Document NLVw2xVaq4Va6OeN0G4950og

De p a r t me n t of Ho r t ic u l t u r e UNIVERSITY of ILLINOIS COLLEGE of AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION URBANA, ILLINOIS January 2^, 1936 Dr. Robert A. Kehoe, Director Kettering Laboratory University of Cincinnati Cincinnati, Ohio Dear Dr. Kehoe: Attached Is a copy of ray letter to Mr. L. S. Hltchner, President, Agricultural Insecticide and Fungicide Association, in response to his request for information concerning developments since Professor Pickett and I saw him in December. I shall aporeclate it if you will read my reply, in spite of its length. I have put a lot of thought (that is, from ray standpoint) on this letter. If anything that I have said needs clari fication or emphasis, please write to Mr. Hitchner directly. I do not know just when he Intends to present the matter to his organization; however, it xvill be within a few days. Yours very truly, WAR:MH Enc. w, Chief in pomological Physiology N9754 FOR INFORMATION OF___ January 1936 Mr. L. 3. Hitchner, President Agricultural Insecticide A Fungicide Association 285 Madison Avenue New York City hear Mr. Hitchner: After seeing you in New Yorfcc, Profeeeor Pickett and I called uoon Mr. F. E. wormeer, Secretary and Treasurer, Lead Industries Association, 4?0 Lexington Avenue, New York. We also talked with Mr. Robert f. Wilson, In thelofflce of the Associated Grocery Manufacturer* of A-er^no, Fast U-2nd street. New York. The Lead Industries Association is ^financing a fippOO fellowship at Harvard. Mr. worwse^Thvlted us aaks a trip td Harvard with him. We made the trip, and discovered some Interest ing facts which confirmed us In our beYlef that experimentation of the type that we had outlined woula be desirable. Equally encouraging was the fact thatSthe mm who were doing the work at Harvard (Drs. Aub, Falrhall ano\C^ihoun) agreed entirely with our general conception of tfee si'eH&tibn as a whole. You probably know that Aub and Falrhall/nave beenv wtfiski ng on the bioohemlstry of lead for ten or twelye years. Whatxhey say et Harvard carries a great deal of weight/ } ____ Kr.Varonaser said that their budget for the year was already mjrtite Up, th^tlea^r arsenate was not a major nroduot of theirs, and lndicatectKat In all probability they would not contribute/ However, \lt Is my opinion that a contribution from them In the future wouJLd not be an Impossibility. \ Aft/r my return to tlrbna I wrote to Mr. ^ormser, telling hlmwjagt w^Xere doing and hoped to do. I am quoting a paragraph froaHYs reply: *1 am particularly pleased that you are getting in touch with the apple growers, as I firmly feel that their position, so far as the spray residue is concerned, will not be Improved until they have marshaled sufficient scientific evidence to answer the allegations of the various State and Government departments about the toxicity of lead arsenate. Needless to say, we shall be glad to help you all w* can and I hope you will keep us posted with whatever program Is finally adopted, for w should Indeed like to know what pro gress you make with your Investigotion. At the same time, If anything should occur at this end which I think will be of Interest to you, I shall pass It on promptly." Mr. Nllson, of the Associated Grocery Manufac turer*, told us that many of their constituent organisations were Interested in lead toxicity. They have a fellowship at Yale, 0008555 N9754.01 Mr. L. S. Ritohner 2 January 2ht 1936 with Or. George R. Cowgill, Associate Professor of Physiological Chemistry. Hr. VIIson asked me to write to him when I returned. He said that he would then take the matter up with Hr. Willis, President of their organisation. I wrote Hr. Willis, hot hare not yet received a reply. I know that they are greatly interest ed in all phases of the lead problem, but I do not know, of course, how much they would be interested In lead arsenate ex perimentation. Presumably they will be decidedly interested, although they may think that the leed work at Yale is enough. (This may be a good place to say again that they only way to settle the lead tolerance problem Is direct work, with humans.) Professor Pickett and I had a very Intereating and instructive visit with Aub, fairhall and Calhoun at the Huntington Memorial Hospital in Boston (Harvard). Their work and the work at the Kettering Laboratory has had a great deal to do with modern conceptions of the behavior of lead in the body. It should be said, also, that a great deal of this work has been done since 19?6, when the limit of . Olh gralne of lead ner ooxmd of apples was set by the physiologists advising the Pood and "Prug Adminlstration. Of 3& articles referred to In a recent paper by Aub on the biochemical behavior of lead In the body (journal of the American Medical Association, January lp, 1935) 9 bad been published in 1931* 6 In 193?* and in 1933- The subject is therefore a very live one. You might have occasion to use a very brief general summary of the most important facts in lead biochemistry. My attempt in that direction follows: Lead Is ingested In minute amounts in the normal diet and excreted in quantities which are, In the long run, equi valent. Under normal circumstances, lead Is not cumulative except that very email amounts are normally stored In the bones with increasing age. A large part of the lead in the diet probably passes through the body unabsorbed; inhaled lead is much more dan gerous. when comparatively large amounts of lead are ingested or inhaled, whloh is likely to happen in certain industries, accumu lation takes place. Storage Is in the bones, along with ealolna. After removal from exposure, (for example, when a factory worker exposed to white lead dust leaves the factory) stored lead Is normally slowly excreted, aleo along with calcium. If a metabolic upset results in the rapid liberation of large amounts of stored lead, very deleterious effects may result. The rate of liberation of lead from the bones can be regulated, however, by regulating the supply of calcium in the diet or blood, whloh is the basis of medical treatment. The amount of lead arsenate or, as a matter of fact, of any other form of lead, that can be ingested before storage takes plaoe is unknown. Several factors probably outer, one of which is the chemical and physical nature of the lead compound Itself. KF 0003556 Mr. L. 3. Hltohner 3 January 1936 In this connection, also, I am sending you taro reprints from the Kettering: Laboratory and am writing to Dr. Aub, asking hln to send you a reprint of the article to which X have Just referred. The supply of the larger reprint froa the Kettering Laboratory is exhausted; otherwise, I would send you several copies? Since we talked to you. It has become aore and more apparent to me that the effect upon ordinary apple consumers of the normal consumption of applet, bearing the amount of lead at present permitted, should be investigated. The moet logical way to find out whether danger exists Is to look for instances of injury. This procedure was used when the United states Public Health Service investigated the tetra-ethyl lead gasoline pro blem. A failure to find actual instances of lead poisoning among consumers of ethyl gasoline was considered a good reason for permitting its use. To quote from the report of the study, published In Public Health Bulletin I63, Treasure Department, United States Public Health Service, op. 109, 110, 1926, *In the regions In which ethyl gasoline has been used to the greatest extent for a period of between two and three years no definite cases have been discovered of recognizable lead poisoning or other diseases resulting from the use of ethyl gasoline. In view of these conclusions (whleh include the result of a study of automobile users and garage employees) your committee begs to report that in their opinion there are at present no good grounds for prohibiting the use ethyl gasoline of the composition specified as motor fuel, provided that Its distribution and use Is controlled by proper regulations.* (The regulations apnly to plants whleh manufacture tetra-ethyl le*d and blend It with gneoline.) In this connection, two very Important fcts are fundamental. The first Is that lead, In amounts below a certain minimum. Is not a cumulative nelson; the second Is that lead normally disappears from the body. If these general faots had not already been established, we might seatime that the Investi gation would be certain to reveal almost universal lead poisoning. Since they exist, we may perhaps assume that lead poisoning Is correspondingly rare. Dr. Kehoe, Director of the Kettering Laboratory, has already included a "field investlgetIon* In his plan, which he drew up In September, 193*># but T did not realize Its comparative importance until recently. You are, of course, familiar with the objeots of the laboratory Investigation. This part of the investigation also has assumed more Importance as I've thought it over. In the third paragraph on Page 2 of the mimeographed oopy of the paper that I gave at Hartford I quote Dr. White's reference to the toxicity of lead in drinking water. The 0.1 milligram of lead which. Ingested dally. Is supposedly capable of causing chronio poisoning is very much below the average dally Ingestion of lead In the food, which, as shown by work at the Kettering Laboratory, amounts to approximately 0.25 (approximately .004 grains). K" 0003557 Mr. I,. S. Hitchner 4 January ?1*, 1936 The toxicity of lead In drinking rt<?r, therefore, s*ems to be abnormally high. It is another demons!ration of th* fact that the toxicity of each individual lead compound should be deter mined lndi vldually and that it should be ingested *tth the food with which the compound naturally is taken into the body. There must be a. reason for the extreme toxicity of lend in drinking water, because a greater amount of lead In food i? not toxic. Also, the fact that a greeter amount of lead in food is not toxic let a good reason for not hoeing the tolerance for lead on apple a and other food on the toxicity of lead In drinking water. However, this seems to be a possibility, Judging by the references by an official of the Food and rrug Administration (*r. white) to Its possible importance. If thrt were done, the reduction in the lead tolerance would he very dr^etlc. I should also say that the work already done at the Kettering i, borntory, which ought to prevent such a reduction, has been done without expense to the interests most directly concerned; furthermore, without active effort on the part of scientifically qualified, olert and Informed individuals a defens* on scientific grounds would go by the board--it would never be formulated. After seeing you, professor Pickett and j visited entomologlsts and chemists In w*hington, to be reasonably certain that no substitute for lead arsenate was Just over the horixon. There has been a greet deal of activity by entomologists and manuf cturers, as you, of course, know, to find a substitute. Overley and others in ^sshlns^on state have hones of calcium arsenate with sine sulfate and lime as a safener. ^e know, however, from experiments here at Illinois that xlnc sulfate and lime cannot be used in this climate as a safener on nodes, because the x.lno russets the aprles, and *e know that calcium arsenate is variable in Its properties and hr> other disadvantages. It is to be hoped that a substitute *111 be found, because such a discovery would settle the whole thing at once, but, to out it. very con servatively, ther* la nothing In immediate preepeot for general use. Mr. R. 0. Phillips, 'Secretary of the International Apple Association (whose address is 1108 Mercantile Ruilding, Rochester, Mew York) and J also called upon "Dr. Campbell, Mead of the Food and T'rug Administration. I asked him If he would accept the results of the experiment that *e pror-osed. Re said that he wsj3 anxious to secure eny scientifically acceptable Information that would help to sattie the problem. I asked him If he would take a port in the organisation end conduct of the experiment. He sld that he would not, that, his division would conduct an investigation of Ite on, and that two entirely separate investigations would be more desirable th*.n the one Investigation that would result if there were close cooperation. In their Investigation commercial interests of any sort, are not to be represented, so that the result *111 be entirely free from bias; that 1, it will be based purely and simoly unon biological and chemical facts. I hove had quite a little correspondence with tr. F. F. -*are, of the nherwln *vllllame Company, about the E 00 0 8 5 5 8 Mr. L. S. Hltchner 5 January S4-, 1936 proposed Kettering Laboratory experiment. Dr. ware's last letter expresses hie hope that the attitude of the Food and Drug Admlnlttratlon toward cooperation can be changed, without Dr. Ware`a permission and with d&d^apologies to Dr. Ware on that account, X am quoting hie letter and my reply. "Dr. W. A. Ruth, University of Illinois, College of Agriculture, TJrbana, Illinois. Dear Dr. Ruth: I thank you for your letter of the J?6th en closing copies of ycur paper, "The Spray Residue Situation*. Mr. Gunderson and I have discussed the '"hole situation several times and both of us feel the* a conference with you might result in a different understanding on our part. I sincerely wish ther? could be some neutral ground on which producers, consumers, and federal agencies could get together, we could all agree to ohefck our personal prejudices at the door along with our hats and discuss matters of mutual interest from the standpoint of public welfare, why should it be necessary for Dr. Campbell to conduct serai-secret investiga tions, apparently to get ammunition with which to combat Industry If It should attempt to promote sal# of a product that In his opinion 1s inimical to the public Interest? Why couldn't such governmental Investigations be conducted under the guidance of a committee, membership to be chosen from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Experiment station staffs; Growers' Association membership, and manufacturing Industry. One might even consider the advisability of asking the Farm Chetnurglc Council to cooperate. It seems to me that we must concentrate on the problem of promoting a better understanding and mutual respect between Federal Research and Regulatory Bureaus on the one hand and agricultural and Industrial organisations on the other. There must be some Moses who can lead us out of the widemesa of misunderstand ing. FEW:* Very truly yours, THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY g. . Ware (signed) E. E. Mare My reply to Dr. Ware follows: * "Dr. g. E. Ware The Sherwin-Williams Company Cleveland, Ohio Dear Dr. Ware: January 9, 1936 I greatly appreciate your letter of January P, and I understand your attitude. I do not know what can be KE 0008359 Hr. L. 3* Hltchner 6 January 1936 "done along the lines that you suggest--1. e., to eonvlne# the Food and Drug Administration that they should conduct the investigation of lead toxicity under the guidance of a oommlttee, ohosen to reoresent the experiment stations, federal horticulturists, manufacturers, and fruit growers, as well as the Pood and Drug Administration itself. I agree with you that prejudices would he checked at the door. I am oertaln that the fruit growing Industry would have that attitude If it were allowed representation. Hy interview with Dr. Campbell and Hr. Phillip** opinion of him have made me sure, however, that any Investi gation that they eonduet will have as its sole purpose the ascertainment of faots. on the other hand, I oan easily see that, if it is conducted without the representation of interests other than enforcement officials, it will be open to the orltielsm that you have in mind--that its supposed purpose will be * to get ammunition". Also, It is certainly true that this investigation can be planned in such a way that it will be fundamentally (scientifically) satisfactory or unsatisfactory to all Interests, and that the only way to Insure satisfactory planning is to have all interests represented. For example, the lead arsenate on washed aoples is probably much less toxic than acid lead arsenate, because of the weathering that has taken place on the fruit, which tends to transform It to basic lead arsenate, and because the washing process probably removes the particles that are most easily dissolved. Therefore, washed aoples should be used as one source of lead arsenate. A toxicologist or biochemist not ex perienced in horticulture would overlook this point. He might even imagine that he would be more scientific if he were to use pure acid lead arsenate because it is undecomposed and uncontaslnated. He might think, also, that he could get the purest lead arsenate from a chemical supply house. There are probably a number of Important points of that sort. Host important of all, perhaps, is the point that field Investigations should constitute an important part of the investigation, by which I mean an examination of consumers for evidences of lead poisoning. I tUnk, as you do, that representatives of the various interests would participate in a perfectly fair way; presumably, also, the best companies, horticulturists, fruit growers, etc., could help the Food and Drug Administration actively after the facts were established. I have attempted to state the situation as you see it in my own words. As far as I know, my statement is complete, and the argument Is absolutely sound. The arguments for conducting a separate investi gation at the Kettering Laboratory can be stated very briefly by saying that ljt would be exactly that kind of an Investigation exceot for the cooperation of the Food and Drug Administration in planning and conducting the work, that a laboratory is miraculously at hand for doing ths work, that most of the ex pense and effort would therefore be obviated because we would not have to work from the ground up, that the results of the " tf/r' 0008560 Mr. L. S. Hltohner 7 January 24, 1956 *experiment would be acceptable to the Food end Brag Administra tion, ss well as to other interests, and lest, but not least, that we would not have to ask the Food and Drug Administration to adopt a policy with which they are not already In sympathy. I would be assuming entirely too much If I were to say, as e result of my brief interview with Dr. Csmnbell, that I have expressed his final attitude. As I told you, I think that he is anxious for all the heln that he can get In arriving at the truth. Yo u t h very truly, WARJMH W. A. Ruth Chief in homological Physiology " This long letter, I believe, Just about exhausts everything that has occurred recently in this connection. I might add, however, that I learned Indirectly a day or two ago that the American Can Company is interested in lead in Orto and other foods. I learned this through the representative of a firm which makes apparatus used in lead analysis, doubtless many organizations are interested more or less directly, whose interest is not known to us at present. Before I conclude ay letter I should add that all of the scientists with whom I have talked about this experiment, both before and after seeing you, agree without qualification in the scientifle soundness of the proposal. For example. Dr. Roger Adas, Head of the Chemistry Department here, in a conversation last night spoke very highly of the analytical work at the Fet tering Laboratory. It was, incidentally, Dr. Adams who, as presi dent of the American Chemical Society, has a very wide contact with chemical research, who gavewur first hint of this opportunity. Horticulturists and fruit growers are strongly in favor of experi mental work, (see the attached editorial, *?he Residue problem*, from the American Fruit Grower, written by Professor Gourley, Heed, Department of Horticulture, Ohio State University and Dr. M. J. Dorsey, Head, Division of Pomology, university of Illinois.) I thoroughly agree with Dr. Ware in his statement that the United States Department of Agriculture, the state expertmeat stations, the fruit growers, and the manufacturers should all be represented In the experiment, as my reply to him indicates. It is an Interesting fact that the membership of the American Pomologloal Society is drawn from exactly these sources. It Is the society that can most logically be expected to organize the experiment and to keep it going, which is Just as important, because Its interests are commercial as well as scientific. Fur thermore, as any one who attended its December meeting could not fail to realize, it Is a very active society. Yours very truly, wWhAoB.:KH KB 0008561 Chief in Foraologlcal Physiology Mr. L. 8. Hitohncr 8 January 7>h, P. 8. I an going to go through the two reprints that x &a sending you, transferring tall 11 grans to grains, to which w ore now aeoustoned In thie connection. w. . B. HE 0008562