C. Charles Hahn said:
That's all well and good, but it has nothing to do with whether professional grade products and supplies should or shouldn't be sold to the consumer public. The bottom line is that there are very few, if any products in this industry that have specialized training as a purchasing/usage prerequisite and as such there is no compelling reason not to sell them to general consumers. Sure, some might not get the same results with those products (no different than I own a DSLR camera, but I can't shoot great pictures as consistently and competently as a professional photographer) but that doesn't mean they can't still work with them.
I apologise but, as a chemical professional, I feel that 'trade' or 'professional' products are generally recommended far too freely on the internet. With regards to wax or polish, there isn't really a whole lot of concern. Yeah, the user may not get the best from the product but, I agree, they are highly unlikely to do much harm. My problem is with many of the vehicle cleaners and I see this frequently with several UK companies. Some points:
1) In the EU, the information provided to the user is
different depending on whether they are general public or professional. This is not down to individual manufacturers, it is actually in the health and safety regulations. Professional products carry far fewer safety warnings because it is assumed that certain scenarios are not going to occur - for instance, there is no obligation to warn about dangers to children on a professional product (there shouldn't be any children there) but a hazardous consumer product will be obligate to identify this.
2) The manufacturer has specifically stated that the product is for limited use. In our case, we do not recommend some products for general public use because they are too dangerous. If, for instance, a product requires that the user needs immediate access to an eyewash station (for instance on corrosive products), we keep it for professional use. I have pressed this matter in the UK and the reality is that many consumer (and frighteningly, professional) users fail totally in this regard and this only serves to re-inforce my point.
Even from an insurance point of view, it becomes a bit grey - public user has a problem with a professional product and the insurance company could potentially tell me that they aren't covered because the product itself should have precluded them from using it. From the users point of view, have an accident and someone could potentially claim that you are negligent and have wilfully ignored obvious warnings about the product being unsuited for your use.
It is all well and good glossing over things like this but accidents and problems do happen, all the time, with chemical products. Ignoring such things tends to be the strongest case for the requirements being made even more stringent and there is the risk that, in the near future, there will be a lot more 'nannying' to remove the choice from the masses who won't follow the guidelines out of choice.