"Although warning label design may superficially appear to be a simple matter, proper design and use is, in fact, rather complex. It is clear that inappropriately designed or used warnings simply will not be effective, by any standard of evaluation. Yet, it is difficult to find comprehensive, usable and definitive guidance for the design or evaluation of labels, in spite of the fact that there are numerous label standards (e.g., ANSI Z535 standards, ISO standard), label design guides (e.g., Westinghouse and FMC handbooks), general human factors guidance for warnings and labels, and various literature review articles... Unfortunately, the findings of the research literature on labels are often contradictory and frequently weak in terms of face validity or experimental procedures. Label effectiveness is often judged on the basis of subjective opinion or people's reports of what they think they would do if they encountered the label. However, the relative validity and ultimate safety consequences of labeling alternatives is poorly understood.

The literature does contain a number of experimental studies that did directly measure some behavior, such as reading a label or complying with some action, although these studies have usually been rather narrow in approach. Furthermore, there have been many examples of poor research design, or inappropriate conclusions drawn from data. Much of the literature has also been characterized by the use of samples of convenience for the population of research subjects. Very often the subjects are comprised of college students. This is, at best, a narrow sample and, quite often, an inappropriate one, as these people may differ from typical users of the product in terms of product knowledge, hazard perception, perceptual abilities, or safety motivation. Also, the research literature has sometimes been characterized by a sort of naive absolutism. For example, a study may ask the question whether it is most effective to present the message element of the hazard, the required action, the injury outcome, or the level of danger, or some combination of these. While such research is certainly useful, when designing an actual label, the question very likely becomes what information is most effective for this application (considering the hazard, public understanding of the hazard and related actions, space considerations, the obviousness of the hazard on the product, competition with other messages, and many other factors). Thus, the limitations of existing research make it difficult for a designer to find definitive guidance for preparing an effective label or for an analyst to make consistent and defensible evaluations of product labeling practices."

Qualitative - editorial. These appear to be based on the expectation that providing safety information is related to an increase in safety behavior.

Recognition - recall. These are the most represented quantitative works in the literature addressing recognition of the warning message and ability to recall that message at a later time.

Standards and label systems. Articles on consensus, governmental, and industrial standard systems.

Quantification of effectiveness. These are among the least represented.

"Older subjects generally used signal words that implied greater hazards to represent the amount of risk involved in a given situation. Since older users have indicated that a given signal word implies a lower level of hazard than the same word implies for younger users, it may be necessary to apply relatively strong signal words for older users in order to connote a given level of hazard."

ANSI Z535.4-1991 entitled "Product Safety Signs and Labels" indicates when the following signal words should be used:

Danger indicates an imminently hazardous situation which, if not avoided, will result in death or serious injury. This signal word is to be limited to the most extreme situations.

Warning indicates a potentially hazardous situation which, if not avoided, could result in death or serious injury.

Caution indicates a potentially hazardous situation which, if not avoided, may result in minor or moderate injury. It may also be used to alert against unsafe practices.

"More than 100 Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards for hazard control in the workplace contain requirements for training aimed at reducing risk factors for injury or disease, and others limit certain jobs to persons deemed competent by virtue of special training. A literature review was undertaken to assess the merits of such training rules in achieving this objective and to sort out factors of consequence. The review focused heavily on reports of studies where training was used as an intervention effort to reduce risk of work related injury and disease. This literature yielded much evidence to show the merits of training. However, the findings had to be tempered because a) the work did not address OSHA rules per se b) knowledge gain and safe behavior measures as opposed to actual injury/disease indicators were used in many evaluations, and c) the training was in some instances coupled with other forms of intervention so as to make attribution difficult. Reports from select surveys and investigations of worker injuries and workplace facilities were also accessed and gave mixed results with regards to the rule that training deficits may have played as a contributing factor. Regarding other workplace training activities of relevance, reduced worker injury rates were found after the introduction of worksite first aid training programs in several studies, suggesting that this kind of instruction increases consciousness to job safety concerns. Results from analyzing the hazard control programs of companies with exemplary safety and health performance records found more time devoted to training and the greater involvement of supervisors in such efforts to be import characteristics.

Other factors found to influence the training process and its impacts at the actual jobsite emerged from the review, though the data in some cases limited the statements that could be made as to their significance. Reference is made to size of training group, length and frequency of training, manner of instructor, training credentials, goal setting, feedback, management commitment among others. The OSHA voluntary training guidelines are described along with illustrations from the reports to show how the various training guidelines are described along with illustrations from the reports to show how the various steps contained within them can be met in realistic ways and have merit in framing an effective program. Based on the literature review, follow-on efforts to address outstanding issues and needs regarding effective occupational safety and health training are noted.

OSHA should endorse the order and section titles as described in ANSI Z400.1-1993, and strongly support the use of other recommendations from this voluntary standard. This can be done through release of an OSHA memorandum, an interpretive letter, interpretive notice and /or listing of the order and section titles as a non-mandatory appendix to the HCS (Hazard Communication Standard).