Translation that is required by law, in every language you sell into
A safety data sheet has to be supplied in the official language of each market where the product is placed. The hazard and precautionary statements on it are not free text — they are prescribed phrases with official translations. Getting this wrong is a non-conformity, not a quality issue.
What we work on
- Safety data sheets, including extended SDS with exposure scenarios
- CLP label content — hazard and precautionary statements, signal words, supplemental information
- REACH registration and dossier material
- Poison centre notification content
- Product technical data sheets and application guidance
- Transport documentation for dangerous goods
- Biocidal and plant protection product documentation
- Workplace instructions, handling procedures and training material
Why this is different from every other sector on this site
Elsewhere, translation quality is a commercial and reputational question with a regulatory dimension. Here it is closer to a condition of sale.
Language coverage is a legal obligation. Under EU rules, a safety data sheet must be supplied in an official language of each member state where the substance or mixture is placed on the market. Label content carries a parallel requirement. If you sell into twenty-three markets, you owe twenty-three compliant language versions, and the weakest one determines your exposure — not the average.
Hazard and precautionary statements are prescribed text, not translation work. H- and P-statements have official translations in every EU language. The correct action is to reproduce the official phrase exactly. A translation engine will instead produce a fluent, accurate, paraphrased version — which is wrong by definition, because it is not the prescribed phrase. This is the single clearest example anywhere in our work of machine output being linguistically excellent and legally non-compliant at the same time.
No reviewer reading for fluency will catch it. A paraphrased P-statement reads perfectly. It reads better, sometimes. It is still a finding.
The other failure modes
Section structure is fixed. The SDS format is prescribed, with defined sections and subsections. Headings and their sequence are not stylistic choices, and content that migrates between sections during translation creates queries.
Classification vocabulary is controlled. Hazard class and category names, signal words, route-of-exposure terms and organ names are set terminology in each language. The natural-sounding synonym is the wrong answer.
Numbers carry everything. Concentration ranges, exposure limits, CAS and EC numbers, flash points, pH, threshold values. A decimal separator error or a unit conversion error in this content is a direct safety consequence, and locale conventions differ across exactly the markets you are obliged to cover.
Revisions cascade. An SDS update triggers re-issue across every language version. Terminology and phrasing that drift between revisions produce inconsistency across a portfolio that is inspected, archived and compared.
Transport documentation has its own prescribed forms. Proper shipping names and dangerous goods descriptions follow set conventions per mode. These are not translated freely either.
Downstream users rely on it. An SDS is not read by a chemist. It is read by a warehouse supervisor deciding storage, a plant operator deciding personal protective equipment, and an emergency responder deciding what to do in the next ninety seconds.
What we deliver
- Prescribed-phrase verification as a mechanical pass. H- and P-statements, signal words and classification terms checked against the official language versions before any linguistic review begins. This is the check that machine output most reliably fails and the one no fluency read will produce. Section-structure conformity checking against the required SDS format. A dedicated numerical and unit pass covering concentrations, limits, identifiers, physical values and locale conventions. Terminology held across the portfolio and across revisions, so version 7 in Polish uses the same vocabulary as version 4 did. Reviewers with chemical regulatory experience, matched to the content — not generalists with a glossary. A structured error report scored against MQM, with prescribed-phrase and numerical findings at critical severity, plus a version trail suitable for inspection and audit.
On regulatory citations
The requirements above reflect the EU framework for safety data sheets, classification and labelling. Confirm the current articles, annexes and applicable dates with your regulatory affairs team before relying on any wording on this page — and where you sell outside the EU, the equivalent national implementations of the global harmonised system differ in detail, including in which languages are acceptable.
We work to your regulatory team's determination of what is required. What we contribute is the assurance that the language versions actually say what the determination requires.
Languages where this matters most
The full EU official set, because the obligation is coverage and the exposure is the weakest language in it — which in practice is usually one of the smaller markets where nobody in your organisation reads the output. Beyond that: Chinese, Japanese and Korean for Asian markets and manufacturing supply chains; Arabic for Gulf markets; Turkish, Russian and the Southeast Asian set wherever product is placed.