Hey fellow ECF'ers (okay that sounds corny but let's go with it),
I was looking into sourcing some PG locally, and came across the idea of printing out data sheets (MSDS, basically) to give to any pharmacist reluctant to sell it. I went to the medisca site, searched for PG USP, and their MSDS makes it sound really bad, even carcinogenic:
http://files.medisca.com/pdfs/en-ca/msds/Propylene-Glycol.pdf
OTOH, I went to Dow Chemicals and searched their MSDS for same thing, USP grade PG, and it's much more in line with what we've all been led to believe - non-carcinogenic and essentially benign:
http://www.dow.com/webapps/msds/ShowPDF.aspx?id=090003e88019d0a9
So what's going on here? Is Health Canada somehow involved (conspiracy theories, hmm) or is Medisca just being overly paranoid. At least the MSDS for Dow cites examples of effects on animals (none of any consequence, other than giving lethal doses orally), whereas the Medisca one (much briefer) does not. It's strange, because you'd think pharmaceutical suppliers would know what the propellant used in asthma inhalers is (PG), yet they insist it is harmful when inhaled!!
Not to cause any concern, I just thought it "interesting" that such discrepancies exist. All of the studies I've read thus far agree with Dow, so I'm kind of scratching my head here...
I was looking into sourcing some PG locally, and came across the idea of printing out data sheets (MSDS, basically) to give to any pharmacist reluctant to sell it. I went to the medisca site, searched for PG USP, and their MSDS makes it sound really bad, even carcinogenic:
http://files.medisca.com/pdfs/en-ca/msds/Propylene-Glycol.pdf
OTOH, I went to Dow Chemicals and searched their MSDS for same thing, USP grade PG, and it's much more in line with what we've all been led to believe - non-carcinogenic and essentially benign:
http://www.dow.com/webapps/msds/ShowPDF.aspx?id=090003e88019d0a9
So what's going on here? Is Health Canada somehow involved (conspiracy theories, hmm) or is Medisca just being overly paranoid. At least the MSDS for Dow cites examples of effects on animals (none of any consequence, other than giving lethal doses orally), whereas the Medisca one (much briefer) does not. It's strange, because you'd think pharmaceutical suppliers would know what the propellant used in asthma inhalers is (PG), yet they insist it is harmful when inhaled!!
Not to cause any concern, I just thought it "interesting" that such discrepancies exist. All of the studies I've read thus far agree with Dow, so I'm kind of scratching my head here...
