OEM specifications evolve over time, and marketers need to be vigilant
For example, VW 504.00/507.00 has kept the same specification reference, but some tests behind it have been updated, and the severity has changed. Lubricant manufacturers cannot assume that because a product meets a specification at a given time, it will continue to do so during the lifetime of the specification. Requirements change, and only regular auditing and testing through comprehensive Quality Management Processes can ensure that products remain compliant.
Case example: VLS 010187 – John Neale Coolant CS-AQ Aluminium Synthetic Cutting Fluid
This case demonstrated VLS’s ability to extend its impact beyond the automotive sector, being recognised by the Health & Safety Executive. In 2023, VLS received a complaint that the product’s ‘No mist hazard’ claim on the Technical Data Sheet was misleading. Whilst the formulation may contain no mineral oil, other components present, bacteria/fungi or tramp oil could form a mist when the product is in use. The MSDS indicated the presence of PYRIDINE-2-THIOL 1-OXIDE, SODIUM SALT, which is classified as ‘toxic if inhaled’. According to HSE MW5, which states “water mix MWF”... “Inhalation of MWF mist can cause lung disease”. The product also claimed to help users meet their oil mist limits, when there are no limits published.
Reference was made to zero bacterial growth after 12 months in operation, and VLS asked for this to be evidenced and under what conditions. The product claimed to be ‘sensitiser free’, but the MSDS indicates the presence of PYRIDINE- 2-THIOL 1-OXIDE, SODIUM SALT, which is a known sensitiser.
In response to the complaint, the Lubricant Marketer replaced sodium pyrithione in the formulation with a suitable alternative. They also revised the product’s Technical Data Sheet claims and brought them into compliance.
In many cases, products have been reformulated and brought into compliance
VLS 010201 was closed after Aztec Oils took swift action to withdraw the claim against Renault’s RLD-4 specification, which was not supported by the manufacturer, against their Emprotec UHPD 10W40 Heavy Duty Engine Oil (HDDO). They retained the claim against RLD-3 and amended the product’s description and Technical Data Sheet accordingly. VLS was content that the product had been brought back into compliance, and the investigation was closed. The case proved to be in continued compliance at the standard six-month review.
However, several cases have also been referred to Trading Standards due to non-compliance
VLS issued a safety warning and escalated case VLS 010200, a complaint regarding Mannol Brake Fluid DOT 4 3002, to Trading Standards earlier this year. Independent testing proved the product failed to meet specification limits stated in the US Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) 116 DOT 4.
Lubriage Ltd, trading as Mannol UK, the product’s distributor, advised that they had stopped selling the product in the UK marketplace and asked distributors to quarantine the affected batch number until further notice and not resell it. However, VLS did not see any evidence of the product being quarantined or withdrawn from the relevant distributors or any attempt to contact end users who might have purchased the product through their distributors, to recall it. VLS escalated the case to its Primary Authority partner, Buckinghamshire and Surrey Trading Standards, as a consumer product safety issue to ensure sufficient action was taken to protect driver safety.
VLS 010195, a complaint regarding Silverhook 5W30 Supreme Plus, was escalated to Trading Standards SAIL-Europe under the EELQMS Lubricant Marketer Letter of Conformance after the company failed to bring the product into compliance.
VLS reviewed and upheld a complaint regarding ambiguous, inaccurate and mutually exclusive claims. Continued on page 58
LUBE MAGAZINE NO.185 FEBRUARY 2025 57
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68
