HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS (UNIFORM LABELLING) (Hansard, 2 August 1972)

§ Mrs. Sally Oppenheim (Gloucester)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to the labelling of hazardous products used in the home or garden. The Bill which I hope the House will give me leave to present has the support in principle of the Consumers Association, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, the Personal Safety Committee of the British Standards Institution, and the British Medical Association.

The Measure has become necessary because the range of potentially dangerous household and garden products has become so wide and sophisticated that it is no longer possible to leave warnings to individual manufacturers.

On the highways there are dangers, and the warning signals are clear. In the home there are dangers, too, and the warning signals should be just as clear for parents and children alike, because in nearly every kitchen cupboard today there is a small arsenal which, if mishandled, could lead to very serious and even fatal accidents.

Most sensible parents keep drugs and medicines out of their children's reach, but they are unaware that they need protection from everyday household products which can kill, disfigure, injure or maim them, and a startling number of tragedies can be traced to these products. An attractive, innocent-looking bottle of furniture polish put down for a moment while the mother answers the telephone could be lethal to her three-year-old child. Cleansers, polishers, furniture polish, stove polish, bleaches, oven cleansers, lavatory cleansers, paint solvents—nearly all of them carry substances of a poisonous or toxic nature. Many of them are sold in explosive, flammable containers. All of them, if accidentally mishandled or ingested, can lead to very serious dangers.

What I should like to emphasise to the House is that these are perfectly good products if used for the purposes for which they are sold, and it is against accidental mishandling, mostly by children, that we must guard.

563 The form of warning I advocate is simple and striking. It consists of four simple symbols pinpointing four common hazards, "poison", "flammable", "explosive", and "corrosive". The first three of these symbols approximate almost exactly to those used in the bulk transport of these substances and by the EEC. The fourth symbol would have to be modified slightly to harmonise with EEC and ISO regulations.

The most important thing about these symbols is that not only should they be clear and easily recognised. But that they should be uniform so that they can be taught to the pre-school child as is the highway code. The symbol itself should be of a regulation size in proportion to the package and should be carried on the main portion of the label or the container with the word "danger" and the name of the secondary hazard below. The manufacturer would be required to make a secondary warning statement elsewhere on the label giving details of the first-aid recommendations and antidote. In Canada, where similar legislation has been introduced, it is often suggested that the container should be taken with the patient to the hospital or the doctor.

The purpose of the primary symbol would be to alert the pre-school child who cannot read and also parents to the danger and to draw their attention to the secondary warning elsewhere on the label.

In a recent survey carried out by the Canadian Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs it was shown that 80 per cent. of the nursery school children interviewed already recognised the first three symbols.

Now I hold up for hon. Members to see a tin of drain cleanser commonly on sale in this country. This tin does not carry the word "Danger" anywhere, but a mere caution on the top and back of the tin. Elsewhere on the back of the tin, in minute print among a welter of other instructions are directions which bear witness to the deadliness of this product. For instance, it says, "When in use hold tin at arm's length"; "If more than recommended quantity used, violent reaction could result". It then thoughtfully goes on to say, "If you use spoon, make sure that you wash it carefully before reuse".

564 Presumably, if one used the spoon to eat cornflakes one would have no vocal chords left.

These instructions cannot be read by the pre-school child. This highly poisonous and corrosive substance is of a pleasant white sugary texture. One shudders to think what might happen if it fell into wrong hands.

I hold up for the House to see an enlarged photograph of the same tin bearing the clear, striking, warning symbol that I have proposed in the Bill so that parents and teachers alike are immediately alerted to the dangers. I also hold up a tin of furniture polish recently purchased in Canada bearing the Canadian mandatory, uniform symbols. The House may be interested to know that the symbols plus the word "danger" are as large as the brand name itself. Many thousands of furniture polishes on sale in this country bear no such warnings, and that is true also of thousands of household and garden products.

I hope it will be clear to the House from this demonstration that the Measure I am proposing is not only necessary but urgent.

In Canada, before similar regulations were introduced, 80 per cent. of all poisonings were among pre-school children; 16,000 of these could be traced to household products. In America, where similar figures are available, in 1966 the American Congress amended the Federal Hazardous Substances Labelling Act to extend the regulations, and in the EEC there is a directive of the Council, implementable by secondary legislation or departmental regulation, which in Article 6 makes it mandatory for dangerous substances to carry uniform warning symbols.

This country appears to be lagging behind. The Measure which I am seeking to introduce is at least 10 years too late. It is certainly too late for those who have already been killed, injured or disfigured during this period, a period in which household products have proliferated on the market at a very fast rate. It is also shamefully clear that some other countries give a higher priority than we do to protecting their consumers from the sort of dangers that I have described.

What then are the tell-tale figures for Britain? Such figures as I have elicited 565 are absolutely devastating. Between 1968 and 1970, the latest year for which collated figures are available, over 22,000 children were treated in hospitals in England and Wales for the toxic effect of chiefly non-medicinal substances, that is to say, mainly household or garden substances. Of those, 86 per cent. were below school age and presumably could not read. Of those who died during this period, 80 per cent. were below school age. Those figures relate only to children treated in hospital, so that the true figure could be much higher, and since 1970 the figures could easily have doubled.

Those shocking figures prove beyond shadow of doubt that it is very young children who are mainly affected; it is they with whom the Bill is chiefly concerned, and, therefore, the uniformity of the symbols is the essence of its effectiveness.

Details of enforcement measures and penalties for contravention are set out in the Bill. The regulations would apply to the advertisement or sale of any substances in this country, whether home produced or imported.

The need for Governments to protect the public from sickness, injury or death attributable to inadequate information or warning has never been more apparent than it is today. No regulations and no laws can overcome carelessness or lack of common sense, but knowledge provides some protection and, at the very least, people should be informed of the precautions they should take for their own safety and for the safety of their children.

566 I hope the House will give me leave to introduce the Bill and that the Government will make an effort to pass it as soon as possible, before they are eventually forced to do so by the relevant EEC directive and before too many more tragedies have occurred.