[d] Changes in societal needs of signage, and further research into signage would result in the establishment of a new committee, the ANSI Z535 Committee on Safety Signs and Colors, combining the separate committees of Z35.1 - Specifications for Accident Prevention Signs, Z35.2 - Specifications for Accident Prevention Tags, and Z53 - Marking Physical Hazards Safety Color Code, resulting in a new combined standard, ANSI Z535.

[3] Beyond this, various industries, including railroads, mines, and woodworking designed and implemented their own signage to protect workers and the public.

Design, application and use of warning signs or symbols (other than slogans) intended to indicate, and in so far as possible, to define specific hazard of a nature such that failure to so designate them may cause, or tend to cause, accidental injury to workers, or the public, or bothEven as early as the first edition, safety signs were recommended as a solution for when eliminating the hazard could not be achieved.

[7] Consideration was made for other forms of warning, such as tags, flags, and flare pots,[e] but were set aside in order to complete the standard as quickly as possible.

[11][12] The third edition, published 18 September 1968, would see the addition of the slow moving vehicle emblem, and the Biological hazard symbol.

[15] The regulation varied a bit from §1910.145, by requiring a specific design for exit signs, using red 6 inches (150 mm) letters on a white background, omitting mention of radiation and biohazard signs, tags, and symbols; as well as informational or 'Notice' signage and the slow moving vehicle emblem.

The Class B design did not have a default signal word, which would be placed on a black header with white text.

[10] The 1970s saw major societal changes in the United States, increased globalization and recognition of a non-English speaking workforce, and changes in legal liability that would put significant responsibility on manufacturers of products and workplaces to provide suitable warnings.

[16] These new standards would provide more extensive guidance on the creation of text messages, more effective designs, and incorporating safety symbols.

This did have significant limitations, as manufacturers, who won't know what languages the end user of their product can read.

[9] In 1960, Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. signaled the end of privity of contract and the need to prove negligence on the part of the manufacturer.

[23] By the late 1970s and through the 1980s, numerous lawsuits dealing with injuries and deaths resulting from accidents where it was found by courts that companies were responsible, in situations where provided warnings were insufficient.

[23] Effective warning signs and labels came into the spotlight as the 1970s closed, with court cases like Gordon v. Niagara Machine & Tool Works.

[23] By the early 1980s, courts were also ruling that companies couldn't defend themselves by stating they failed to realize a warning was inadequate.

[24] In the 1980 court case, American Optical Co. v. Weidenhamer, a factory worker suffered a serious eye injury after a piece of metal went through the safety glasses he was wearing.

[25] The court determined that warnings needed to give an accurate perspective as to the type and risk posed by the hazard and be designed in a way that it will be easily seen by the product user.

[23] In Freund v. Cellofilm Properties, Inc., a worker was seriously burned while cleaning a paint mixer, when highly flammable nitrocellulose dust ignited.

[21][23] Companies and organizations began to migrate away from Z35.1 on their own, particularly for safety labels intended for consumer products, and industrial equipment.

Manufacturers FMC Corporation and Westinghouse Electric Corp. both devised their own manuals for designing safety labels for their products and equipment.

[28][29][30] In reaction to the changing legal landscape, as well as incidents where children had been injured by unsecured Pad-mounted transformers, members of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association set out to design a new label to discourage children from playing near equipment and warn the public to notify the power company of unsecured equipment.

The message text went beyond just stating the hazard posed, including the possible injuries, how to avoid them, and what to do if the equipment wasn't secured.

[35] Z35.2 was a related standard titled Specifications for Accident Prevention Tags, that entered development in the mid 1960s, spun off from Z35.

The tags were specifically intended for temporary warnings of hazards, and not at as a replacement for Z35.1's accident prevention signs.

[36] It was superseded in 1991 by ANSI Z535.5, American National Standard for Safety Tags and Barricade Tapes (for Temporary Hazards).