Fogra New Testing Procedure

Green Printer

Registered Users
I seen this link provided by Sustainable.

http://www.fogra.org/approvals/washes/washes_info/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:
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..
 
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.
 
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.
 
"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.
 
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/washes/washes_info/i-washes.pdf

Section 1,2 and 3 are all referring to the chemical safety issues.
 
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.
 
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:
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:
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/washes/washes_info/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:
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.
 
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:
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.


I couldn't agree more on the worldwide standard. The first step is making the information available. These post on chemicals,fogra testing and pyrrolidone could be the precursor of waking the sleeping giant.
 
Lukew

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

Is this the correct link Australian Inventory of Chemical Substances (AICS)

Yes that is the website, although they have changed it since I last looked and the whole search function is now completely different.
I couldn't get it to work on the work computer.
On the old website once you searched a cas# it would take you through to a page and list the health issues the % of allowable chemical in a product before it needs certain safety & risk warnings to be listed & also the PPM levels.
 
Take cas# 64742-48-9 for exampe, this is one chemical that AICS does list as dangerous & it is recognised in the USA as dangerous. and I'm positive that msds in the USA must list the dangers
But and a big But this chemical is used in a large % of roller and blanket washes here in Aus, yet not one roller & blanket wash msds that I have recieved lists any of the nasty risk/safety phrases that are on AICS.
I have a MSDS sitting in front of me which has this product in it up to 50% concentration and this is all it says on the msds
2. HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION
Harmful (Xn): R65 - Harmful: may cause lung damage if swallowed.
Other: R66 - Repeated exposure may cause skin dryness or cracking.
NOT CLASSIFIED AS A DANGEROUS GOOD BY THE CRITERIA OF THE ADG CODE
UN No. None DG Class None Subsidiary Risk(s) None Allocated
Pkg group None Hazchem Code None EPG None

11. TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION
Health Hazard Summary: Low toxicity irritant. Use safe work practice re eye or skin contact and vapour inhalation.
Eye: Irritant. Exposure may result in irritation, pain, redness, conjunctivitis with direct contact.
Inhalation: Low toxicity. Inhalation may result in mucous membrane irritation of the nose and throat.
Skin: Low class Irritant. Prolonged contact may result in drying and de-fatting of the skin, rash and dermatitis.
Ingestion: Low toxicity. Ingestion may result in nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, laxative effect, diarrhea, and
drowsiness with large doses.
 
Take cas# 64742-48-9 for exampe, this is one chemical that AICS does list as dangerous & it is recognised in the USA as dangerous. and I'm positive that msds in the USA must list the dangers
But and a big But this chemical is used in a large % of roller and blanket washes here in Aus, yet not one roller & blanket wash msds that I have recieved lists any of the nasty risk/safety phrases that are on AICS.
I have a MSDS sitting in front of me which has this product in it up to 50% concentration and this is all it says on the msds
2. HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION
Harmful (Xn): R65 - Harmful: may cause lung damage if swallowed.
Other: R66 - Repeated exposure may cause skin dryness or cracking.
NOT CLASSIFIED AS A DANGEROUS GOOD BY THE CRITERIA OF THE ADG CODE
UN No. None DG Class None Subsidiary Risk(s) None Allocated
Pkg group None Hazchem Code None EPG None

11. TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION
Health Hazard Summary: Low toxicity irritant. Use safe work practice re eye or skin contact and vapour inhalation.
Eye: Irritant. Exposure may result in irritation, pain, redness, conjunctivitis with direct contact.
Inhalation: Low toxicity. Inhalation may result in mucous membrane irritation of the nose and throat.
Skin: Low class Irritant. Prolonged contact may result in drying and de-fatting of the skin, rash and dermatitis.
Ingestion: Low toxicity. Ingestion may result in nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, laxative effect, diarrhea, and
drowsiness with large doses.

Lukew

Now you are seeing the problem. An MSDS is assumed to be correct. SInce the MSDS is rarely questioned or challenged there is no repercussion to the company who supplied the MSDS. I have seen many many many MSDS's for this industry that are down and right not truthful. This is usually accomplished with the terms NA or no data available.

IF you think the MSDS is incorrect challenge the supplier and or report the MSDS to the proper regulating group or authorities in you country, state, province, county, city etc.
 
The registry of formulations with “Berufsgenossenschaft Druck und Papierverarbeitung” is just that. The assurances of confidentiality pertaining to these submitted formulations is open to question.
I think many people read into things what they want reality to be, rather than evaluating what is really written. None of this is meant as a knock against Fogra, they do what they say they do and are honest about why they do it.
 

PressWise

A 30-day Fix for Managed Chaos

As any print professional knows, printing can be managed chaos. Software that solves multiple problems and provides measurable and monetizable value has a direct impact on the bottom-line.

“We reduced order entry costs by about 40%.” Significant savings in a shop that turns about 500 jobs a month.


Learn how…….

   
Back
Top