Humbrol Enamel Paints

[Mike_Walker]

Good question!

[Jonboy]

Probably cause this is one of the first major deviations of the uk and EU’s REACH regulations (which previously were identical/aligned)  at a retail level since brexit and people are human…

[cessna152towser]

On 05/05/2022 at 15:57, Widnes Model Centre said:

We have just received an update from Hornby:

 

 Humbrol enamels can legally be sold in Britain. 
 

They cannot be exported to Europe.

I have now binned all my Humbrol paints.

I prefer to rely on the EU REACH regulations to keep me safe from carcinogenic substances, and I won't be buying stuff which is illegal in mainland Europe.

My personal decision.     As the paints are now permitted under uk rules it is a matter of personal choice but I for one will be boycotting these paints.

[Pete the Elaner]

15 minutes ago, cessna152towser said:

I have now binned all my Humbrol paints.

I prefer to rely on the EU REACH regulations to keep me safe from carcinogenic substances, and I won't be buying stuff which is illegal in mainland Europe.

My personal decision.     As the paints are now permitted under uk rules it is a matter of personal choice but I for one will be boycotting these paints.

 

Some regs are applied for the wrong reasons. Maybe this one is reasonable or maybe it is OTT:

 

DOT4 brake fluid was available in yellow & blue, which was great because when you replaced it, you could alternate & therefore see very clearly when you had got rid of the old stuff (it discolours well after it really needs changing so unless you've left it for years, you can't see when you have got rid of the older stuff. Yellow to blue or blue to yellow makes this very easy).

The US insisted it should be yellow/gold, then the EU followed. This was simply to colour code fluids so they could be identified by colour. There was nothing chemically or physically wrong with blue fluid.

 

I still think that if Humbrol change their base chemical, they should re-brand their paints so it is easy to determine old from new.

[Jonboy]

5 hours ago, cessna152towser said:

I have now binned all my Humbrol paints.

I prefer to rely on the EU REACH regulations to keep me safe from carcinogenic substances, and I won't be buying stuff which is illegal in mainland Europe.

My personal decision.     As the paints are now permitted under uk rules it is a matter of personal choice but I for one will be boycotting these paints.

I would suggest you take a detailed look at how REACH works for proposal, consultation, decision and implementation of substances.
 

There is almost as much room for industrial lobbying, as there is science on both sides of the channel.

Edited May 10, 2022 by Jonboy

[njee20]

8 hours ago, cessna152towser said:

I have now binned all my Humbrol paints.

I prefer to rely on the EU REACH regulations to keep me safe from carcinogenic substances, and I won't be buying stuff which is illegal in mainland Europe.

My personal decision.     As the paints are now permitted under uk rules it is a matter of personal choice but I for one will be boycotting these paints.

You presumably mean you “prefer to rely” on the more stringent standards. If the roles were reversed and the EU changed their mind, but the UK classified MEKO as carcinogenic then would you start using them again?

 

The paint is no more ‘dangerous’ than it was before this. Don’t get it myself, but it’s your prerogative.

[Bucoops]

If you think REACH is bad, try the State of California. Just about everything is marked up as a potential carcinogen, including the paint they make the signs from, yet they legalised weed. The mind boggles.

[cessna152towser]

1 hour ago, njee20 said:

You presumably mean you “prefer to rely” on the more stringent standards. If the roles were reversed and the EU changed their mind, but the UK classified MEKO as carcinogenic then would you start using them again?

If the roles were reversed I would continue to rely on the more stringent standards.

[Derekl]

59 minutes ago, cessna152towser said:

If the roles were reversed I would continue to rely on the more stringent standards.

I kind of wonder about some of these advices. I am now 70 and having been using various enamel paints - Humbrol, Airfix (as was) and others since age of about 15 and I am still alive. I don't think any of the health problems I have had have been paint related.

 

I suppose if you are younger it may be wise to be cautious.

[Hal Nail]

A well respected weathering pro, if not the best known, switched to acrylics having reported the impact on his health of breathing in solvents and using enamels.

 

It would be easy to say ive been fine but that could just be luck.

[jonhall]

As with all of these things, the end use is critical to the actual risk - the exposure (and therefore the risk) using small quantities for a few minutes as a hobbyist once a month by brush, is different to that of a professional painter spraying 8 hours a day 5 days a week, vs the operator of Humbrol's* factory line, who measures several liters into a vessel that might be heated and or agitated, or the tanker driver who delivers 30,000L of the stuff. 

 

The MSDS is inevitably written based on the suppliers manufacturing and distribution, which is why in a commercial setting a further the risk assessment would be written (COSHH in the UK) to reflect the quantities, practices, facilities and incompatibilities of the end use (in a laboratory or manufacturing workplace) however it becomes a lot more difficult to do that in a consumers home.

 

Jon

 

*recognising they sub-contract making it it.

[andyman7]

7 hours ago, Derekl said:

I kind of wonder about some of these advices. I am now 70 and having been using various enamel paints - Humbrol, Airfix (as was) and others since age of about 15 and I am still alive. I don't think any of the health problems I have had have been paint related.

 

I suppose if you are younger it may be wise to be cautious.

Let's face it, any of us here over 50 have been exposed to lead in petrol and paint, asbestos in insulation and decorative plaster, all sorts of nasties in garden weedkillers, plus the fumes from all sorts of paints, strippers and adhesives that are now banned. 

 

On a societal level these changes make sense to minimise lifelong risks in children and young people today as well as pollution of watercourses and soil; but of a purely personal basis chucking all your old enamel paints away if you're already at retirement age is most definitely shutting the stable door several hours after the horse left town.  

Edited May 10, 2022 by andyman7

[adb968008]

12 hours ago, Bucoops said:

If you think REACH is bad, try the State of California. Just about everything is marked up as a potential carcinogen, including the paint they make the signs from, yet they legalised weed. The mind boggles.

I was once on Santa Monica market and saw fresh oranges for sale on a fruit stall, they had a sticker on, warning that organic foods could contain harmful bacteria from their natural environment.

 

if you pay politicians enough, they can get anything passed as a hazard or a health warning.

 

10 miles either direction in the more hispanic areas, you’ll not find anything like such warnings on fruit.
 

Its all about mitigating legal risk, or creating competitive barriers that increase revenues.

 

Edited May 10, 2022 by adb968008

[57xx]

3 hours ago, jonhall said:

As with all of these things, the end use is critical to the actual risk - the exposure (and therefore the risk) using small quantities for a few minutes as a hobbyist once a month by brush, is different to that of a professional painter spraying 8 hours a day 5 days a week, vs the operator of Humbrol's* factory line, who measures several liters into a vessel that might be heated and or agitated, or the tanker driver who delivers 30,000L of the stuff.

 

Absolutely, context is everything. There is often a lot of over-reaction to things like this because people do not understand the context they are using things is completely different to where the exposure really becomes an issue. I wonder how many people would give up drinking water if they knew it was actually toxic to humans?

[Hal Nail]

 

7 minutes ago, 57xx said:

I wonder how many people would give up drinking water if they knew it was actually toxic to humans?

Roughly as many as took any notice when told there was a nasty virus going round?

 

Edited May 10, 2022 by Hal Nail

[Pete the Elaner]

2 hours ago, 57xx said:

 

Absolutely, context is everything. There is often a lot of over-reaction to things like this because people do not understand the context they are using things is completely different to where the exposure really becomes an issue. I wonder how many people would give up drinking water if they knew it was actually toxic to humans?

 

That reminds me of an episode of Yes Minister, "The Greasy Pole". For those who have not seen it, the issue is about a chemicals factory who are using a new product. It shares part of its name with one which was toxic, but this one is inert, One of the jokes was that nobody knew what 'inert' meant (it means unreactive), so the minister blocked the proposal even though the new chemical was safe.

The programme is surprisingly relevant 40 years after it was made.

[Willie Whizz]

21 hours ago, 57xx said:

 

Absolutely, context is everything. There is often a lot of over-reaction to things like this because people do not understand the context they are using things is completely different to where the exposure really becomes an issue. I wonder how many people would give up drinking water if they knew it was actually toxic to humans?

I have always felt queasy about drinking water since hearing what W C Fields had to say about what fish do in it ...

[Nile]

You should probably remove the fish first before drinking the water.

[Nick C]

On 10/05/2022 at 20:46, 57xx said:

 

Absolutely, context is everything. There is often a lot of over-reaction to things like this because people do not understand the context they are using things is completely different to where the exposure really becomes an issue. I wonder how many people would give up drinking water if they knew it was actually toxic to humans?

https://www.dhmo.org/

 

On 10/05/2022 at 23:05, Pete the Elaner said:

 

That reminds me of an episode of Yes Minister, "The Greasy Pole". For those who have not seen it, the issue is about a chemicals factory who are using a new product. It shares part of its name with one which was toxic, but this one is inert, One of the jokes was that nobody knew what 'inert' meant (it means unreactive), so the minister blocked the proposal even though the new chemical was safe.

The programme is surprisingly relevant 40 years after it was made.

 

It's quite scary watching that show, just how relevent it all still is. Working through one of the DVDs last winter, we had the Brexit episode followed by the Carillion one...

[Michael Hodgson]

On 10/05/2022 at 23:05, Pete the Elaner said:

 

That reminds me of an episode of Yes Minister, ... The programme is surprisingly relevant 40 years after it was made.

That was a brilliant series, which had particualr meaning to me as my father was a civil seervant who encountered that sort of thing.  What surprised about the series was how popular it was in other countries (even Russia) where the cultural differences as well as the language would make many of the jokes difficult to follow and impossible to translate.

[Pete the Elaner]

6 hours ago, Nick C said:

https://www.dhmo.org/

 

 

It's quite scary watching that show, just how relevent it all still is. Working through one of the DVDs last winter, we had the Brexit episode followed by the Carillion one...

Very relevant. Much of the nonsense we get from parliament today gets explained in one episode or another.

 

[Steamport Southport]

34 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

Very relevant. Much of the nonsense we get from parliament today gets explained in one episode or another.

 

 

That's because the politicians change but the Civil Servants don't....

 

And haven't for centuries. Just like the church.

 

 

 

[gr.king]

Well that all seems to have been a lot of un-necessary fuss and disruption causing potential costs to British retailers, as well as to Hornby and its manufacturer, presumably stemming either from somebody at Hornby misreading regulations and passing the wrong information to retailers, or because of those retailers not understanding the fowarded information properly!

Lawfully or not, the local branch of a regional general retailer (which I won't name, just in case) has within the last hour happily sold me two tinlets of Humbrol satin black enamel, which I shall be very happy to use, as a careful and realistic adult. If it was an unlawful sale, I hope it was not simply through ignorance on the part of the retailer. I'd prefer it to be a sign of a welcome and healthy disregard of foreign rules that this country should never have agreed to observe.

[John M Upton]

I stocked up on the two colours of Humbrol enamels I use the most when this fiasco first broke, still seem to be in plentiful supply though and as it turns out there are plans on the horizon for a massive bonfire of all the EU inherited regulations which could very well render the whole issue null and void anyway (unless you wanted to send it outside of the UK of course).

[Downer]

33 minutes ago, John M Upton said:

I stocked up on the two colours of Humbrol enamels I use the most when this fiasco first broke, still seem to be in plentiful supply though and as it turns out there are plans on the horizon for a massive bonfire of all the EU inherited regulations which could very well render the whole issue null and void anyway (unless you wanted to send it outside of the UK of course).

Ah, a chance to poison ourselves. Brexit really is the gift that keeps giving.