Document 85EM82z2NVzNVaM1mYenXZvKm

I N TRA-C O M/P ANY OFFICE JOPLIN - CHEMICAL Xr. PiCHER CORRESPONDENC DATE OCTOBER 6, 1958 JOPLIN - CHEMICAL P. \fhitford -Dear Paul: You have been interested for a long time in the labeling of paint and we thought you would like to see the attached minutes of the latest meeting on the subject held in Washington, September 16. Very truly yours. drc/mes MINUTES OF MEETING SUBCOMMITTEE ON UNIFORM LABELING September 16, 1958 MEMBERS BRUCE HOMER, Chairman J. F. BATTLEY R. J. ECKART E. P. HUBSCHMITT E. F. O'TOOLE F. DALLAS SPARRE . W. VASTERLiNG. STAFF L. A. ELLIOTT LOUIS FISHER LAURENCE KIEFER DON LYNOTT The meeting was called to order at lOiliO A.M. President Battley said the problem of labeling is becoming an increasingly important one with paint manufacturers. It is expensive and wasteful to meet the varied labeling requirements of States and Municipalities. The Legislative Committee, at its July meeting, recommended that the Association draft a uniform paint labeling law which could be used at all levels. Federal, State and Munici pal. The Executive Committee requested the Subcommittee on Uniform Labeling to prepare a draft of such a law for review at its next meeting. Paint should not be included in household products legislation along with soaps, drugs, hair sprays and other products. President Battley read a letter from Dr. Wilentz of the National Lead Company which is included in the minutes as Exhibit A. Mr. O'Toole reported that Illinois desires a new labeling law and if the industry had a uniform law it might avoid a hodge podge of laws and regulations. Mr. Hubschmitt said that 22 States follow the Federal Fungicide Act and he believes it is very important for the paint industry to acquire a similar standard of recog nition. He distributed a paper containing his comments on the need for a uniform paint labeling law and on the proposed New York City Sanitary Code. Copy attached as Exhibit B. He believes the industry's difficulties will be materially lessened if we have a properly prepared Federal Paint law, Mr. Eckart suggested that we urge members not to refer to "lead Free" paints but stress paints containing one percent or less lead content in committees, corres pondence and public relations activities. N11716.0! pj 000992 Me* Hubschmitt said that some local Sanitary and Health regulations have been extended to cover the merchandising of paint. One example is the restrictions.; on the use of paint for interior surfaces in effect in Baltimore. He believes the industry should object.to such restrictions. Mr. O'Toole said that if we had a Federal paint labeling law we might be able to secure exclusion of paint products from State legislation as well as to prevent local ordinances which affect the merchandising of paint. Mr. Sparre said we have a problem in defining the many and varied products of the industry. Specialty items, might cause some difficulty. We should make pro visions for special labeling of products where there are particular hazards, Mr. Eckart said we must have a good labeling procedure. Our strength lies in the voluntary adoption of warning statements by the industry. It was agreed that members of the Subcommittee would send the Associations their definitions of paint products and what should be included in the labeling bill. After the bill is drafted, it will be submitted to members of the Subcommittee for approval, and then submitted to the Legislative Committee, It will be presented to the Executive Committee for consideration. Mr. Eckart reported on the proposed revision to the New York City Sanitary Coda. He said that Dr. Williams of Baltimore had made efforts to have the precautionary wording changed, Mr. Eckart thought it would be unreasonable for New York City, which adopted a regulation after consulting industry, to make any change now. He believes the Health Department is willing to conform to existing laws. The bigger problem is the Neitf York City Fire Department's revision of the labeling requirement of flammable products. Mr. Eckart will contact the New York City Health Department to offer assistance in arranging dealer meetings as part of an educational program and urge retention of the present code. He will then advise President Battley on what further steps should be taken. He will also investigate the status of the Fire Department Coda. Mr. Sparre commented that no further drafts of the New York Sanitary Code would be sent to industries but that a representative of the National Association might be permitted: a preview of the revised Code. He thought, that Mr. Trichter was receptive to the differences pointed out between the proposed A.M.A. bill and the present labeling regulations. ; Mr. W. I. Longsworth proposed that the Association request American Standards Association to consider an amendment to the Z66,1 Standard covering paint on toys. He said the National Retail Dry Goods Association has notified its members to refuse to buy toys which ido not comply with the A.S.A, Z66.1 Standard. He pointed out large proportion of toys are made of lithographed fabricated metals. The coatings are similar to those used on refrigerators and are mostly red, yellow and orange. Pigments with minimum quantities of lead, are available but are higher priced and their use makes it impossible for American manufacturers to compete with foreign toy manufacturers. There has never been a case of lead poisoning due to the finish on new toys. No manufacturer desires^ to do anything to endanger the'health of children. He stated that if the A.S.A. Standard is not revised to make it practical the paint and toy industry would lose business. He has talked to the American Standard Association and the argument when presented will be reviewed by its committee. EPI 000993 -3 After discussion it -was decided that Col. Elliott would colls ct 11 data and submit the proposal to the Scientific Committee at its next meeting. The meeting adjourned at it.;30 P.M. .J. LOUIS FISHER Secretary LF/mt EPI 000994  EXHIBIT A Wm. C. Wilentz, M.D. 188 Market Street Perth Amboy* N. J. Phone HI-2-0786 September 2, 1958 Mr Philip, Maccilli, National Lead Company 111 Broadway New York 6, N.Y. Bear Mr. Muccilli: On August llith, I visited the national headquarters of the National Paint, Varnish and Lacquer Association in Washington. Due to the fact that Mr. Joseph F. Battley, President of the Association, was in Europe and would not return until sometime in September, I conferred with a Mr. Louis Fisher who is the director of the Legislative and Liaison Division of the Association. He, was most cordial and helpful in bringing me up to data with the situation. In order to get the important facts in their proper light, I might mention that the American Medical Association got into this picture by forming a Committee on Toxicology in June 1955 and in October 1956, as a result of a prior conference with industry, the Board of Trustees of the A.M.A. authorized this Committee to draft a model law for the labeling of dangerous household and industrial chemicals. The first conference was held May 9, 1958 in Chicago. On looking over the list of participants at this meeting, I noted that only one representative of industry, (Celanese Corp.) was present. The rest of the participants represented medical, health, hospital and pharmacy associations, National Safety Council, Farm Bureau Federation, etc. The lack of industrial representation was the source of some criticism. The secretary of the committee expressed his regret for this over sight and made it known that a meeting for the people in industry was tentatively scheduled for the latter part of July 1958. In studying the notes of this meeting, it was seen that the general consensus of opinion1was that legislation was necessary in order to adopt uniform labeling of hazardous substances. However, there did exist a difference of opinion such as the feeling that: (1) It was incorrect to adopt legislation which would combine household and industrial products in one bill (2) Whether problem relating to industry could best be solved through legislation or voluntary means (3) Determination of the toxicity of a mixture acceptable to all concerned (U) Difficulties of making a labeling law specific enough so that it can be enforced and general enough so that it will not be outmoded within several years. The second conference was held in Chicago on July 25th, of this year with the interested industrial and trade associations as participants. I did not have the list at my disposal but I did learn that a Dr. Foulger, Director of Medical Research, and a Mr. Sanford Hill (both of dn Ponts) represented industry. N11716.02 -2The outcome of this conference was not entirely satisfactory. Practically all of the previously mentioned, differences of opinion as to the value of special labeling were again the crux of the problem and were not resolved. It becomes quite apparent that no nationwide law exists for the precau tionary labeling of individual chemicals, such as industrial chemicals, household chemicals and poisons. It was also noted that state legislation is a patchwork of laws. Sixteen types of special laws for chemicals are in force in various states, some of which.have as many as five such statutes. Other states have either inade quate regulations or no regulations at all. At the present time, the only states that have regulations are California, Connecticut, Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, North Carolina and Texas. In addition. New York City has special laws since 19$ht and Baltimore since July of this year. I was given a copy of the recent Baltimore Labeling Ordinance and it is very easy to see that considerable conflict and differences of opinion were going to be illicited by this type of legislation. As I understand this latter situation, the head of the Baltimore Board of Health is the leading proponent of this type of legislation and is pushing it to the extremej so much so, that the officials in the city are quite embarrassed by the whole thing and can't do anything about it until after the November elections. At that time, your association hopes to make every effort to convince everyone that special legislation for a specific town or city is not the answer. There is one thing that should be corrected as soon as possible and that is that more members of your association should recognize the importance of living up to the present rules and regulations of labeling wherever they are in effect. Your association's desire that adequate but uniform labeling be established as soon as possible is only logical. I shall be very happy to discuss this situation with you if you so desire so as to go into more detail. I shall be very happy, to continue my interest in this matter and represent our company in any further conferences that will be held. Thank you for the opportunity of serving National Lead in this matter. Very truly yours. /t/ Wm. G. Wilentz, M.D. EPI 000996 .EXHIBIT B TO: MEMBERS; OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON. UNIFORM LABELING SUBJECT: : Ref. File Misc. #biiE - Uniform Paint .Labeling Law. FROM:. E. P., Hubschmitt DATE: September 13, 1953 Gentlemen: The present Precautionary Labeling Regulations of the N.P.V. and L.A. meet the requirements of those State and Municipal laws which are essentially paint labeling laws. They do not meet the specific requirements of some other laws and regulations which embrace products of other industries as well as those of our own, such as: (1) Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act* (2) Massachusetts Benzol, Carbon Tetrachloride and Other Harmful SubStances Act. (3) City of New York Fire Department Regulations on Inflammable and Com bustible Mixtures. - - and (It) The more exacting requirements of Hazardous Substances and the Industrial Health and Safety Labeling Laws of the States of California, Connecticut, Territory of Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon and Texas. .---- oOo--- We have not found it difficult to put our labeling in compliance with the first group of laws (Items 1 to 3 above). However, various features incident to the Hazardous Substances and Industrial Health and Safety Labeling Laws (Item I), above) pose requirements that are more exacting with respect to products of our industry than they need be and especially so in relation to hazardous products of other industries. \ The reasonableness of this statement can be understood from the fact that many of these laws have been drawn up in an all-embracing manner.by people who have not given consideration to the practical problems presented when a specific industry like our own endeavors to comply with the '^written word1* of the law. N11716.03 fl 000997 .For example, one requirement of many of these laws is that a statement should be made on the label, "Keep out of the reach of children". This might well and logically apply to drugs, and perhaps to various types of household cleaners, insecticides, polishes, etc. Such products are often stored in areas normally accessible to children, and inadvertantly at times, within the reach of children. In contra, paints are not generally stored in kitchens, bathrooms and closets in the living quarters of a house but more generally in basements and garages. Unlike some drug products, paint is not made for internal human con sumption, and, alleged cases of lead poisoning notwithstanding, the incidence of occurrence of serious cases of damage to health and life of children and other humans is profoundly greater and more general with other types of hazardous household products than with paint products. The precautionary statements we make on paint labels are intended to inform grownups and parents of the hazard. The statement we ordinarily use -- "Do not take internally" --- seems much more logical for our industry product labels than the one required by the written word of these laws, namely, "Keep out of the reach of children". Yet, legally, we do not have the choice of using such equivalent language in most instances 1 Similar examples, could be cited where we could get into "hot water" from a legal interpretation standpoint by recommending first aid treatments and anti- dotes on our product labels. " It would seem much more logical to simply state, where necessary, "Consult physician at once". (We are blessed with excellent Poison Control Centers and the medics know they can gat instantaneous help if needed), Also, the requirements of imprinting Warning Notices or other statements on the face of the label seems unwarranted in the case of paint products. Such, of course, would corrupt the art work, and the proprietary identification features of our product labels. 0O0--- EPI ,0009v8 ' --3 My purpose in reviex-ring the foregoing is to spell out the need for careful consideration of the , approach or synopsis, governing the develop ment of a uniform paint labeling regulation -which, in a broad sense, will meet all categories, of existing legislation affecting our industry and which at the same time will not unnecessarily or unreasonably penalize our industry position and interests in consideration of the prime ob jectives of such laws, namely, the protection of the health and safety of all humans and the protection of property against fire and explosion hazards. ---0O0--- In view of the trend and increasing interest that is developing on Hazardous Substances and Industrial Health and Safety legislation, it seems imperative that we proceed as rapidly as possible to have a Federal Paint Labeling Law enacted. Such law, if enacted before the Federal Hazardous Substances Labeling Act, could, by reference, become effective within the structure of such Act. In illustration, a statement could be added under the "Misbranded Package Section" to the effect that packaged products already covered by the Federal Paint Labeling Law do not come within the purview of the Federal Hazardous Substances Labeling Act. This, kind of exclusion is al ready set up in the several pending, bills covering the aforementioned Act for Economics Poisons covered by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. Similar exclusions apply to packaged substances covered by the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. Is it not logical that packaged products of the Paint Industry covered by a Federal Paint Labeling Law should likewise be ex cluded from the purview of the Federal Hazardous Substances Labeling Act? The only deterrent, it seems, rests upon the question as to whether or not we can have a Federal Paint Labeling Law enacted before or concurrently with the Federal Hazardous Substances Labeling Act. FPi 00999 k- - Our industry position and argument favoring a Federal Paint Labeling Law- is most compelling. Experience through this date, in practical effect, demands that the Paint Industry have such a Federal. Law enacted if the harassing problems experienced: by concerns who ship interstate-wise are to be avoided--such problems being the direct result of elements of specificity expressive of requirements which are exclusive- to various State and Municipal Laws. ---- oOo--- hat then is our problem? Is it not to strive for the enactment of a . Federal Paint Labeling Act---to give us relief from the EXCLUSIVE RBOUlIlEtffiNTS of various laws. These now make it impossible from a practical standpoint for concerns within the Paint Industry to comply with all the many exclusive and variant paint labeling requirements. This can be avoided if a Federal Paint Labeling Act is drawn up and enacted which covers these requirements in a broad and universal manner acceptable as "satisfactorily equivalent" by State and Municipal authorities for products of the paint industry. Very truly yours, EPH:rv /s/ E. P. Hubschmitt, Member /t/ E. P. Hubschmitt Subcommittee On Uniform Labeling. P.S. - Attached is a statement of my comments on the Proposed Revision of the Sanitary Code of Hex* York. City which' embraces several features that are un necessarily damaging to the Paint Industry. Several of the points mentioned were discussed by me at our July l5th, 1958 Meeting just .prior to my motion that we endorse continuance of the present New York City Regulation. EPH 1 EF'l 001000 A Review of the Second Draft Copy of Title 17 : Dealing -with the: Sanitary Code, New York City ' Environmental Sanitation, Article 211 - Hazardous Substances, which was ' developed by* the Legislative Drafting Research Fund, Columbia University, as part of the revision of the Sanitary Code of the Department of Health, New`York City. In short, I find this is a "Lulu" and that it involves a number of. features not covered by the present recommendations of the N.P.V. and L. A. Subcommittee On Labeling. hile we must expect further Federal, State and Departmental legislation relating to hazardous household product labeling, we must of necessity direct influence to universal labeling requirements for the Paint Industry. I had hoped that the Federal bills now under consideration would have already set the pattern and which various States and Departments at interest might adopt "lock, stock and barrel" on a "Uniform Act" basis---in the same way they did the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodentieide Act. It is apparent that those who drafted the proposed Title IF, Article 211 made it all embracing of the aforementioned Federal bills, other relevant Fed eral and Departmental legislation as well as the proposed Guide to Rules and Regulations of the A.G.G.I.H. and the "model proposed act" on precautionary labeling of hazardous, substances being drafted by the American Medical Assn.'s Committees on Toxicology for enactment by State Legislatures. The Paint Industry will find themselves in an awkward situation should the severar important "bills, acts and rules" now in course of promulgation or enactment Involve features of individual specificity such that the N.P.V. and L. A. Subcommittee, on Labeling might not easily reduce such requirements to a single, all embracing caution notice acceptable to us and all requiring offi cial bodies. Such a "mess" is likely to develop if State and Departmental laws are put into effect before the more embracing Federal Law----in illustration, the requirements of the State of Indiana (which in the printed wording of the law could, at some future time, extend requirements beyond those presently demanded by the Enforcement Agency). ---- oOo---- As a principal objective, I recommend that the fullest Paint Industry influence, be exerted, in this case and all others where similar "hazardous substance labeling laws" are being considered, to have passage of Acts delayed pending the enactment of the Federal Laws dealing with the same subject. This suggestion appears logical and proper in the case at issue since the N.Y.C. Department, of Health in Part I, Page 1, Introductory, states that they "are aware of the desirability"of uniformity in local and federal labeling t -p- quirements for hazardous substances11., ' ' ' : :: ---oOo---- These principal specific features should be carefully considered and con tested. In no case are they presently embraced within the concept or structure of.the Labeling Recommendations of the N.P.V. and L. A.: LABELING N11716.04 211.05, Page 10 - Sub-Section 2, Lines 9 thru 17s Requires the chemical, 1 ppi -2- common or recognized, generic name to be shown on the label of hazardous substances containing:poisonous solvents present in an , amount exceeding 5% by weight. 211.05, Page 10 - Sub-Section h3 Lines 21 and 22: Requires use of signal word ''Danger*' for substances which are flammable. The present , Ehbiiing I^dommehdationsy recommend as the signal word, ,,arning,'';,.fQr flh^Mblb, prpducts---flammable. defined; as products having the same flashpoint meaning as under 211,01, Page 5, Sub-Section (d). Lines lit and 15. This would causa needless expense to us and other ' cpi^^nlqs.. -wfio are prehbntly: co^nfbrmihg /with^the ,,,N.p.T, & 1. it. Labeling HpcQrnm^ddhtibns'i: '`In; illustration, this .vsimplb change' in the signal word would cause us the expense of revising some approximate one thou sand label mats] The signal word "Danger" under the present N.P.V. & ` X, A. recommendations applies solely to extremely flammable products--- those having : flashpoints' of 20 F or below. Mote: . On Page 12: of Section 211.05, Lines 5 and 6, it will be observed that: no practical equivalent can be used for the signal word "Danger", 211.05, Page 11 - Sub-Section 7, Lines 16 and 17: As far as paint products are concerned, the Paint Industry should resist, being placed in the position of responsibility for giving instructions as to first aid and antidote treatments on labels. It is doubtful that such information would be competent due to the complex nature of paint cqmpositions and the little wq know about their pathological affects. 211.05, Page 11 - Sub-Section 9, Lines 20 and 21: The requirement of the state ment on the label, "Keep out of the reach of children", while not un reasonable Is not covered by the N.P.V. & L. A's present recommendations on precautionary labeling. This, like the change'in the signal word from 'WARMING" to "DANGER" would prove a costly matter since we would have to. revise approximately one thousand label mats' to make this minor addition. (I do believe that our present practice of saying "Do not take internally" is a mors practical caution for;pajnt products, and, for the reasons ex- V pressed in the letter to which this statement is. attached. E. P. Riihqnhnri-hh 211.05, Page 11 - Sub-Section 10, Lines 23 and 2i;: Requires instruction for . final disposition of containers. As far as our industry products are concerned and except for aerosol pressurized containers this .regn-iuement would otherrd.se not seem, to make much sense. It would prove a practical handicap as to label space requirements available for directions and other mandatorily required statements. 211.05, Page 12 - Sub-Section (g). Lines 23 thru 27 and continued on Page 13, . Lines 1 thru 6: This deals with the requirement that any word, statement or other information to be shown on the label shall not be considered to" be complied with unless it also appears -OH THE FRONT PANEL and on other11 related printed or graphic material. The Paint Industry should most certainly resist this. intrusion since it would.corrupt, the art work, copy writing and other proprietary identification which we try to preserve on the front panel (face of label) of all our products.. We have never had this condition thrust upon us except in the instance of D.D.T. paint. In such case we were dealing with an economic poison where the concentration had to he noted as an ingredient statement on the face of the label. ____ nOn___ FPT ftmoo? -3- LEAD PAINT 211.13, Pages 17, 18 and 19: This section covers lead paint. The precautionary . labeling recommendations of the Sub-Committee of the N.P.V. & L. A. comply -with the requirements of Sub-Section (a) . Most manufacturers of industrial paint products for children* s toys and fxirnitura,: I .am cbftain,- recognise the merit of and comply with the require ments of Sub-Section (b), Sub-Sectibtt (c)^ involves a substantial hardship on the Paint Industry since a good number of albyd and oleo-resinous interior wall and trim paint finishes, contain more ; than 1^ of lead. Sub-Section (c) states that after the effective date of the adoption of this code no person shall use. a paint con- . taining mbre than ;1^; of metallic lead based on the total non-volatile content of paint,; ::;Oni:..lntericu,'jafa.lls, ceilings or window sills of any apartment or room, tenement, ^imulfiaid: duelling or one or two family'home. This regulation is new. It was reCbmriipnddd by the Department of. Health; as. the most effective means of reducing deaths and injuries to children from lead poisonings ../Fheroas I do not desire to get involved in any technical discussion, many persons of note, close to the subject of 3.sad poisoning including,some well-known industrial toxicoligists, question the hazardous effects of lead by ingestion, I can recall that there is in fact very little evidence, indeed, in the medical reports to support instances of death by ingestion of lead7. Sub-Section (d) is also new. It seems a very arbitrary approach in rela tion to the actual hazard involved. This, of course, is my personal opinion as a Member of the N.P.V. and L. A. Sub-Committee On Labeling. This regulation in effect gives the power to the Board of Health to order the removal of old paint on a surface which is known to contain lead. If enacted, the Board of Health should very properly specify the manner in which the lead paint be removed--cer tainly not by burning off since there would then be a REAL HAZARD by reason of the fact that lead in fume form is known to be highly toxic to man. ----oOo----- . The foregoing are .my brief and condensed comments. Ify-principal con-. cern is the all embracing character of this proposed Second Draft of Title 17. Those who drew, it up reached out for every possible reference "rule and regulation*' pertaining to,the subject---- even to the point of invoking federal bills, acts, rules and regulations of associations that have not as yet been enacted or finally set up as Standard Models. As against this pattern "of events" it may be said that the National Paint, Varnish and Lacquer Assn, took the lead several years ago and recommended to the Paint Industry a set of precautionary labeling regulations that modalized the general requirements of ail Federal, State and Departmental Laws then extant. Many reputable paint manufacturers, like ourselves, immediately adopted these regulations at considerable expense in the; interest of public health as well as their desire to comply more generally with all existing lavs. Ep* 001003 __ -The only distrubing features that have come to our attention since these precautionary: labeling regulations were adopted by us were the hazardous household products labeling laws since enacted;- and principally the Indiana Law. I have taken a real interest in trying to ameliorate the effect of the printed; language of these laws and have found the Enforcing Agencies to be, very cobppraitiygHand not only understanding of the Paint Industry problems . on labediiig^/P^fg'^stary disclosures but forthrightly pleased that we had taken the ball, so to speakji^gind did something ;about the matter some several years'. iph#i|ibdsly^!." In the case of the Proposed Revision of the Sanitary Code of the City of New York as well as all other bills, acts, rules or regulations being brought into being by others, we should take the position that we must fight for delay of enactment until such time as a Federal Paint Labeling Act becomes law.* 1 2 In the case of the latter we should bend every effort to prevent, if still possible, the inclusion of unnecessary, undesirable, or complex requirements so that and L. A. ;5ubUCcwmittee on Labeling might find possible a common denomindijoh dcf !expression fop, each' precautionary labeling requirement which will cprflpjl^r :i .effect, on. the''Paint Industry) with such Federal Law-- ' and all subsequently enacted State, Department or Association Rules and Regu-. Rations patterned after the same. This would seem good logic on the basis that what is good and sound for Uncle Sam, interstate-wise, should be good and sound for all States and Departments----providing they manifest the same interest in steering such Federal Law as do individual industry associations. It seems inevitable that we will be met with the necessity of making fur ther changes in our precautionary labeling over and beyond the present recommenda tions of N.P.V. & L. A. Nonetheless, we should endeavor to: (1) Work as 'closely as possible to see that a Federal Paint Labeling Law is as logical as possible from our standpoint. (2) To prosper the idea, insofar as possible, of steering all subsequently . enacted State or Departmental regulations along the. lines of such Federal Paint Labeling Law so that our Industry would be met with a clean cut, single set of precautionary label requirements rather than a hetero geneous pattern of requirements expressive of requirements specifically individual to various State and.Departmental Laws. /s/ E. P. Hubschmitt,. /t/ E. P. Hubschmitt, Member Subcommittee on Uniform Labeling September 15, 1953