Hazard-communication coverage of animal-feed ingredients

September 18, 1995

Mr. David A. Bossman
President
American Feed Industry Association
[Recipient address omitted]
Dear Mr. Bossman:

Thank you for your letter dated August 7 to Assistant Secretary Joseph A. Dear requesting that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) exempt animal feed ingredients from the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.1200, the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS). The reasons given by your organization for this exemption are that the HCS and the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) regulations overlap, that requiring material safety data sheets (MSDS) for feed ingredients creates an administrative burden for industry, and that requiring MSDSs for nonhazardous materials actually deters worker health and safety.

Section 4(b)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 states that OSHA has jurisdiction over matters pertaining to worker safety or health unless another federal agency has exercised authority to prescribe or enforce standards affecting occupational safety and health with respect to a particular working condition. The FDA does not have regulatory authority over worker safety and health. OSHA has the authority and the HCS is an extension of that authority. FDA's interest in ingredients used in animal feeds is to prevent potentially harmful ingredients from reaching consumers by way of animals raised for food for humans. OSHA's interest is in protecting workers from exposure to harmful chemicals by informing them of the hazards and identities of the chemicals they are exposed to while working.

OSHA provides an exemption to the labeling provisions of the HCS for products which are subject to the labeling provisions of FDA. An exemption is also provided for drugs, as defined by FDA, which are in "...solid, final form for direct administration to the patient (e.g., tablets or pills); drugs which are packaged by the chemical manufacturer for sale to consumers in a retail establishment (e.g., over the counter drugs); and drugs intended for personal consumption by employees while in the workplace (e.g., first aid supplies)...." {HCS, (b)(6)(vii)}. In these instances coverage is unnecessary, since exposure is unlikely.

On the other hand, of the chemicals used as medical additives listed in 21 CFR 558.3, most are, it is assumed, in either solid or liquid form to facilitate blending with the feed to which they are being added. In these forms these chemicals present a potential exposure hazard to employees. For example, in a brief check of some of the chemicals listed as "Type A medicated articles", it was observed that some were truly hazardous: Arsanilic acid in contact with the skin may cause diarrhea and paralysis, long term eye contact may cause blindness, and ingestion may cause vomiting, bloody stool, and paralysis; Dichlorvos is flammable and is an International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) 2B carcinogen that is highly toxic; and Hygromycin B, in dust-air mixtures may ignite or explode. Employees need to, and have a right to, know that these hazards are present in their work environment.

OSHA is aware of some of the problems caused by the widespread use of MSDSs for non-hazardous chemicals, including the examples you provide in your letter. In order to reduce the number of MSDSs, members of the American Feed Industry Association (AFIA) might instruct suppliers not to ship MSDSs with every shipment, as some do, and not to ship MSDSs for products which are not hazardous by OSHA definition. As to the deteriorating usefulness of MSDSs, an answer might be found in more effective training, and in filing the MSDSs by frequency of use or by degree of hazard so that employees are less likely to lose awareness of the hazards found in their work area. In any event, exempting an entire class of chemicals because of the number of MSDSs generated is not the answer to the problem.

OSHA has recently requested that the National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health (NACOSH) establish a working group on hazard communication. The issues they will explore include how to simplify MSDSs, reduce the amount of required paperwork, increase the effectiveness of worker training, and revise enforcement policies to focus on the most serious hazards. If NACOSH recommends significant changes, the rulemaking process would begin, at which time the comments of your and other organizations and parties would be taken into consideration. Until such time as NACOSH has had an opportunity to complete the assigned task, it would be inappropriate to consider further exemptions to the HCS.

We hope this information will be helpful.

Sincerely,
Adam M. Finkel, Sc.D.
Director
Health Standards Programs

[Requester letter reproduced on OSHA page; omitted here.]