Announcement

No announcement yet.

Fogra New Testing Procedure

What's Going On


There are currently 3503 users online. 108 members and 3395 guests.

Most users ever online was 3,622 at 02:39 PM on 08-04-2015.

X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Fogra New Testing Procedure

    I seen this link provided by Sustainable.

    http://www.fogra.org/approvals/washe...o/i-washes.pdf

    I think it is good.

    Are there any other observations or opinions on Forga's new wash testing criteria?

    After digging a little deeper I see that there is nothing mentioned about the EU Reach list of chemicals. I would highly suggest that Fogra include the Reach list in their specifications. Also they should include the USA SARA 313 list.
    Last edited by Green Printer; 02-16-2012, 10:51 PM.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Green Printer View Post
    After digging a little deeper I see that there is nothing mentioned about the EU Reach list of chemicals. I would highly suggest that Fogra include the Reach list in their specifications. Also they should include the USA SARA 313 list.
    I assume you mean any chemical on said list would not meet the fogra criteria, if so:
    Never likely to happen !
    $$$$ Thats what the Fogra team will loose, if they were to set the guidelines too strict.

    It would be a lot easier if there was a worldwide recognised standard for chemical safety. For instance there are chemicals that are listed on sara title 313 / prop 65 etc, that don't rate a mention here in Aus.

    Makes you wonder is it that one area is going over board in relation to chemical health issues or another place is being lax..

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Lukew View Post
      I assume you mean any chemical on said list would not meet the fogra criteria, if so:
      Never likely to happen !
      $$$$ Thats what the Fogra team will loose, if they were to set the guidelines too strict.

      It would be a lot easier if there was a worldwide recognised standard for chemical safety. For instance there are chemicals that are listed on sara title 313 / prop 65 etc, that don't rate a mention here in Aus.

      Makes you wonder is it that one area is going over board in relation to chemical health issues or another place is being lax..
      Lesson #1
      Chemical Benzene benzene - Google Search

      Benzene is on the EU Reach, Sara title 313 and Prop 65 list.
      Virtually all printing employes have been or still are being exposed to Benzene.
      Benzene is a world wide recognized CARCINOGEN.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Lukew View Post
        I assume you mean any chemical on said list would not meet the fogra criteria, if so:
        Never likely to happen !
        $$$$ Thats what the Fogra team will loose, if they were to set the guidelines too strict.

        It would be a lot easier if there was a worldwide recognized standard for chemical safety. For instance there are chemicals that are listed on sara title 313 / prop 65 etc, that don't rate a mention here in Aus.

        Makes you wonder is it that one area is going over board in relation to chemical health issues or another place is being lax..
        Here is a very interesting point that will start to pop up all over the world. When an organization says a chemical is safe to use they have now made themselves libelous for those exposed to those chemicals.
        The EU REACH, Sara title 313 and prop 65 list of chemicals are all documented as health risk and or hazards.

        Does Fogra have enough insurance to cover all of the potential claims from products that they say are safe. If they have all of the paper work to prove otherwise to go against the EU, EPA and the state of California showing them they are wrong and flawed go ahead and put the on the Fogra approved label.

        Benzene is in litigation in many countries and is well documented yet Fogra has it on their list of OK chemicals if it is just a little bit less than .1 percent or 1000 parts per million.

        Comment


        • #5
          "Does Fogra have enough insurance to cover all of the potential claims from products that they say are safe. If they have all of the paper work to prove otherwise to go against the EU, EPA and the state of California showing them they are wrong and flawed go ahead and put the on the Fogra approved label."

          There is a lot of miss-understanding regarding what Fogra means by "safe". Fogra certification implies a product will not harm the equipment manufactured by the companies that bankroll Fogra, no more, no less. Fogra certification does not mean a product will perform the task it is designed for well, or at all. There is no implication regarding safety for the user expressed or implied.
          Daniel T Roll
          904-305-2517

          Comment


          • #6
            There is a lot of miss-understanding regarding what Fogra means by "safe". Fogra certification implies a product will not harm the equipment manufactured by the companies that bankroll Fogra, no more, no less. Fogra certification does not mean a product will perform the task it is designed for well, or at all. There is no implication regarding safety for the user expressed or implied.[/QUOTE]

            Read this link http://www.fogra.org/approvals/washe...o/i-washes.pdf

            Section 1,2 and 3 are all referring to the chemical safety issues.

            Comment


            • #7
              If you read http://www.fogra.org/approvals/washe...o/i-washes.pdf carefully (as I have) sections 1, 2, and 3 refer to chemicals that Fogra prohibits, but not because they might pose a hazard to you. The pdf clearly states the agreement is for the protection of the equipment first with one indirect reference to the environment. Certification only implies that the wash approved did not swell or otherwise damage the elastomer samples Forgra uses to represent rollers and seals. I have not had much contact with Fogra over the last six or seven years, but have had many conversations with Dr. Rauh since Fogra took the approval programs over from the Munich Technical Institute (where Dr. Schmidt was in charge) and he has always been careful not to position Fogra as an environmental or safety approval company. Fogra's staff are chemists and chemical engineers, not Doctors or medical researchers.
              Daniel T Roll
              904-305-2517

              Comment


              • #8
                Dan, Perhaps you missed the word that I have put brackets around, it is in that fogra article under number 1.
                1: Details of the compositions must
                be supplied to the “Berufsgenossenschaft
                Druck und Papierverarbeitung”
                (Institution for statutory
                accident insurance and prevention
                in the printing and paper processing
                industry) (BG ETEM — BG Energie Textil Elektro Medienerzeugnisse) to enable
                the (((health)))) risks to be assessed. This
                information is obviously treated as
                highly confidential. The address is
                given below.


                But in number 2 they are only talking about engineering and of environmental
                protection. So fogra need to clear this up.

                As for litigation on their behalf, if in deed they were talking about human health I personaly think they would be covered in some form of fine print.
                .01% benzen. Comeon green printer that is such a miniscule amount. You would be subject to far greater levels then that just in day to day living.
                Last edited by Lukew; 02-17-2012, 04:06 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Lukew


                  Safety Engineering not just enginnering

                  2. Those involved in this industry sector initiative have, taking into account the current state of the art of SAFETY ENGINEERING and of environmental protection, agreed to issue the following recommendations with regard to the use of washing agents:
                  ¬ Flash point above 55 °C
                  ¬ Benzene content less than 0.1 %
                  ¬ Toluene and xylene content less
                  than 1 %
                  ¬ Aromatic content less than 1 %

                  Benzene MSDS http://www.hovensa.com/pdf/Benzene.pdf
                  Look at section 8 exposure limits
                  Section 9 odor threshold 4.7ppm
                  Last edited by Green Printer; 02-17-2012, 05:44 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    MSDS of commonly used chemicals in the pressroom

                    http://www.hovensa.com/pdf/Benzene.pdf


                    http://www.phy.duke.edu/research/pho...thane_msds.pdf


                    http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9923187

                    2-Butoxyethanol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
                    Last edited by Sustainable; 02-18-2012, 07:59 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Dan Roll View Post
                      If you read http://www.fogra.org/approvals/washe...o/i-washes.pdf carefully (as I have) sections 1, 2, and 3 refer to chemicals that Fogra prohibits, but not because they might pose a hazard to you. The pdf clearly states the agreement is for the protection of the equipment first with one indirect reference to the environment. Certification only implies that the wash approved did not swell or otherwise damage the elastomer samples Forgra uses to represent rollers and seals. I have not had much contact with Fogra over the last six or seven years, but have had many conversations with Dr. Rauh since Fogra took the approval programs over from the Munich Technical Institute (where Dr. Schmidt was in charge) and he has always been careful not to position Fogra as an environmental or safety approval company. Fogra's staff are chemists and chemical engineers, not Doctors or medical researchers.
                      First go to: http://www.fogra.org/approvals/washe...o/i-washes.pdf
                      now read the very first 1. "to enable the health risks to be assessed."
                      Clearly fogra is claiming the right to assess health risks as a criteria of its testing.
                      The questions remain; why would any equipment manufacturer usurp health by the user (press operator/employees), usurp health of the finished product (the label/box/instructions), usurp health of the finished product content, and usurp the health of the end user(s).



                      usurp u·surp/yo͞oˈsərp/
                      Verb:
                      Take (a position of power or importance) illegally or by force.
                      Take the place of (someone in a position of power) illegally; supplant.
                      Synonyms:
                      seize - appropriate
                      Last edited by Sustainable; 02-18-2012, 08:22 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        First go to: http://www.fogra.org/approvals/washe...o/i-washes.pdf
                        section 3 Terpene

                        Classification of Terpenes:
                        • Hemiterpenes C5H8
                        • Monoterpenes C10H16
                        • Sesquiterpenes C15H24
                        • Diterpenes C20H32
                        • Sesterterpenes C25H40
                        • Triterpenes C30H48
                        • Tetraterpenes C40H64
                        • Polyterpenes (C5H8)n

                        D-limolene is a terpene

                        This is good link for terpenes http://www.inive.org/medias/ECA/ECA_Report26.pdf

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          This links covers a much broader range of toxic chemicals.

                          ATSDR Home

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            All good info presented. I still stand by the fact that there needs to be a worldwide standard for health issues of chemicals

                            A lot of of the nasty main chemicals used in pressroom products that are recognised in the USA as hasardous are likely recognised here as hasardous. But through my research there has been numerous chemicals that when searched through AICS here, don't even have to be listed on the MSDS under hazardous or dangerous chemicals but in the USA they are listed as hazardous.
                            There has been instances where there has been chemicals listed on AICS to be hazardous but are not listed in USA as hazardous, or prop 65, sara 313 etc.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Lukew View Post
                              All good info presented. I still stand by the fact that there needs to be a worldwide standard for health issues of chemicals

                              A lot of of the nasty main chemicals used in pressroom products that are recognised in the USA as hasardous are likely recognised here as hasardous. But through my research there has been numerous chemicals that when searched through AICS here, don't even have to be listed on the MSDS under hazardous or dangerous chemicals but in the USA they are listed as hazardous.
                              There has been instances where there has been chemicals listed on AICS to be hazardous but are not listed in USA as hazardous, or prop 65, sara 313 etc.

                              Lukew

                              What are the chemicals listed under the AICS that are not on Sara 313 and prop 65?

                              Is this the correct link http://www.nicnas.gov.au/industry/aics.asp
                              Last edited by Green Printer; 02-18-2012, 03:38 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X