by the manufacturer) S24 Avoid contact with skin S24/25 Avoid contact with skin and eyes S25 Avoid contact with eyes S26 In case of contact with eyes, rinse immediately with plenty of water and

seek medical advice S27 Take off immediately all contaminated clothing S27/28 After contact with skin, take off immediately all contaminated clothing,

and wash immediately with plenty of ... (to be specified by the manufacturer)

S28 After contact with skin, wash immediately with plenty of ... (to be specified by the manufacturer)

S29 Do not empty into drains

S29/35 Do not empty into drains; dispose of this material and its container in a safe way

S29/56 Do not empty into drains, dispose of this material and its container at hazardous or special waste collection point

S30 Never add water to this product S33 Take precautionary measures against static discharges S35 This material and its container must be disposed of in a safe way S36 Wear suitable protective clothing S36/37 Wear suitable protective clothing and gloves S36/37/39 Wear suitable protective clothing, gloves and eye/face protection S36/39 Wear suitable protective clothing and eye/face protection S37 Wear suitable gloves S37/39 Wear suitable gloves and eye/face protection S38 In case of insufficient ventilation wear suitable respiratory equipment S39 Wear eye/face protection S40 To clean the floor and all objects contaminated by this material use ... (to

be specified by the manufacturer) S41 In case of fire and/or explosion do not breathe fumes S42 During fumigation/spraying wear suitable respiratory equipment

(appropriate wording to be specified by the manufacturer) S43 In case of fire use ... (indicate in the space the precise type of fire-fighting

equipment. If water increases the risk add - Never use water) S45 In case of accident or if you feel unwell seek medical advice immediately

(show the label where possible)

S46 If swallowed, seek medical advice immediately and show this container or label

S47 Keep at temperature not exceeding ... OC (to be specified by the

manufacturer) S47/49 Keep only in the original container at temperature not exceeding ... OC (to

be specified by the manufacturer) S48 Keep wet with ... (appropriate material to be specified by the manufacturer) S49 Keep only in the original container S50 Do not mix with ... (to be specified by the manufacturer) S51 Use only in well-ventilated areas S52 Not recommended for interior use on large surface areas S53 Avoid exposure - obtain special instructions before use S56 Dispose of this material and its container at hazardous or special waste

collection point S57 Use appropriate containment to avoid environmental contamination S59 Refer to manufacturer/supplier for information on recovery/recycling S60 This material and its container must be disposed of as hazardous waste

S61 Avoid release to the environment. Refer to special instructions/safety data sheet

S62 If swallowed, do not induce vomiting: seek medical advice immediately and show this container or label

S63 In case of accident by inhalation: remove casualty to fresh air and keep at rest

S64 If swallowed, rinse mouth with water (only if the person is conscious)

Appendix ii

Topic Guides

Public focus group topic guide

I’m Judith Bush and this is Jamie Hinks. We are researchers based at the University of Newcastle and I’d like to start by extending a warm welcome to you all this evening/afternoon and thanking you for sparing your valuable time to come and talk part in this group discussion today.

ResearchThe reason why we’ve brought you here today is part of a research project which is exploring how companies communicate safety information regarding chemicals used in the home and garden to consumers. The research is funded by the Department of the Environment Food and Rural Affairs.

Focus groups The aim of the discussion today up is to have a very informal chat about the sorts of information that are available to members of the public and your views/experiences of this.

It’s important to stress that we are interested in views of the whole group, even if you feel differently to somebody else don’t be shy to say so. It’s also important that we try to avoid personalising any problems we discuss.

The discussion will last around an hour.

Dissemination

Once we’ve completed the research we will be doing a report for Defra so the findings will be fed back directly to them.

We will also let you have a two page summary of our key findings.

RecordingWith permission would like to record focus groups so have an accurate account of what you said. However, when the discussion is typed up your name or any other information that could identify you will be removed or changed.

I must stress all of the information you give will be kept in the strictest confidence. We are legally obliged to do this. Your name will not be mentioned in any reports published about the study.

Just a word of caution, because we are recording the discussion it is important to try not to try your very best not to talk over each as it just means we can’t work out what has been said on the tape.

At the end of the discussion you will be given a gift voucher/cash as a gesture of thanks for taking part in the research and sharing your views and experiences with us.

Are any questions before I turn the recorder on?

TURN TAPE RECORDER ON

Icebreakers

Just to start off I’d like to go round the room and please could each of you tell me your name and the area where you live.

Chemicals used in home

The first question I’d like to ask you is…

What chemicals do we use in the home? (prompt: house, garden)

Today we are going to focus on 3 products used in the home. (i) a white gloss paint suitable for indoor and outdoor use, (ii) an insecticide and (iii) a wood preservative.

Have any of you not used any of these products?

What things influence which product you buy? (prompt: price, environmentally friendly, healthy, lead free, low odour etc. Make sure get answers for paint, insecticide and wood preservative).

How have you disposed of these products after you’ve used them? Why did you dispose of them in this way? How are you meant to dispose of them?

Risks

Do you feel there are there any risks from any of these products? (prompt: to the environment or health. Have these risks changed over time?

Information

What sources of information are there on risks to the environment and health from paint, insecticide and wood preservative? Has anyone come across such information? Where did you get the information from and what did it say? (paint, insecticide, wood preservative).

How about information relating to safety and disposal? Anyone remember seeing safety information on the tin? (prompt: paint, insecticide, wood preservative) Can you remember what it said? Was it useful? Did you follow the advice?

How believable is this information? Do you trust it?

Which of these sources of information would you trust the most and why? (Prompt: University scientist, media, chemical company, government body, GP, Greenpeace/Friends of the Earth).

Information sheet

Give out information sheets and briefly describe the information they contain.

What do you think about this information in terms of clarity? (prompt: size, detail). Is it understandable? (make sure get views on information for paint, insecticide and wood preservative). Is this information accurate? (why/why not)

How could these labels be improved?

Is there enough safety, risk and disposal information available to the public?

What information do you think should be made available and how should this be provided?

Further issues

Does anyone have anything else they would like to add before we turn the recorder off?

Professionals focus group topic guide

Describe study, what is involved with a focus group discussion and if there are any questions before proceed.

Ask if it is OK to record the discussion.

Introduction/icebreakers

Do you all use chemicals in the workplace? Ask each person to briefly describe what their day to day role is in relation to chemicals.

What things influence which product you use at work? Is there a choice? (prompt: price, environmentally friendly etc). Are there any legislative/environmental considerations that affect the choice of chemicals?

Today we are going to focus on chemicals found in some common products

Risks

Do you feel there are any kind of risks associated with these products? (prompt: environment, health).

What safety issues are associated with each of these products/chemicals?

Information

What sources of information are there on risks to the environment and health associated with these products?

How useful are these sources in terms of clarity and accuracy? Are there any barriers to accessing this information? Do you trust this information? (is it believable/credible?).

Management and disposal

What sources of information and guidance are there on management and disposal of these products? (prompt: is there a company policy for the safe disposal of chemicals? Where is the information obtained from?).

Are there any barriers to accessing and using this information/guidance?

What things influence decisions regarding how to manage and dispose of these products?

Are there any problems that can sometimes make it difficult to follow such policies or guidance?

Information sheet

Introduce the information sheet and the safety information they contain.

What do you think about this information in terms of clarity? Is it understandable? (make sure get views on both products). Is this information accurate? (why/why not)

Do you trust this information? Is it believable? (prompt: why/why not?) Which types of safety information do you trust the most

How could this information be improved?

Is there enough safety, risk and disposal information available to professionals?

What information do you think should be made available and how should this be provided?

● How might information be presented in order to raise the overall influence of environmental risk on chemical production, use and disposal?

Further issues

Does anyone have anything else they would like to add before we turn the recorder off?

Appendix iii

List of relevant words for chemical safety issues

The underlined words are those selected as commonly important relevant words.

# Word # Word1 Orange 20 disposal2 Chemicals 21 bottles3 Products 22 logos4 paint 23 dangerous5 safety 24 health6 labels 25 aware7 clean 26 preservative8 environment 27 substances9 risk 28 dead10 kill 29 harmful11 hazard 30 creosote12 organic 31 damage13 symbol 32 fire14 problem 33 safer15 tins 34 instructions16 trusted 35 pesticides17 public 36 soap18 labelled 37 waste19 sprayed