Document V3GBmzxOwk5nKQ27NR841y25K

Hi l l a n d Kn o w l t o n , In c . o n e Mc Ph e r s o n s q u a r e VERMONT AT K STREET, N. W. WASHINGTON, D. C 20005 638-2SOO Memo to: Robert Rogers From: Lewie Gilpin Subject: Lead Paint Hearings -- Friday, March 10, 1972 Date: March 10, 1972 Copies: c. Thompson Senator Kennedy again opened the proceedings, before turning them over once more to Senator Richard Schweicker (R-Pa.). Witnesses at this concluding session of the hearing included Dr. Merlin K. DuVal, Assistant Secretary of HEW for Health and Scientific Affairs; Dr. Stanley M. Greenfield, EPA Assistant Administrator for Research and Monitoring, and Charles Ervin, associate director for policy and programs, ACTION. Big development of the day came with announcement in the course of Dr. DuVal's testimony -- paralleling announcement at Food and Drug Adminis tration -- of FDA's setting new lead paint standards, to be published officially in the Federal Register tomorrow, (see excerpt' attached) Dr. DuVal was flanked by three associates, chief among them Dr. Mark Novitch, FDA associate commissioner for medical affairs. During most of his few early minutes in the chair. Senator Kennedy pressed Dr. DuVal about "when are you going to start putting out the money we appropriated last July?" DuVal indicated FDA has been drafting regula tions since March 1971 and would publish them in the Federal Register during March. With Kennedy unimpressed with this kind of progress -- "but we made the money available eight months ago" -- DuVal and Dr. Novitch insisted the government will commit all the $7 1/2 million by June 30, 1972. Hov much money have you asked for 1973? $9 1/2 million. At which point Kennedy pointed to the final paragraph of DuVal1s statement, where he said ". . .we cannot support the enactment of S. 3080", and complained: "I can't see how you can ask for money and then not support the bill." Schweiker and DuVal, with Novitch, touched on a variety of questions: Have you looked into the idea of developing some plastic covering for walls -- this might well be the quickest and most accessible way to solve the problem? FDA is working on the idea with HUD, but bonding and adhesion is a problem, along with cost of labor -- "but we share your enthusiasm for the idea." Can you explain your logic or reasoning for the time-frame you set for the upcoming lead paint regulations? There are really five points: 1. Inventories of paint in warehouses and stores -- they should have LIA25067 HILL a n d KNOWLTON, In c . Robert Rogers March 10, 1972 2- - time for orderly disposition. 2. Switchover to new formulations. 3. Problems visited on the small producers of paints. 4. Problem of raw materials and water supply -- in some cases natural trace amounts could reach .067. before they ever get into the manufacturing process. 5. Finding a heavy metal substitute for dryer use. How would you handle the local custom-blending situation, where vehicle and pigment are custom-mixed, to meet the new standards? I think that's covered, but there is always the opportunity for escape (i.e., intra-state customizing on-the-spot). But if pigment is shipped in interstate commerce, it would have to comply. What level are you setting for lead in pigment? A lead level low enough so when it is mixed with the vehicle, it would comply. The regulation (on lead level) applies to pigments as well as paints -- is that the case? "Yes, sir!" DuVal answered Schweiker. Dr. Greenfield pointed out that EPA was content to be acting as a con sultant to HEW and HUD in the lead paint matter, that it was keeping an eye on developments, that it "has considered the problem of lead in paint only from its interest in the general area of environmental lead exposures." "EPA is concerned with the problem of reducing all unnecessary environ mental lead exposures. Although clearly HEW and HUD have primary responsi bility for dealing with lead based paint poisoning EPA felt obliged to respond to a request for comments regarding an FDA proposal to label as hazardous interior paint in excess of 0.57. (Federal Register, November 2, 1971) EPA scientists thus conducted a theoretical analysis based upon the best currently available data to determine the maximum safe amounts of lead in paints for interior residential surfaces. A first draft copy of this inhouse technical report entitled "A Control Strategy for Lead in Paint" appeared in the February 9, 1972 Congressional Record - Extension of Remarks, pp. 1010-1011. We would like to make a copy of that draft report available to you for the record. This paper concluded that continued ingestion of only one-twentieth of a teaspoon of paint containing 0.057. lead would double average daily lead absorption from food and water in a 10 kilogram child, thus contributing significantly to increased blood lead and body burdens. EPA defers to the views of HEW on the need to extend the Lead Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act. We also believe that legislation to increase this Agency's involvement regarding lead based paint poisoning in the light of existing authorities in HEW and HUD is not necessary." Greenfield's conclusion to Schweiker: Paint above .057. lead is dangerous for a child. LIA25068 HILL AND KNOWLTON, In c . Robert Rogers March 10, 1972 -3- ACTION'S Charles Ervin described for the committee its proposal for a 3-year demonstration program "to determine whether the problem of lead-based paint poisoning can be essentially eliminated from the lead belt areas of three medium-sized cities. " The first city invited to submit a proposal for ACTION help is Rochester, N.Y. Ervin declined to name other cities that might be considered -- although he noted New York and Chicago were too big for ACTION to handle, and Minneapolis-St. Paul did not appear to have a distinguishable "lead belt." (He told me privately Milwaukee is one city being considered.) The ACTION program's four goals: 1. Identify children now suffering from high lead levels and treat them. 2. Identify buildings in which existing lead based paint presents a hazard . 3. Control the existing hazard. 4. Prevent new hazards from arising. ACTION expects to begin its program this fall, in September, and hopes to have 300 of its "volunteers" at work by July, 1973. ACTION people's role is primarily as catalyst-stimulator for local volunteer service programs. "We want an experiment of a size we can clearly manage," Ervin commented. "Three cities appears to be the right size. At least two-thirds of the volunteers we would approve would be local people. We would only bring in enough outsiders to do the job local volunteers could not handle." L.V.G. /dw LI A25069 Excerpt from testimony of Dr. Merlin K. DuVal, Assistant Secretary for Health and Scientific Affairs, HEW -- Lead Paint Hearings, Friday, March 10, 1972. Food and Drug Administration Regulations. The Food and Drug Administration, as an agency concerned with public health and safety, has also taken a number of steps directed at eliminating the hazard of lead-based paint in and around the home. These include publishing proposed regulations to limit lead in paints for household use, and requesting analyses of all manufacturers' paints for lead content. On November 2, 1971, a proposal was published in the Federal Register by the Commissioner of FDA to declare paints and other surface coatings containing more than 0.5 percent lead, and specified levels of other critical elements and heavy metals, to be hazardous substances. In the same issue of the Federal Register, a notice was published on behalf of petitioners Joseph A. Page, et al., proposing that paints for household use containing more than minute traces of lead be classified as banned hazardous substances under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act. Approximately 200 comments were received in response to these proposals. They represent the views of consumers, consumer groups, physicians, paint manufacturers and their associations. Government agencies, and the American Academy of Pediatrics. The American Academy of Pediatrics suggested the banning of paints containing more than 0.06 percent lead for use on interior surfaces, toys, and other children's articles. Most of the 41 other physicians' comments endorsed this suggestion. Most comments from consumer groups, government agencies, and interested citizens either supported the American Academy of Pediatrics' recommendation or the Petitioners' proposal for only "minute traces of lead." Paint manufacturers and their trade associations have commented favorably upon the .57. limit but have raised objections both to the "minute traces" standard and the .06% limit. The notice in question also dealt with certain other critical elements and heavy metals in addition to lead. Industry representatives argue that we do not yet have sufficient information to establish valid limits on other heavy metals in paint and coatings. Based on information now available to us, we are satisfied that it is technologically feasible, and desirable from a health viewpoint to move toward the .06 percent standard recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics. However, this transition cannot be accomplished immediately. Accordingly, our position is that the 1 percent definition of lead-based paint established by the Act should continue in effect for the balance of 1972. Effective commencing January 1, 1973, the maximum permissible lead content of paint would be reduced to .5 percent and the .06 percent standard should take effect as of January 1, 1974. We are now prepared to publish in the Federal Register an order requiring an orderly reduction in the amount of lead per mitted in paints and other coatings intended for household use. Briefly, this order is in accord with the recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics and will ban paints and other surface coating materials which are intended or packaged in a form suitable for use in the household, are involved LI 425070 N 1825.01 1- in Interstate commerce after December 31, 1973, and contain lead in excess of 0.06 percent of the contained solids or dried paint film; between December 31, 1972 and December 31, 1973, lead in excess of 0.5 percent of the contained solids or dried paint fiim will be banned. This order applying to paints shipped in interstate commerce, or otherwise falling within the scope of FDA jurisdiction through use of ingredients shipped in interstate commerce, will cover virtually ail paint and coatings sold for residential use in the United States. Our goal is to arrive at the lowest level of environmental lead hazard that is technologically feasible and economically realistic. HEW and HUD intend to continue evaluating the technological feasibility and medical implication of proposed standards taking into account practical aspects of environmental protection and production control. FDA will give consideration to petitions for an amendment to this regulation, or for an amendment of the implementation dates of the regulation, if such petitions are supported by reasonable grounds and justification. If such petitions furnish reasonable grounds therefore, the Commissioner will publish notices in the Federal Register proposing the amendment of the regu lation. Furthermore, if our evaluation of this problem indicates that the elimination of lead from paints can be accomplished sooner, we are prepared to amend the order to accomplish this. Assistant Secretary Finger of HUD, who testified before your committee on Monday and promised a recommendation, has authorized me to advise you that HUD concurs in the approach which I have described. With respect to the issue raised regarding other elements in paints and coatings, we are satisfied that additional study is necessary. This is actively under way within the Department, and regulations covering these other elements in paints and coatings will be published if appropriate as soon as the necessary valid basis for regulatory action can be established. Petitioners also requested that the Commissioner obtain : certified analyses from paint companies of their household products "(in) order to assist in resolution of the argument of technical incapacity that the paint industry is making...." In consideration of this request, and in view of the numerous conflicting comments received in response to the proposals, FDA concluded that such data would be of value in implementation of the final order in the matter of lead-containing paint and in preparation of a subsequent final order on certain other elements in paints. A Federal Register announcement requesting analytical data was published on February 19; a copy is being submitted for the record. LIA25071 E1010 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- Extensions of Remarks February 9, 1972 In residential structures constructed or retabilitutid by tlie Feeler.*; Government or will* Federal nsM stance. A: on ml'.ll' 'oral margin of safety, the Co.'iiiii: s loner prepo-es to reduce the exposure to lead found ac ceptable by Congress by establishing special labeling requirements for all household paints containing more than 0.5 percent lead. Consideration has been given to tlie ques tion of whether paints containing lead above the level specified herein should be banned from Interstate commerce, or required to bear special labeling warning of the hazard Involved and giving Instruct ton for safe use. While there are numerous reports of serious Injury and even death resulting front the Ingestion of the dried film of eld formula tions of paints containing high levels of lead, the Commissioner Is unaware of any similar reports e.s a result of ingestion of paints containing I percent lead or less. The Commissioner has therefore concluded that cautionary labeling stall be adequate to pro tect the public health e.u.d safety from any potential hazards associated with the use of such paints. Accordingly, under section 3(at of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act, the Com missioner proposes that paints and other surface-coating materials be declared to be hazardous substances (as Conned in section 2(f)(l)(Al of the Act) that require special labeling as specified herein if such paints snd other surface-coating materials contain, on a dried weight basis, mere than 0.5 per cent lead; or a total of more than 0.05 per cent antimony, arsenic, cadmium, mercury, or selenium: or soluble barium in excess of 1 percent of the total barium present. Fi nalization of the regulations proposed herein In conjunction with section 2iq)(l)(A) of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act. will have the additional elTec-. cf automatically banning any tcy or other article intended lor use by children which is produced after effective elate cf these re:,ulanous and which bears such paint or other surface-coating material. Therefore, pursuant to previsions of the Federal Has.minus .`Pibuanr'-s Act (secs. 2(f) (1) (E). 2(qi (1) (A). 3:al, md 3(b), 74 Stat. 372. 37-1-375 as amended. fO :ar, 1304; 15 C.S.C. 1CC1, 12:2), cud the Federal Feed, Drug and Cctmetic Act (see. 701, 52 Star1055-50 as amended: 21 U.5.C. 3711, and un der authority cltl'-z.-ted to him (21 CFR 2.1201, the Commissioner proposes that a new subparagraph be added to i Jf-1.5 (a.) and that a. rev: subparagraph be added io I 191.7(b), as follows. I 191.5 Products declared to be hazardous substances under section 3ta) of the act. (a) Tlie commissioner finds, that the fol lowing articles rre ha: radons substances Within tlie meaning of the act because they are capable of causing sue atitial personal injury or substantial nine53 dating or ns a proximate result of any ev - onuiry or rea sonably fcrr.-ceeble h.nr.thing or use: (2) Paint curt other surtace-coating ma terials, produce;! cr ri.i; red in interstate commerce after the cr'vctive date cf this regulation, containing any c.i the heaiy me tals specified below v.. a love! cxcocutr.tr tiiat which Is casernie.l under g.-ed i.-.anutaeiurlr.g practices cr in anv event cann-ining amounts of such heavy metals as follows: (I) Lead compound.; of which the lead content (calculated a; tuo metal) L; in ex cess of 0 5 percent of the tom! weight of the contained t.al.ds or dned paint, dim: or (II) Amir.:.ay. ar:-ei.:c. urn. mercury, and selenium of v.iiicn the nvgal ccnicnt Individually or in total icaltulated as too metal) exceeds 0.05 percent of the total weight of the contained suit's cr dried pamt Him; or (III) Barium compounds of which the water soluble barium (calculated as the metal) exceed; 1 percent of the total bailum pres ent. { 191.7. Products requiring special labeling under section 3(b) of Ihc act. * (b) The Commissioner finds that these substances present special haznrds and that the labeling required by section 2ip)(l) of the act Is not adequate for the protection of the public health. Under section 3(bl of the act the following specific label statements are deemed necessary to supplement the label ing required by section 21 p) (1) of the act: ** i7) Paint and other surface-coating mate rials declared to be hazardous under ! 191.5 (a) (2) snail bear on the main pane! of their label. In addition to the requirements of ! 191.101(a). the statement "contains______ ______ ", the blank being filled in with the name of each heavy metal present In the amount specified in { 191.5(a) (2), Such paint and other surface-coating materials shall also bear on their labeling the signal word "Warning," and the following addi tional statement or Its practical equivalent: "Contains______ ______ Dried film of this paint may be harmful if eaten or chewed. Do not apply on toys and other children's articles, furniture, or interior surfaces of any dwelling or facility which may be occupied or used by children. Do not apply on those exterior surfaces of dwelling units, such as windowsills, porches, stairs, or railings, to which children may be commonly exposed. Keep out of the reach of children." the blank being filled In with the name of each heavy metal present In the amount specified in 5 191.5(a) (2). Interested persons may, within CO days after publication hereof in the Fe d e r a l Reg is t e r , file with the Hearing Clerk. Depart ment of Health. Education, cud Welfare, Ecom 6-83, 5C00 Fishers Lar.o, Eocltville, Md., 20252. written comments (preferably In quinsuplicatc) regarding this proposal. Com ments may be accompanied by a memo randum or brief In support thereof. Rt'-cived comments may be seen In the above office during working hours, Monday through Friday. En v ir o n me n t a l Pr o t e c t io n Ag e n c y , Washing io>'.. L.C.. Js.in.urs 23, 1072. Reply to Attn of: EPA-AE-R. Subject: Comments on FDA Fropotai to De clare Certain Heavy Metal-Containing Paints and C:hcr Surfacs-Coa tings to Require Special Labeling for Child Pro tection. To: Hearing Clerk, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. This memorandum is in response to the invitation for comments on the subject pro posal published by tiro Commissioner of Food and Drugs lit the Federal Register on No vember 2, 1971. Tito Environmental Protection Agency is concerned about the problem of lead poison ing In children. In order to reduce the burden of lead in children, we v. 11 soon propose a program to accelerate the red notion and eventual of lead from gasoline. Since most cases of lead poisoning In chil dren arc attributable to consume,tiotiof loadliar.e paint, we have undertaken to ch tormino the maximum sale percent of load by weight in dried paint m ci .vary to pro'ecr the public health. These studies, elaborated in the at tached in-:Kiu e technical report. indie.uo that lead paint In excess 01 00.7'.- could con stitute a danger to tlie hrnitli of children with pica. Our conclusion is s.uiitur to that of the American Aendcmy of Pediatries, which strongly recommended that lead pr.-rt 111 excess of 0.06'1, should not he p< in::'.'**.. Wo belle* e that cautionary labeling v.uli not bo adequate to protect the public health and safety from any potential hazard.-, n. .vi olated with the use of paints containing mere than O.Oj/.i by weight of the dry solids. Many families may occupy a dwelling after the paint can label. Tills problem may be pre vented through banning of lead-base paint in interstate commerce and advice to local au thorities when interstate commerce is not Involved. St a n l e y M. Gr e e n f t t x d , Assistant Administrator for Research cud - Monitoring. Attachment. A CONTROL STRATECT FOR LEA3 IN PAINT---- In -Ho u s e Te c h n ic a l Re p o r t --Fir s t Dr a t t (By K. Brldbord. C. Shy, D. Hammer. H. Gold berg, V. Newlll, and W. Nelson) BACKGROUND Available evidence Indicates that lead In human tissues serves no useful blc'oiioal function. Even at low blood coneenir.Tior.s, lead adversely affects metabolism by inhibit ing critical enzyme systems (1). At higher concentrations, lead can produce severe dis ease end even death. Accordingly, any In crease in lead body burden is undesirable. All known sources of human lead exposure must bo carefully controlled. Clinical lead poisoning is caused primarily by childhood Ingestion of lead-based paint (2). Every year hundreds of children die from lead poisoning and many Thousands more receive permanent. Irreversible central nervous system damage from lead ingestion. Recent proposals have advocated limiting lead content in paint as a means to prevent lead poisoning among future reiterations (3). However, agreement concerning how severe this restriction should te has not been reached. Among the general adult population, food is the primary contributor to lead bodv bur den. Air and water are addition u expo;tire routes. For children predisposed io ch.-a ing nonfood objects), tlie primary ource c-f lead body burden is lead-based pain:. Lead in street dust and soil arc additional potent icily significant exposure mechanisms in tins group (4). Comprehensive programs to dec re ere 'red exposure have advocated c'iminaiir..: Fad in gasoilne and rehabili'atiiig uzrneru'mg housing containing lcad-ba-ed peeling pa.nt. However, even low lead paint us-.U ua the rehabilitation process or in new construction could become a source of lead exposure m the future. Titus, careful thought mu:; oc Lite.", to what constitutes a "SRie" concentration of lead in paint. Our paper will re-examine this problem to arrive at an independent estimate of a "safe" lead level in piiint. THE CONTROL STRATEGY The physiology of lead absorption and ex cretion in adults 13 well documented. Corre sponding studies in children arc limited. An "average'' 70 Ke adult takes in appr^v;mit:elv 300 ug of lead via food and water is i. Of up to 10'is absorbed from me rastrointcstinal tract. Lead lmahe via `.he respira tory route is much more complete. Approxi mately one third of all inhaled lead retained and almost all of this absorbed to). A figure of 30'f, reasonably c the quantity of lead absorbed from ink.ihd air. Studies indicate that children r ~ert i-:i years GO-lfi Hr) In ecru, on :he a: era re. I 10 tig of K ad eacii dr.v irom food and . .iter (7 i. Eased upon data from auulis. uu to 10 : ol tliis. or 13 ug per day will be nl.vorhcd. Children this arc inhale approximate!*' o cubic meters of air dally. Ambient air 1 er.cl LIi?507; N 1825.02 ^February 9, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- Extensions of Remarks E1011 levels clove to licavy trafitc combusting gaso line containin': lead ore canceled to aier-igo at l-ra-t o n : lead r cubic ivi'T. .V- liming 30'. nbvei'Plr'n. a 1-3 \ ear old cl.ltd wuu'.d absorb cppruxlmatcly 5xC.\0.3 -3 ug lead per day from tile air. Ljlnrc significant increases In lead cxnorure and body burden are nude-.ruble (c. pzciahy In children prone to plea) strategies to limit lend exposure must prevent body burden Increments. A maximum daily peimliuioie Intake inot absorption) of-elemental lead In children of 300 , g is already established (0). Even if lead emissions from automobiles arc eliminated In the fututc tH3". of air borne lead Is from ra.oUnc combustion (91). possible lead ingestion from peeling paint must still not be allowed to significantly ex ceed background lead Intake from food and water. This Is because lead intake of 130 *g per day in a 1-3 year old child is already nearly half his daily permissible Intake. ACCEPTABLE LEVELS Peeling paint Is significantly denser than water. When considering potential lead in gestion from spce'.hc volumes of peeing paint, assumptions that the density of paint equals that of water yield conservative estimates. On this basis the following tables can be constructed. TABLE I* Paint Ingestion As A Function of Volume Intake (Teaspoons). Volume of Pealing Paint Ingested (teaspoons) Crams of Paint Ingested 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.1 ..................................................................... 0.5 .0.5 __________________________________ 2.5 10 ......................................................................5.0 Tlie density of water Is one gram per cubic centimeter. Since one teaspoon con tains 5 ci'.b.e centimeters of water this Is equivalent to 5 grams of paint with a density equal to that of water. TABl l ii.--t o t al l ead i;;g es t io h men p a in t , k ic s d CRAM (DAILY AVERAGE) |lr, percent] C;viCM'.rat:zp of '.cad in C'i*! 0.01 C.C5 0.1 C.5 LO Tcurarai cf p:s:.a* r.'.ir-t OaTt-Vi fl... C/.'i (0.25 C.I C-.5 C).......... L2.5 i)............ LO (i> i)............. 5 25 3 253 523 2i> U5 250 1,20 2. 6,3 5;l Ir j 523 2. 5 1 5. C J 2.) \.lZJ :.i.) 12,: 3 2:.: 3 5ad 2. 5.3 5, EvO L3, Lv J trj, wJ Srercc: Cr,:3 ire- r-i--ii in* 10 ewce'.l rl ell inched led hen: it? Ci tact, laa.e ill esn ae c.r,cir.h:d. t as l c h i.--t o t al l ead AiE..r.?iic:. rre v. pain t . I.NCRJGRA.V (DAILY AVERAGE) !!n prr:ent] C: ion of Lad in paint C.01 C.05 0.1 0.5 1.0 r fl................... Cl ................... 0.1...................... .5....................... 1.0................. ... D. it 2.5 1.0 25.0 50.0 2.5 y: 5 :..q J .0 L.'.o 5 ?S 2a 1?5 50 T.) ?M 1.7:3 5.J 2. t-vO 50 2^0 i.O 2.1-3 Clo.uiy, nccc>rd'!J7 Jca.l p.'.irit co:uo:;ir a')lr :o jiro.- ,0.05'j k\4 In to 1 in. r:o orjy : on t: .:.l ft'n-v>: j- l.i collivou nt. ration of only aud twentieth of a teaspoon of paint per day (cxsnt.unJng 12.3 irg lead) will nearly double lj.i. ehno :ib:.orp!i. <n ir.,:n I' .-tl ami v-awr (13 ugl in a 13 year old ciiild (10-1U Kg). Although data cn children arc limited, the best avall-tblo evidence tn adults indicates that doubling daily lntuko (absorption) of lead from a baseline of to u,; per day tn a 70 Kg adult raises blood lead concentration from about 20 to 35 ur TOO g. .a level closely associated witli significant impairment of hemoglobin synthesis (10). Quadrupling baseline absorption In adults raises blood leads to greater than 50 ug/ 100 p. a level close to that occasionally asso ciated with clinical lend poisoning tn some children (11). Ingestion of only one tenth of a teaspoon of 0.1r;, lead paint per day more than quadruples baseline absorpt ion of 13 ug per day in a 1-3 year old child. Thus, paint coiUiir.it'.g even 0.1 M lead used In residential areas poses a significant potential danger to future generations of children. Ail hough the data In Table III have not been substantiated by direct experimental evidence, they certainly are a most conserva tive estimate cf lead ingestion from paint. Most chips of peeling lead paint arc signifi cantly denser than water. Table HI Is based upon Ingestion of lead chips that ere only as dense as water. However, pertinent other factors such as dietary deficiency states (low Iron ar.d low calcium) which potentially might preJ:pa:e to increased lead absorption from the gut in excess of 10 T have not been considered In this analysis. Furthermore, no additional safety factor has been Included in these calculations. Although there may be room for debate regarding whether 0.05 T or 0.01 T icad in paint should be the linger acceptable limit, clearly n level higher than this Is unaccept able. In a recent press release (12), based v.non an independent method of anafysis, the American Academy of Pediatries strongly recommended that lead in paint in excess of 0.06ii lead thould not ba permitted. Their estimate Is In close agreement w ith ours. EU.MM.M.T A control strategy to prevent childhood lead ingestion from paint in future genera tions is presented. This is based upon uo significant Increase cf lead intake beyond baseline levels from foo-d and waver. Accord ing to our analysis, lead in paint even at O.ba' i is a phtei'-tia! hr..-.:.rii to children ptoi.e to pica. A lead concentration of 0.01 ft, would reasonably protect ail children except these vviih extreme tendencies for paint in gestion. Independent analyses support our view that at i.o time should future use of paint containing: lead in excess cf 0.05V*. end preferably not in excess of 0.01`,7, be permit ted in residential areas. njiu.vns 1. Iferubcry, S,, Nikkar.eti, J., Mcllln, G., and Lulus, H,, "Dvim-Amiuolcwiinic Acid Dehydre.se as a Measure c.f bead Exposure," Arch. Environ. Health 21: 140-145. H`70. 2. Griggs, K. C-, Sunshine. I.. Mc.vill. V. A., Newton. 1). \Y., Buchanan. S. end i-insch, C. A., Envlromv.t-ni.tl Factors lu Chlidhcvd Lead Poisoning," JAMA 157: 703-707, HV-1. 3. Ci-Q lDtv.lt hill, "To Amend the LeadEased lx.iut Pclromus prevention het," Lxecutjve Outer rf tlie President. Council on Environmental Quality. Jam 10. 1672. 4. Shy, C., Hammer, D, Goldberg. II.. New111 V. and Nelson, \y,, "Health inwards of Environmental Lead," To lie published as an OTiJ* Publication, Federal Eiivircr.iuental I-r,>ierl:ou Ageury. n.5. lichee. A.. "Tne Meirbolbni of Lead In Health and Disease." (The Harden Ix-ciurrr.), Jour. Tu,y. Inst. Pub. Health, Hvg. Ji:, 1 iiiil. C. ibid. 7. Chisolm, J. and Harrlron. H., "The Evposurc of Children to Lead." Pediatrics, IS: a-M-OMi. 11*36. 8. National Inventory of Air Pollutant Emissions and Controls. Environmental Pro tection Agency, Durham, N.C. 8. King. Barry. "Maximum Dally Intake of Lead Without I'xccssivo Body Dad--Burden in Children." Anicr. J. Dis. Child. 122: 337340. Oct.. 1071. 10. Shy, Carl, Acting Director. Division Health E.Tects Research. Environmental Pro tection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C., Table 4 A Personal communication, Oct. 12. 1971. 11. Ibid. 12. News Release. "AAP Recommends Re ducing Lead Content of Paints." American Academy of Pediatrics, Evanston, Illinois. Nov. 30. 1971. DEPARTMENT OP HEALTH, EDUCA TION, a n d We l f a r e , Pu b l ic He a l t h Se r v ic e , January 31,1371. To: Charles C. Edwards. MJ),, Commissioner of Pood and Drugs, Food and Drug Ad ministration. Prom: Jane S. Lln-Fu, M.D., Pediatric Ccnlultant, Maternal and Child Health Serv ice. Subject: Lead-Based Paint, 21 CFP., Part 191, Federal Register. Volume 36, Number 211, November 2, 1971. As one deeply concerned with the problem of lead-based paint poisoning ir. children. I would like to endorse the position taken by the American Academy of Pediatrics on the issue under coni idemtlon es presented in its memo addressed to the Food and Drug Ad ministration dated November 30, 1971. In reviewing the problem of childhood lead poisoning, the following facts are obvious: 1. The 0.5 percent limit cn lead content cf paint set by the IDA is inadequate to deal with the health hazard of Icad paint among children when such paint is used on suifacis to which children are likely to be exposed. The daily porm'ssible ititr'ue (DPI) of Ri d among young children should not exceed SOO ug. of le.'.ci .hat c ul be taken from o.ncr sources before the DPI is exceeded. Ingest ion cf a single square centimeter of multilayered paint chips with 0.3 percent of lead cement could er.s'.y provide a child v.ith more ti.cn 130 ug. of lead. Repeated ingestion oi a larger anicuu; of paint chips over n prolonged period, easily possible among children with pica, can result in poisoning. 2. Labeling paint for lead content ir. in effective in protecting the public for the following re.\LD!is: a. The label may be totally disregarded or may be misinterpreted by the consumer. b. Onoc the paint is nppllod on to a surface, the label loses ids effect completely. 3. Today, most, if not i ll, communities fac'd with tlie probiem of lead-bated paint poisoning are unable to cepe v.jih the tag:-! of eliminating lead hazard;; from housing. The overwhelming number of houses wi: h lead haar.rris and the expense involved have been the mein deterrents in the bat lie ueaiust this nian-iur.de disease. The traeic mistake of painting millions of houses v. lilt paint containing hazardous amounts c: lead in the past decades was made in ignorance. With our current knowledge of the health hazards of lead in paint, it is inexcusable to repeat tlie mix:altos of the past ar.d per petuate a disease that is proventabie. I would therefore urge the Food and Drug Administration to recon,'.dor its propo..i>d regulation on tlie I'sue and make mod;:.ca tions u recommended by the American Academy of Pcdiatiics, Ja n e S. Lin -Fu , M.D. LI A? 5 0 73 LI^5074 .'V'ttf'fr' LIA25076