Stone cutting is probably the world’s second oldest profession so in many ways it is surprising that we are only now debating the detrimental health effects it can have on those that earn a living from it in the kitchen sector.

But, for several years, the cutting and polishing of engineered stone has been scrutinised as an underlying cause of silicosis – a serious, irreversible lung disease caused by inhaling the fine crystalline silica dust. The dust scars the lungs over time, making it difficult to breathe and increasing the risk of lung infections, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), and lung cancer.

Serious cases of silicosis amongst worktop fabricators have now been documented in the UK, but Australia became the first country to introduce a nationwide ban on engineered stone in 2024 after a sharp rise in cases there.

Regulators concluded that, despite existing safety rules, the risks could not be adequately controlled in real-world workplaces, particularly among smaller fabricators using unsafe dry-cutting methods. The move followed mounting pressure from medical experts, trade unions and families of affected workers, who increasingly described silicosis as “the new asbestos”. 

This led to increasing calls for a similar ban on the material here in the UK from the families of victims, politicians and safety organisations. However, manufacturers and industry bodies have argued that the implementation of effective safety procedures is the problem, not the material – follow the rules and everyone is perfectly safe.

In mid-May, this debate moved on significantly, as the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) issued new, tightened, guidance on the cutting and polishing of engineered stone

The updated COSHH Essentials guidance, known as ST3A, stops short of banning engineered stone outright. But it does effectively ban dry cutting, a move it believes is a big step forward..

“The exposure levels are five to ten times higher when you’re dry cutting than when you’re processing,” Mike Calcutt, deputy director in HSE’s Engagement and Policy Division, told kbbreview. 

The revised guidance introduces a much more robust set of expectations around water suppression, mist extraction, respiratory protection and health surveillance.

However, tellingly, it also explicitly tells businesses to “work with stone containing the lowest crystalline silica content”.

So while that’s not a ban – and it deliberately does not define what ‘low’ or even ‘high’ silica contents are – the HSE is gambling that it pushes the sector further along a path it is already on and market forces will phase out high silica materials without the need for legislation.

“What we’re doing with these guidelines is clarifying what we expect,” Calcutt said. “We’ve spent two years doing research and what we’ve managed to do is to confirm that we think the controls we’re asking for can protect workers.

“If those controls couldn’t have protected workers, then we wouldn’t be taking this action now.”

The HSE’s position is therefore fundamentally different from Australia’s. Rather than eliminate the material itself, the UK regulator believes exposure can still be controlled through education, compliance and enforcement.

But critics argue that approach still leaves too much room for failure.

Liz Jarvis, the Liberal Democrat MP for Eastleigh who introduced the Silica Dust (Exposure) Bill earlier this year, welcomed the tougher guidance but questioned whether it goes far enough.

“I am glad that measures are finally being taken to help protect people regularly exposed to silica dust,” she said.

“However, I am concerned that the crux of the problem may not be fixed because whilst the guidance is welcome, it needs to be regularly and effectively enforced and more could be done to address concerns around the monitoring of silicosis.”

Kitchen specialist William Durrant of Herringbone House in Kent has also campaigned for an outright ban on engineered stone, and believes that this new guidance doesn’t go far enough. “Any type of ban is great, and a step in the right direction,” he said. “Although the HSE missed an opportunity to ban high-silica quartz.

“Countries like Australia have made this step, due to the clear health risks for stonemasons. High-silica quartz is a luxury product that is just not necessary.”

Manufacturers, however, have welcomed the HSE’s approach, saying that the rules are more than enough to keep fabricators safe if they’re followed correctly and using material from reputable sources.

“[We] support the industry crackdown on respirable silica exposure and fully back the prohibition of dry cutting across the supply chain,” said Edward Smith, managing director of Caesarstone UK & ROI.

“However, if kitchen studios and specifiers are to make informed decisions about the materials they choose, the market also needs far greater transparency.” 

Smith warned that many unbranded surfaces currently entering the UK market lack clear provenance, technical documentation or accessible safety data sheets.

Chris Wragg, managing director of the Danesmoor Group, also welcomed the focus on compliance and accountability. “Sadly, these silicosis cases are a result of unregulated fabricators and manufacturers that don’t prioritise employee safety or health,” he said. “All of this is entirely preventable, but the responsibility lies with the industry to do it properly – so companies need to be held accountable as a matter of necessity.

“As one of the major companies in the worktop market, we have a responsibility to not only our staff but also to our customers, to ensure we are advocating for best safety and working practices. By creating a culture of responsibility, transparency and continuous improvement, the industry can safeguard its workforce while maintaining high standards of craftsmanship at the same time.”

Enforcement 

The challenge for the HSE now is proving that its control-led approach can actually work in practice and Calcutt confirms the regulator is preparing a major inspection programme.

“We’re [aiming to] inspect everybody that’s using engineered stone,” he said. “ We think that’s upwards of a thousand workplaces. 

“To every employer in this sector: the guidance is now published, the expectations are clear, and our inspectors are coming. Those who are cutting corners are not just putting their workers at risk, they are undercutting the businesses doing things properly. We will create a level playing field.”

Large fabricators have, in many cases, already invested heavily in wet processing, extraction systems and PPE. But concerns remain around smaller workshops, on-site installers and low-cost operators competing aggressively on price.

As one kitchen installer told kbbreview: “Although control measures are put in place during fabrication, I’ve seen numerous occasions on site where oversized upstands are cut without dust suppression. I’ve even seen installers do this without a mask and a cigarette hanging out of their mouth…”

Nigel Fletcher, chairman of the Worktop Fabricators Federation (WFF), believes inspection is the critical issue. “The updated guidelines are a step in the right direction,” he said. “But enforcement is the critical element,” he said.

“Another challenge is the education of what a reputable fabricator looks like compared to a cowboy. Often a clean website doesn’t mean a clean workshop. They can give quotes to customers that can be hundreds of pounds cheaper. Why? No investment in PPE or infrastructure.”

The federation has been working closely with both HSE and the British Occupational Hygiene Society (BOHS) on a new independently audited Quality Mark scheme designed to identify compliant fabricators throughout the supply chain – with PWS and Wren being among the first to qualify.

The scheme includes workplace audits, occupational hygiene assessments and health surveillance requirements intended to help retailers, designers and consumers distinguish between compliant operators and those failing to meet acceptable standards.

“WFF have become very aware of the serious risks to any workers exposed to silica dust,” Fletcher said. “Nobody should go home ill from work.”

Retailers 

Although the legal duty underpinning remains with fabricators, HSE’s Calcutt suggested retailers, designers and specifiers also carry responsibility:  “I definitely think there’s a moral obligation on them… to encourage everybody to be using engineered stone with a lower silica content,” he said.

“I think if we’ve got unsupportive activities going on in the supply chain then I would be very [keen to] ask people who are specifying high silica engineered stone why they aren’t considering the alternatives and why they aren’t supporting the processing of engineered stone in premises that are compliant and protect their workers?”

So, is this the last word in the debate around the use of engineered stone?

For now, the HSE believes it has found the right balance between worker protection and allowing engineered stone fabrication to continue, but critics have clearly not been won over – and the regulator itself appears to acknowledge that.

“We will keep reviewing our findings from the inspections,” Calcutt said. “And we will keep reviewing the evidence as it comes in… and we’ll adjust our approach accordingly.”

What is clear is that the engineered stone sector is heading for a scenario where high silica stone is no longer a viable material and it appears to be doing so voluntarily – the question is whether it does so quickly enough to mirror the intent of the new guidelines and heads off any more need to further legislation.