METALWORKING
Making sense of metalworking fluid marketing claims
David Wright, Director General, UKLA
Clear, credible communication is under increasing scrutiny in the metalworking fluids sector. This article explores new UK guidance on marketing claims, outlining why evidence-based statements, regulatory compliance and transparency are essential, helping suppliers and users navigate performance, safety and legal responsibilities in a complex and often loosely standardised market.
Metalworking fluids (MWFs) are essential to modern machining and are used for cooling, lubricating, and protecting tools and components.
As the United Kingdom Lubricants Association’s Metalworking Fluid Product Stewardship Group (UKLA MWFPSG) reminds the industry, the way these fluids are marketed matters just as much as how they perform in use. To that end, the group has issued a set of product marketing claims guidelines for industry.
The guidance sets out a clear message, that all claims must be honest, evidence based, and rooted in real-world use.
This document is aimed at everyone in the MWF supply chain, from manufacturers to distributors. Its purpose is simple: to raise the standard of marketing practice and ensure that end users receive information they can trust.
As the guidance puts it, suppliers must not make claims without “supporting, verifiable, technical
40 LUBE MAGAZINE NO.193 JUNE 2026
evidence.” In a market with no formal performance standards for MWFs, this principle becomes the backbone of responsible communication.
The guidance begins by acknowledging the diversity of MWFs whether they are water miscible fluids, neat oils, or newer bio-concept fluids. Many factors influence product choice, including cost, company policy, fluid chemistry, and performance requirements. Regardless of the formulation, all fluids share a common challenge in that they can pose health risks if not managed properly.
MWFs can cause skin and respiratory diseases, particularly once they become contaminated. The document notes that fluids “become contaminated with tramp oil, metal salts, fines, and microorganisms […] increasing health risks.” This is why end users must carry out Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) assessments and maintain fluid quality throughout the life of the fluid. Suppliers can support this process, but the legal responsibility ultimately sits with the user.
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
