Document daJ736nga1goRbp9bVzVRV435

125. In 1937 the Lead Industries Association sponsored a conference on le poisoning for the physicians employed by its member companies, including National Lead, Sherwin-Williams, Glidden, Anaconda/IS&R, and Eagle-Picher. Dr. Aub, as a research physician, played a leading role in advising the other doctors. Wormser, in his opening remarks, noted that the conference was called because of "a common problem that every company faces namely;[sic] the question of the lead hazard in the industry." He asked the attendees to avoid any public statement about the conference "because our industry, you know, is very often the recipient of unfair and unfortunate publicity . . . . Our industry is always anxious to avoid unsound publicity.1 126. The transcript of the conference --and the singular knowledge of the hazards of lead which it contains --was marked confidential. Despite the fact that the conference was devoted to industrial poisoning, its proceedings are sprinkled with references to childhood lead poisoning. Dr. Aub, for example, remarked on "a child [who] died of lead poisoning . . . . That shows that lead was scattered over the body of that child and, therefore, was a contributory factor at least to her death." Later he remarked that "here you have a beautiful example . . . of a lead line in a child. This child died and had five times as much lead in the lead line as it had in the bones . . . . Here is a child acutely leaded . . . . As the child grows, this lead is redistributed around through the circulation and is redeposited . . . . To get rid of the lead in children is almost impossible because it is always being dissolved and circulating around." Later Aub remarked that children were more susceptible to lead poisoning than were men. Because of the increased susceptibility of young people to12 121 LIA, "Lead Poisoning: Report of Conference," April 6, 1937, p. 6. -45- lead h suggested that "people under the age of twenty should not be employed in a lead hazard. They are much more susceptible to it than older people."122 127. The industry doctors at the 1937 Conference spent much time discussing how to defeat Workers Compensation claims. For example, National Lead's Dr. Brockway discussed how to "make the blood clear of evidence, so as to defeat litigation." "[I]f you want to just prime him for the compensation court examination, if you will inject him with liver you will find it will bring him up, but it doesn't do him any good. ... That will get you by the compensation board." Dr. Brockway even suggested removing a man's teeth, so that there will be no "lead line for "the shyster lawyer" to see.123 128. Dr Aut^c digmiccivo ttifmfctdwarcl ihe-human-bgings poisoned.by 1ead---/'* out:124 Aub testified^ frequently or the defense in Workers' Compensation cases. [39-41]. 7^ 129. The LIA frequently sought his help in rebutting claims that work had died from lead poisoning. As Wormser stated, without Dr. Aub's "active assistance on some of our lead problems, we would indeed be at a serious disadvantage."125 In 122 LIA, "Lead Poisoning: Report of Conference," April 6, 1937, pp. 9, 12, 13, 15, 82. 123 RL PP- 65-6, 76, 78. 124 CHECK CITES: He advocated research on workers [24]; refused to generalize from animal studies showing the lead caused ulcers [56]; suggested that workers were malingering and expressed skepticism about associating symptoms with lead poisoning; and discussed k getting workmen back to work and "getting away with it," [67] putting a higher priority on/<; this than on their health [21]. SEE HOL 27 & n. 126. sfX 125 LIA Executive Committee Minutes, June 6, 1940. Spriggs A-2; see also LIA Minutes, June 9, 1943 ("The advice and counsel of Dr. Aub have been invaluable in meeting some of our lead hygiene problems."). 1945 alone, the LIA sought Aub's help to rebut three reports of death --two of them children --from lead poisoning. One involved the death of a two and a half year old who had licked his hands after touching fresh paint. Although the treating physician found lead lines in his bones and other symptoms that he described as "obviously a part of the lead poisoning condition," Aub told Wormser that his symptoms "imply an infection, not lead poisoning. ... Therefore, I would not consider it a clear case, although, of course, the bones and the paralyses fit in with a possible diagnosis of lead poisoning." In another case, John R. MacGregor, president of the John R. MacGregor Lead Company, sought the LLA's help in rebutting a coronor's report regarding one of his workers. Wormser forwarded the request to Aub, who responded with possibly 130. In 1943, when Wormser sought Aub's response to the findings of Byers and Lord on the long-term effects of lead poisoning on intellectual development of children, Aub told Wormser that the children were probably defective to begin with. In 1948, when Anna Baetjer reported extremely high lead poisoning among Baltimore children in the summer, r, Manfred Bowditch, wrote to Aub with questions about the study. "These young Baltimore paint eaters are a real headache," he wrote, "and I need all the advice I can get." Aub suggested to Bowditch that perhaps the reported summertime peak in lead poisoning cases "was actually an indication of `summertime complaints/ infectious diseases interpreted as lead poisoning." 127 131. In contrast to Dr. Aub, another prominent industry-sponsored researcher, Dr. Robert A. Kehoe, consistently warned of the hazards lead paint posed to children, albeit largely in private communications, and the LIA just as consistently ignored his warnings. Kehoe was Medical Director of the Ethyl Corporation, a company created by General Motors, DuPont, and Standard Oil ???, to produce tetraethyl lead for gasoline, and Director of the Kettering Laboratory at the University of Cincinnati, a leading center for medical research on lead. Since 19 his Laboratory had been funded by the Ethyl Corporation. Dr. Kehoe devoted his professional life to studying lead toxicity, and had an ongoing relationship with the lead industry, including the white lead manufacturers.128 Like Harvard's Professor Aub, Kehoe believed that there was a "normal" level of lead absorption, and devoted much work to determining "safe" levels of lead,129 However, the fact that Dr. Kehoe's research was primarily sponsored by the Ethyl Corporation, which produced tetraethyl lead for gasoline, and not by white lead palm manufacturers may have contributed to Kehoe's willingness to warn of these hazards, if only in private. tr- lA k /^ j p. ess, in"iS,1'Wormser praised'Keiioe, along with Aub, as one of the "ardent workers in lead" through whose work "our knowledge of lead poisoning has increased enormously." LIA, Board of directors Meeting, June 15, 1933 [LA00103] priggs] Kehoe testified for the dgf&n&erip lead poisoning cases, such as one against Anaconda in 1938. YSG 1 76. ^ffce??]}Telepnev (SELLERS 206] Kehoe also had close relationship with Sherwin-WJTItamsTKehoe and his associates conducted a health survey of Sherwin-Williams' Lowe Brothers' plant, and Sherwin-Williams called on Dr Kehoe's laboratory for assistance with various specific problems. YSG exh. 60; Memorandum from E.W. Fasig, Lowe Bros. General Superintendent, to SherwinWilliams director and Lowe Brothers President Donald A. Kohr, Feb. 24, 1945 [0007SWP-000030971]. 129 Ultimately, Kehoe decided on 80 g/dl as the blood-lead level beyond which, for adults in the industrial setting, there was danger of acute lead poisoning. CW 243. -48- 132. By 1926, the broader medical community had identified toys, cribs, furniture, as well as woodwork and any other surface an infant or toddler was likely to chew or suck on or that, if peeling, could generate lead dust, as possible sources of childhood lead poisoning. In 1930, Dr. Kehoe already shared this view, which he reiterated over the years.130 In 1933, commenting on McKhann and Vogt's paper, Robert Kehoe observed; It is of particular interest and importance that in children there is a striking tendency for symptoms of the central nervous system to develop, indicating the fundamental difference in the disease in children and adults. ... The preventive aspect of this problem should . . . be greatly stressed. ... [SJtrenuous efforts must be devoted to eliminating lead from [children's] environment.i3i 133. In 1935, Kehoe warned that, although adults exposed to lead are not necessarily poisoned, [t]here is every reason for suspecting the existence of significant and dangerous lead exposure in the case of children with a history of pica. The occurrence of lead-containing commodities and the use of lead paints on furniture, toys, and other objects, within the reach of small children is much too common to ignore. The existence of symptoms even slightly suggestive of 130 Kehoe to Wurth, September 25, 1930 (KE 00608-09). Dr. KarDWufth had written to Kehoe from Germanyo ask if Kehoe was doing any work on lead paint. Wurth questioned the stand of the U.S.(government on this question. In his response, Kehoe acknowledged that lead paint could be inhaled as dust or ingested and could thus poison children. 131 Robert Kehoe, abstract of discussion in Charles F. McKhann and E.C. Vogt "Lead Poisoning in Children," JAMA. 101 (October 7,1933), 1135. ph^kj,his^quote. The jiartxoiJiS--fnnrRab in TL-- ~ Two years earlier, Kehoe had written a letter to the editor of JA ^A -to point out that a recent article in that journal had understated the importance of lead poisoning among painters. "[T]o advise the public incorrectly in this matter is rather serious," Kehoe wrote. Robert Kehoe to Morris Fishbein, February 27, 1931 [KE 00652]. 1 Q\ t plumbism should result in prompt investigation of the child and his surroundings.132 134. In 1937, Kehoe wrote to Frederick Hoffman that "most cases of lead poisoning in infants and children come from chewing objects coated with metallic lead and lead pigments."133 In 1938, Kehoe wrote to Metropolitan Life's Anthony Lanza that he had "seen several fatal cases of lead poisoning in children as the result of ingesting lead from toys [and] playpens."134 135. In 1944, shortly after the publication of the Byers and Lord article on the effects of lead on long-term intellectual development, LIA Secretary Wormser wrote to Kehoe. Wormser acknowledged that if the findings of Byers and Lord were correct, "we have indeed a most serious health hazard," and worried that "other doctors will accept as authoritative this paper of Byers and Lord and probably build upon it still more fantastic assertions."135 Kehoe wrote back that "I fear that you will be disappointed by my answer, for I am disposed to agree with the conclusions arrived at by the authors, and to believe that their evidence, if not entirely adequate, is worthy of very serious consideration. ... [In my own work I have seen] serious mental retardation in children that have recovered from lead poisoning . . . ."136 132 Kehoe, "The Diagnosis of Lead Poisoning in the Light of Recent Information," The Journal of Medicine. 3-8 (Dec. 1935). lj | 133 R. Kehoe to F. Hoffman, June 26, 1937 (Kehoe Archives, Box 10Cy\ '"Correspondence). CW 266 fn 28. ^ l' 134 Kehoe to Lanza. March 18, 1938 [KE 00889-90O rwkffii^ 135 Wormser to Kehoe, CHECK QUOTE., 19, 1944 [60022-25] ALA|^GUAGE ADDED - 136 Kehoe to Wormser, February 7, 1944 [60026]. '-CHECK-QUOTE: -50- 136. Nevertheless, after receiving reassurance from Aub, Wormser concluded: while there may have been some lead poisoning among children in Boston, it has never been conclusively proven and, that the case made out by Drs. Byers and Lord that there is a connection between retarded mental development in later years and lead poisoning itself, is far from proven. As Dr. Aub told me, he felt that children who have ... the disease known as "pica" which caused them to chew on inedible articles, were subnormal to start with!137 137. Whatever Kehoe's willingness to express these views in private correspondence, his indigantion --if such it was -- expressed itself only within narrow bounds. Kehoe's publications and those of his laboratory gave no hint that lead paint was a major cause of lead poisoning. In-4940-a-memberof--KetltieVKeftering Laboratory publistred--1 f^paper in 194'CrTiTwEich*Ihe dism issed isoningTrorrrjpalht asTargeTyar^ _ kh Ith e y \ ^ing^oflhe'pastT ^K ehoe, who hada reputanbiTTor mohitoTtng^^etttrmg^aboratory---- - -- ^publications carefuJly^aasomdoubtedly aware of this miscjiarac-terizatiofr A report on lead poisoning published in 1943 by the Committee on Lead Poisoning of the American Public Health Association --a Committee on which both Aub and Kehoe were senior members -- contained a section by Kehoe on "Non-Industrial Lead Poisoning," which included articles on battery casings, snuff, water, etc., but no mention of paint as a source of lead poisoning.139 !39 Committee on Lead Poisoning of the Industrial Hygiene Section, Am. Pub. Health Ass'n, Occupation Lead Exposure and Lead Poisoning (1943). HOL n.146 --PETER -51- 138. To counter the findings of Byers and Lord and others that lead was poisonous, even in small doses, the LIA organized a joint Conference on Lead Poisoning, together with the American Medical Association in 1946, and published in Occupational Medicine in 1947. At that conference, Wormser delivered a keynote address in which he ridiculed Byers and Lord, and strongly rejected claims that lead was dangerous.140 The LIA maintained the position that "the lead hazard in industry and to the public is relatively small and can be effectively controlled when it cannot be entirely eliminated," and that, "it requires careful work to determine whether or not a person has been leaded." "Considering the thousands on thousands of homes painted and protected with white lead and the rare and doubtful occurrence of any lead poisoning to the public because of its use," Wormser said, "I think that the record here is also in favor of lead."141 139. At the conference, a Dr. John McDonald of Baltimore offered to show Wormser a repainted "crib which caused at least three cases of lead poisoning." Wormser responded that he has "taken into consideration, the danger from re-paint jobs. So far as white inside paint is concerned, there is no lead in it." This was untrue: at that time, and for some years thereafter, the LIA and the defendant manufacturers continued to promote and sell white lead paints for interior use. 140. Kehoe had reviewed a draft of this speech, and told the LIA that it wrong. While he made clear that he would be willing to assist the LIA's Board, he had warned the LIA against taking this extreme position: "I think ... I should warn you and the 140 "Facts and Fallacies Concerning Exposure to Lead," Occupational Medicine____J 1947, pp. 135-44. [Spriggs] ' 141 Wormser, "Facts and Fallacies of Lead Exposure," at 1 0 ,_; [see also Fairhall, Public Health Reports, 53, No. 29 FOR WHAT?] -52- Board that it would be a mistake for Mr. Wormser to publish material and information of the type that is outlined in his preliminary report . . . He particularly objected to Wormser's denial of the importance of lead poisoning in children due to paint. Wormser had objected to the statements in the press that "paint on cribs and toys has been a source of lead poisoning among children" because toy and crib manufacturers had ceased using lead based paint on these items.142 But Kehoe pointed out that he could "show him records of a number of cases that are fully authenticated even to his satisfaction "He [Wormser] tends to refer critically to the observations made by the men in the Health Department of the City of Baltimore. I happen to know these men and their methods of working. The methods are good and the results obtained have been sound. They have demonstrated clearly that a rather surprising number of youngsters in the city of Baltimore have had significant and dangerous exposure to lead in the environment. ... Unfortunately for Wormser's thesis, comparable results have been obtained in almost every other area of the United States where there have been facilities that enable accurate investigation of this type to be made."143 141. At the Conference itself, Kehoe was equally direct: "More lead poisoning in children has occurred than we would like to think about. The number that are 142 Wormser, "Facts and Fallacies of Lead Exposure," p. 12 [courtesy of Warren, 100064], ^ 143 Kehoe to LH. Schaefer, January ^ 1 9 ^ , LdS; , 100065. Kehoe pointed out that Wormser was dead wrong about the benign impact of lead on children. "I cannot fail^to be somewhat critical of the comments of Mr. Wormser on various phases of the subject of lead poisoning in children. Whatever he may wish to think about this matter lead poisoning in children is all too frequent. When it occurs, it is usually a very serious disease, and for this reason the warnings given to the spublic through various avenues are likely to be useful, and therefore should not be unduly criticized, even if they do contain some misinformation." id, W H A T I I S ^ O L A E F E I F S ^ ------ - -53- actually reported in medical literature have very little relationship to the number that actually occur. Lead poisoning in a child is a serious disease."144 142. At an LIA meeting in the summer of 1953, Kehoe proposed the solution legislated by France in 1909 [??]: elimination of the interior use of lead paints. "[The]most effective solution of this problem. . . [is] to eliminate the use of paints . . . of more than very minor lead content for all inside decoration in the household and in the environment of young children. If this is not done voluntarily by a wise industry concerned to handle its own business properly, it will be accomplished ineffectually and with irrelevant difficulties and disadvantages through legislation."145 Even at this late date, when the production of white lead was a m eager___tons per year, and when the outcry against childhood lead poisoning was reaching new heights, the LIA was not prepared to accept Kehoe's suggestion. B. The LIA's Damage Control.ProMotfoa And Lobbying: 1928-54 143. The LIA acknowledged its awareness of the problem of childhood lead poisoning by conducting an investigation in 1930 "to ascertain if any lead paint is being used 344 Robert Kehoe, Discussion in Conference on Lead Poisoning, 7th Annual Conference on Industrial Health, American Medical Association, September 30-October 2, 1946, p.52. Kehoe repeatedly expressed similar thoughts. As in 1930, so in 1945, he did not believe that childhood lead poisoning was limited to children with abnormal appetites. The danger of childhood lead poisoning in children, he said, "ought to lead individuals to be careful to avoid the use of lead compounds in any large extent on surfaces within the environment of small children. ... Eventually, everything [small children] get on their hands goes into their mouths, and therefore considerably greater opportunities exist for the dangerous exposure of small children of a variety of materials." Kehoe to Dr. R.L. Gorrell, City-County Health / Unit, Las Animas County, Trinidad, Colorado, September 5, 1945, [no Bates no.] . Again,! in 1951, Kehoe stated, "The problem, therefore, is not so much that children chew things but that there are things in their immediate environment whteh offer onnortnnitiec to vield cons to paint or decorate cribs, children's beds, or furniture."146 The LIA's "investigation" consisted of the following letter, dated November 30, 1930: We are conducting an investigation to ascertain if any lead paint is being used to paint or decorate cribs, children's beds or furniture. Will you therefore, kindly let us know if it is your practice to use any white lead in painting this type of furniture. A return envelope is enclosed, and a simple notation at the bottom of this letter will suffice.147 Only twelve responses were received, and these responses point to the woeful inadequacy of the survey. The letter asked only about "white lead," which the readers undoubtedly interpreted to mean pure white lead. Five of the 12 companies said that they used only enamel, or only lacquer, apparently noHpiizing that these mixed paints could contain significant amounts of white le a d ^ rh ^ th fe r companies said they did not use "white lead,; but did not say whether they used mixed paints that may have contained white lead as an ingredient. Given that paint labels did not list their ingredients, it is unlikely that these companies even knew what ingredients were in their paints. / w f Q-. 0 144. Based on these meager and inconclusive responses, LIA Secretary Wormser assured Drs. McKhann and Vogt that "the manufacturers of cribs and toys, informed of the danger to small children from the ingestion of lead paint, have cooperated by substituting other types of pigments."148 However, the LIA's survey letter did not inform the ederick L. Hoffman, Lead-Poisoning Legislation and Statistics (1933). 147 `Lead Industries Association Questionnaire,' included in F.L. Hoffman, LeadPoisoning Legislation And Statistics (1933). a 148 `.F. McKhann and E.C. Vogt, "Lead Poisoning In Children," 101 JAMA 1131, 1131 (1933). McKhann and Vogt specifically state that their information was based on "[pjersonal communication to the authors of a survey of crib and toy manufacturers by the Lead Industries Association, secretary, F.E. Wormser." Ich at n.5. -55- manufacturers of any danger, nor is there any evidence that even the handful of manufacturers who responded to the LIA's survey made any change whatsoever in their practices. 145. Moreover, the LIA focussed only on furniture, completely ignoring the danger of lead paint on woodwork and walls, which had been recognized by the then-recent article in United States Daily, by Robert Kehoe, and by the Australian researchers, among others. 146. The L!A did not advocate the use of warning labels, nor did it encourage the elimination of interior use of white lead. Only these measures could have served to diminish or eliminate the problem. To the contrary, as documented below, the LIA and its members continued to promote lead paint for interior use, and even for use on toys and children's furniture. 147. The LIA lobbied agailist ami regulatiomthat would have limited the use of white lead. In this respect, the LIA's activities supplemented those of the National Paint, Varnish and Lacquer Association ("NPVLA"). That organization's predecessor, the National Paint, Oil and Varnish Association, had had a nationwide legislative committee, with "correspondents" in almost every state, in place since the first decade of the century.149 Ni xaatuiov nn aa li LjuAe^aaud-jp/So hu eb ni Ww %^rfr iinagmi nsg,N^fiis:Hdden sevrivy ec du vonn twh&NPVLA's executive committee ^tferougbrthe thirties.150 .yZ , (OX- f ' U t pr 149 The successful lobbying procedures of this.organization are described in G.B. Heckel, The Paint Industry: Reminiscences and^Comments (St. Louis, American Paint Journal Co., 1931), pp. 321-23. [HOL 23]/ y-......... ... ..... 148. In 1933, Manfred Bowditch of the Massachusetts Division of Industrial Safety proposed regulations concerning the reporting of lead poisoning. As reported in the LIA's minutes, Wormser met with Bowditch, and persuaded him to retreat: During the year an effort was made by the Massacusetts Department of Labor to establish regulations which would have seriously affected the use of white lead in painting buildings. This subject was discussed by the Secretary (Wormser) with the State official having the matter in hand and a satisfactory adjustment procured. It was particularly important to obtain a hearing and settlement in Massachusetts otherwise we might have been plagued with, an extension of similar restrictive painting legislation in other States, affecting the use of white lead.151 Bowditch was subsequently to become Director of Health and Safety of the LIA. 149. In November 1935 Wormser "was authorized [by the LIA] to assist Mr. [Manfred] Bowditch [Director of the Division of Occupational Hygiene, Massachiic^ttc Department of Labor and Industries] in discouraging the use of white \e&d"7m to; children's fuminire.152 There is no evidence that the LIA ever took any action with regard to the thousands of toy and furniture manufacturers outside of Massachussets. 150. The LIA sought to rebut every finding of lead poisoning, from whatever source, and to persuade or threaten the authors of adverse research to modify their reports. In 1930, when the United States Daily published an article on childhood lead poisoning, Secretary Wormser complained to the LIA Board about this and a New York Daily News article that, "[0]f late we have received much undeserved publicity in newspapers damaging to lead products," and proposed to counteract it by "a program of vigorously investigating each alleged case that arises, taking any remedial steps if nect ~~ '' , June 5, 1934. dtecLin HOL a 152 LIA Executive Committee, November 22, 1935 [532C research in lead poisoning, and publishing literature showing the useful role of lead in industry."153 It was in response to these articles that the LIA conducted the ah'TM "survey" that led it to conclude that there was no longer any danger to childrer paint. YAIR: How do you know the survey was a response? 151. Responding to attacks on lead was one of the LIA's major activities. 1935 Wormser told the Board of Directors "there has been no let up in the amount of attention given by the health writers to the subject of lead poisoning and this problem still remains one of great importance to us."154 In May 1939, Wormser told the Board of Directors that "the lead industry received two blasts in the press recently" and that "as usual the Association investigated these attacks."155 In January 1940 the Directors were informed that "attacks against the use of lead on the ground of lead poisoning continued to be made . . . ,"156 Six months later, at the annual meeting of the LIA, Wormser reported to the members that "the large amount of space given to lead by medical columnists in the daily press by the medical profession, by consumer organizations and by authors of scientific subjects has increased the amount of attention that we have had to give to [the] subject of lead toxicology in 1939."157 This was the year in which the LIA's large-scale White Lead Promotion Campaign, described below, got under way. 0 I!53 LIA Directors Meeting, Dec. 12, 1930 [LIA 00039-41]. | .... -- " j pm h-----a- - Boa-r-d-- ---o---f---D-- i--r--e--c--t--o---r--s---M- e^ eting, O-- c-t-o---b--e- r 1, 1935 L[-L-I. Aw --0---0---1- ~57' J]*. | < 155 LIA Board of Directors Meeting, May 16, 1939 [LIA 00227]. / 156 LIA Board of Directors Meeting, January 17, 1940 [LIA 00237], 157 LIA Board of Directors Meeting, June 6, 1940 [LIA 20653-54]. 152. In January 1941, "Lead poisoning matters continue to absorb a large amount of time of the Association . . . ."1S8 By June 1943, Wormser reported that the LIA "continued to meet attacks on lead due to its toxic qualities by correcting published erroneous statements. This particular activity is apparently endless . . . ."159 In 1944, "Our industry' continues to be plagued unfairly by attacks made upon lead products because of their toxicity . . . . [W]e must be losing a vast amount of business each year because of the fact that lead has such unpleasant connections in the minds of so many Americans."160 In mid-1945 the LIA investigated "the alleged high incidence of lead poisoning among children along the eastern seaboard as reported in newspapers and medical literature. Our studies cast considerable doubt about the genuineness of many cases."161 153. Louis Dublin, the statistician at Metropolitan Life who reported the poisoning of children in that company's Statistical Bulletin in 1930, felt sufficiently threatened by the LIA to request that Ella Oppenheimer of the United States Children's Bureau not refer to Metropolitan as the source of any information the Children's Bureau might use in releases on lead poisoning in children: In connection with this whole matter please be advised that our Bulletin article received a great deal of publicity against which there was strong remonstrance by the Lead Industries Association. You will readily understand that we wish to avoid any controversy with the lead people. Please, therefore, do not 158 LIA Board of Directors Meeting, January 7, 1941 [LIA 00254] '-/ 159 LIA Board of Directors Meeting, June 4, 1943 [LIA 00289]. v/ j ,/ 160 LIA Annual Meeting, Minutes, May 15, 1944 [LIA 20713]. 7 /U 161 LIA, Annual Meeting, Minutes, May 29, 1945 [5680]. -59- mention the Metropolitan, either directly or by inference, in connection with whatever releases you may make,162 154. In response to the papers of McKhann and Vogt, in the spring of 19 Wormser "visited Boston for the purpose of discussing the subject of lead poisoning in infants with some of the medical profession there who have caused us to receive somec^C^ unfavorable publicity about lead." He concluded, "the visit was worthwhile."163 As noted above, McKhann and Vogt subsequently reported that the LIA had informed them that, due to the actions of the lead industry, lead was no longer used on cribs and toys.16* The LIA had no basis for making this statement, and it was false. ~~ Y56r^7\n August 1938, the NPVLA issued a spedai drculai/warning members agamphising toxic materials^ especially Teadr4n'pamrfiU0ys.165 156. On July 11, 1939, the NPVLA Executive Committee met and discu the NPVLA's "responsibility to the public and the protection of the industry itself with respect to the use of toxic materials in the industry's products." 166 National Lead and Sherwin-Williams had representatives on the Committee who were present. The Committee 162 Louis Dublin to Ella Oppenheimer, September 14, 1933, courtesy Christopher / ,_0 Warren. See HOL 25 for bolded text. 63 LIA Directors Meeting, September 30, 1931 [Boston 4843], j 164 Charles F. McKhann and E.C. Vogt "Lead Poisoning in Children," JAMA. 101 A' (October 7, 1933) 1131. 165 W W V) l^--NPVLA Executive Committee Minutes, July 11, 1939, [NCA 0 02880 & 02892-93]. -60- t/> & discussed preparation of "a confidential, carefully worded letter to be sent to all Class A To tt (jJf % ) I. members to be strictly informative and nothing else Glidden was-a-Class A m e m b e r^ iiu r^ y yet s 157. On July 18, 1939, the Executive Committee sent to Class A members a letter marked "CONFIDENTIAL Not for Publication," in which it informed those members as follows: [T]he vital factor concerning toxic materials is to intelligently safeguard the public. People may feel safer in buying materials whose danger they know rather than materials unknown to them. **** The following pigments may be considered toxic if they find their way into the stomach. ... **** Lead Compounds. White lead, red lead, litharge, lead chromates ...., or other lead pigments. The NPVLA believed that manufacturers would apply "every precautionary measure in manufacturing, in selling and in use where toxic materials are likely to or do enter a product." It noted that "children's toys, equipment, furniture, etc. are not the only consideration."568 158. The letter went on to notify the Class A members of their legal duty to warn: General - The statement of legal principles listed below was prepared for and distributed by the Manufacturing Chemists' Association for the guidance of its members concerned with labeling problems, and is supported by decisions of the courts ....1 1. A manufacturer who puts out a dangerous article or substance without accompanying it with a warning as to its dangerous properties is ordinarily liable for any damage which results from such failure to warn. 8, [BECTSR-CITE.]. 168 NPVLA letter "To Class `A' Members,' July 18, 1939, [NCA 00527-00530]. n 1 -6L ,, I s- I Afi U p f t loJ& d c^ . a . ' U ' lhusTT1) ; Q-i,cAo<^~r, a c ^ - 1' c-/>etj- (y> /' pSuMi list, lead carbonate. However, in the absencKof labelling laws, it was often impossible for consumers to know which paints contained lead. The pamphlet warned that "it is not \ safe to take the word of the salesman as to whether [a pitint] is harmless or not because \ / Al-' he may not know."172 Following a letter-writing campaign bj^the industry, including^hek ^'Wj fi NPVLA and Glidden, the pamphlet was withdrawn in 1949.173 N ______ were / * 7\ /, / memebers of the NFVLA in the late 1940s. YAIR: Can you fill in?? 162. In 1946 Wormser reported to the LIA that "attention to the serious f problem faced by all the lead industries because of the toxic nature of our metal is occupying a growing rather than a diminishing amount of the Association's time. This is largely owing to attacks on lead that cannot be ignored for, if unchallenged they may very easily lead to the sponsoring of totally unwarranted State and Federal legislation of a regulatory or prohibitive character . . . . Suffice it to say here that this is an unending battle from which we c withdraw at out peril."574 163. Through the end of the 1940s the LIA maintained that "the problem of lead hygiene is an endless one" that could be addressed by improvements in the workplace and reassurance to the public about the safety of lead: "It is one of the most important activities of the Lead Industries Association that there remains an appalling amount of prejudice against the use of lead products based on fancied notions of lead toxicity."172*475 172 U.S. Children's Bureau, "Paints, Pigments and Dyes," U.S. Dept, of Labor (Dec. 1945). HOL fn. 133 - PETER *rn? 1,3 HOL 33-34. GET from Peter. 174 LIA, Annual Meeting, Minutes, "Report of the Secretary," April 26, 1946 [5692 FTC]. 175 LIA, Annual Meeting, Report of the Secretary, May 9, 1947 LIA 23087. -63- ( u fe 164. Warning the public was still out of the question for the LIA. Indeed, in 1948, it formalized its informal agreement with the American Zinc Industry ("AZI") that prevented the latter from advertising the toxicity of lead-based paints. The need for a more nerdformal policy emerged during the 1940s, after the publication oLstaients that made "comparisons between the toxicity of lead and zinc products. T^QieaJA and AZI endorsed "a statement of policy which declared that, while the American Zinc Institute and the Lead Industries Association should feel free to defend any unfair attack upon zinc and lead and their products, any defense measureiused in behalf of one product which directly or indirectly, stated or implied, involve an attack ypOfTqnother, should be declared inimical to the interests of the combined industries."177* 165. In 1949 the LIA collaborated with the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company to educate parents about "the soundest approach to the problem of p^yentii childhood lead cases," indicating their continuing awareness of the problem.!7S 166. In 1950, the LIA was extremely active in seeking to modify and repeal state regulations and other restrictions on the use of lead paint.579 What do these minutes llsay' ; 176 Abstract from Minutes of Meeting of Industry Development Committee f the American Zinc Institute on December 18, 1947 (LIA 354), ys 177 Letter from Ernest V. Gent to Robert L. Ziegfeld, Secretary LIA, December 31, 1947 (LIA353). Letter from Robert L. Ziegfeld to E.V. Gent, April 9, 1948 (LEA355) and LIA Board of Directors Minutes May 21, 1948 (LIA 343). 178 LIA, Annual Meeting, Report of the Secretary, April 13-14, 1950, LIA 22016. 179 LA, Annual Meeting, Report of the Secretary, April 13-14, 1950, LIA 22016. -64- 167. On October 15, 1951, Robert L. Ziegfeld, Wormser's successor as LIA Secretary, informed the LIA's Board that the problem of childhood lead poisoning "might be of greater magnitude than originally anticipated," acknowledging that "the results of the Boston studies, supported by the [Lead Industries] Association for several years, indicatecMhot ~ /jd i'e d im A i i approximately 50 percent of the casesAvere definitely shown to be lead poisoning." 80 f \ \ 168. For the LIA, warning labels were still not a "feasible approach." indeed, the LIA opposed or sought to water down all warning label legislation at least through the mid-1950s. However, jthe alarming number of cases of alleged lead poisoning, particularly in children, which are being reported" prompted the LIA to devote $39,000 to the production of a "motion picture [which was] the only feasible approach to the problem."18081182^ v ' 169. In 1952, the LIA collected "nearly 500 newspaper clippings featuring lead poisoning, often in sizable headlines." The LIA noted that '|ijidhood lead poisoning continued to be a major problem and source of much adverse publicity." [The LIA systematically attended "many meeting of organizations dealing with our own health problems." These included meetings of the AMA, the American Public Health Association, .... the Greater New York Safety Council, and the National Safety Council, among others.] S2/ 170. Manfred Bowditch, former Director of Massachusetts' Division of Occupational Hygiene, had become the director of Health and Safety of the LIA in 1948. Supninarizing his activities in 1952, Bowditch called childhpod lead poispning "a major \ ) I 3 V C a ? `headache' and a source of much adverse publicity." He counted 197 reports of lead A 180 LIA Board of Directors Meeting, Oct. 15, 1951 (LIA 453). 181 LIA. Board of Directors Meeting, December 16, 1952, LIA 00492. 182 LIA, Annual Meeting, "Lead Hygiene," April 9-10, 1953, LIA 22720. -65- poisoning in nine cities of which 40 were fatal, although he noted that this was a "incomplete" estimate, especially for New York City. In New York City alone, 44 cases were reported of which 14 were fatal. Reports from health departments were demonstrating the widespread nature of the lead paint hazard. 171. Although the LIA recognized that it was losing the fight to show that the number of cases was exaggerated, and that to continue would be "prohibitively expensive and time-consuming, JTsowditch and the LIA focussed on "securing more accurate diagnoses of lead poisoning/' which Bowditch thought could forestall "the likelihood of widespread governmental prohibition of the use of lead paints on dwellings."*184 172. As discussed below, in 1952, the LA published Lead in Modern Industry, which still advocated the interior use of white lead. 173. By the mld-50s the LIA was under siege as articles in the popular and professional press continued to document new sources of lead in the environment and the dangers it posed to children and the broader population. Despite these continued warnings from inside and outside the industry, the LIA persisted in minimizing the dangers of lead to children. As late as 1955, the LIA was still referring to this problem as a "headache" for the industry, claiming that many other common substances were "responsible for many more child poisoning than lead."185 Again, in 1956, childhood lead poisoning continued to be seen as a "major problem and source of adverse publicity." The LIA noted a headline from the New York Daily News. "Lead Poisoning Killed 10 Kids in Brooklyn in '55, Highest Toll in the 183 Bowditch to Ziegfield, December 16, 1952, courtesy of Warren, 100070. 184 Bowditch to Ziegfield, December 16, 1952, courtesy of Warren, 100070. 185 LIA, Annual Meeting, April 27-28, 1955, LIA 22887-88. -66- City," that was "based largely on data from the Health Department."186187In addition to "the common run of newspaper studies on childhood and other types of plumbism," the LIA noted two "items of adverse publicity transcending [them] in importance: In July 1956 Parade Magazine, which reached over 7,000,000 readers in 50 newspapers across the country, ran an article entitled "Don't Let YOUR Child Get Lead Poisoning," and the CBS television network also carried a broadcast on childhood lead poisoning.587 [The LIA also attended meetings where childhood lead poisoning was addressed, negotiated with producers to revise scripts on television that mentioned lead poisoning] [cite?] VI. THE PROMOTION OF WHITE LEAD FROM 1930 THROUGH THE 1950s_________________________________ A. The LlA's Promotional Activities 174. The LIA engaged in extensive promotion of white lead. In November, 1930, the LIA began publication of "Lead" magazine, which was to provide painters among others, "new and old uses of lead." About 16,000 copies were distributed.188 Lead was a success: "[H]ardly an issue goes out but what results in a stimulation of inquiry from architects, plumbers and others." 189 175. In 1931 the Lead Industries Association produced a book, "Useful Information About Lead," that suggested that the "prospective paint user" would be well 186 LIA, "Quarterly Report of the Secretary," April 2, 1956, LIA 22961. 187 LIA, Quarterly Report of the Secretary, October 1, 1956, LIA 23032. 188 LIA, Annual Meeting of Members, February 25, 1931, 5490. 189 LIA, Report of the Secretary, Annual Meeting, June 5, 1934, 5539. -67- advised to use paints containing a high percentage of lead, "the higher the better." In a section entitled, "White Lead in Paint," it stated that "well painted buildings, both inside and out, go hand in hand with improved sanitation." The book included no warnings of the dangers of lead, despite the fact it was produced "to disseminate accurate information about lead products and how they best may be used."190 176. Believing that "there was a definite relation between the use of white lead and the use of lumber in construction," in 1934 the LIA initiated a "Forest Products -- Better Paint Campaign."191 177. In 1938 --the same year that the NPVLA issued its letter about the duty to warn about lead hazards --the LIA, recognizing the declining sales of white lead, began its White Lead Promotion Campaign, the single largest activity undertaken by the LIA up until that date. The LIA wrote, "This campaign by showing the importance of white lead to industry would help offset the constant threat of anti-lead legislation and propaganda." 192 Tle"l3ampal^ ?) spending more than a million dollars to promote while lead paint. National Lead, IS&R, -and-Eagle-Picher, W.P. Fuller, and MacGregor all contributed to the White Lead Promotion campaign. Glidden and Sherwin-Williams particpated in the Campaign in the post-war years. YAtft:--Evidence?? 178. National Lead announced that, "This Lead Industries campaign ... should do more than confirm their faith in a time-tested material. It should furnish the incentive to 190 Lead Industries Association, Useful Information About Lead, first edition, 1931, pp. 49-53, 104. 19i LIA, Report of the Secretary, Annual Meeting, June 5, 1934, 5540. 192 Attachment to letter from F.O. Case of IS&R to Frederick Laist, Vice-President, IS&R, Dec. 12, 1938:^SG~xh-r-66. r, f pyr>~ ) , ! (X o i u o q . -'-c j i ; ) } T e 4 2 ) / <7 <7 support white-lead more vigorously than ever. It shaeffd hefp pave the way for increased profit and prestige for both painters and dealers. ... y 5his campaign, running parallel to national Dutch Boy campaign, doubles the amount of advertising ordinarily used in presenting white-lead to the public."193 179. The LiA ppointed an advi^pry committee for the Campaign, which held its first meeting on March 8, 1939.\^t that first the tonicity o-utertednpigmbts, discussmg "[t]h\disti t' ticitrti between carbonVte and sulfate white lead," and-rt-was "agreed thaDthe campaign, in fts^advertising and litefcgture, *should make no distinction between the /wo akibis was not a problem whidb would afise until the question of standard specification/ had to be considered." t 180. The advertising itself was subject to review and approval by a comm of the LIA. Advertising appeared in the following general readership magazines: Saturday Evening Post; Colliers: Better Homes and Gardens: American Home: Country Gentleman '^/ ^\ Successful Farming. Total circulation of these magazines was put at 13,881,000, and it was Y V / ^ estimated that 67,570,526 separate messages would be carried.194 The LIA also placed at least 75 articles about white lead in the first two years in Painter and Decorator, the official publication of the Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America, and other trade publications. In first two years, it released 91 columns of "Home Owner's Forum" to 800 newspapers and 11 "House of the Month" features to 500 newspapers. The 193 "Lead Industry Begins Campaign to Advertise White-lead C am paign^Dutch Bo Painter. 32 (1939), 27, NLI 003310. 194 "Lead Industry Begins Campaign to Advertise White-Lead," Dutch Boy painter. 32 (1939), 27 (NLI 003310). whatare 32 and 27?? Ag I ..... ...... ...... . - c , if A } X g t/isvy .69- J, Pl- < 4 A- LIA also helped to write the Iowa State College Circular "Selecting and Applying Paints" with 110,000 copies distributed in the first two years. In the first two years 150,000 leaflets and broadsides were sent to stores, stockholders and employees. The LIA mailed 80,000 copies of its promotional booklet "What to Expect from Lead Paint" and 35,000 copies of the leaflet "How Lumber and Paint Keep 3Your Home Always in Style." The circulation of the /#YM n i3LIA's promotional journal Lead increased to 32.000. fcitelj,-- ,, t/} / 181. Wormser made clear that white lead was being promoted for use in interiors, a promotion which proved successful.195 182. In 1939 the LIA promoted white lead among farmers and their children by starting a project with the 4-H clubs, mirroring National Lead's promotions directed at children.196 The LIA also sought to expand its markets in urban areas, including New York City.197 In 1940 the campaign was expanded to include municipal, state and county institutions, targeting schools and even health departments themselves. Two representativesof the LIA traveled throughout the country visiting public institutions to persuade them to use white lead. The representatives described how they particularly sought to persuade school __________^ _____littee on White Lead Promotion, "Minutes of 2nd Meeting," 12 April 1939; Advisory Committee on White lead Promotion, "Minutes of 10th Meeting," Oct. 20, 1941, LIA 08939. 196 LIA Advisory Committee of White lead Promotion, "Minutes of 4th Meeting," 27 September 1939, LIA 08841; see also Minutes of 6* Meeting, December 14, 1939, in which they found that their efforts had generated so much interest that "steps had been taken to expand the project,in Iowa as quickly as possible." LIA 08866. 197 In October 1940 the LIA reported that "In the course of his work with government officials in the neighborhoods of NYC, our representative also conducted a survey of painting practices of 36 real estate developments. A separate report of this survey has been sent to interested members." LIA Advisory Committee of White lead Promotion, "Minutes of 8th Meeting," October 18, 1940, LIA 08900. ,,70- officials in numerous districts to use white lead in the schools' interiors. In Pierce County, Washington the LIA representative visited the county health department where he "explained properties of interior white lead paint, stressing sanitary aspects of a highly desirable and washable surface.198 183. In 1939 the LIA reported to its members that thanks to its efforts a number of trade associations had agreed to recommend "the use of white lead exclusively" and some paint companies had "increased the lead content of their paint."599 184. By 1940, Wormser reported to the LIA members on the positive results of its campaign, which was needed, he said, because lead "is constantly under attack on account of its toxic qualities." He told of the "growing tendency of paint manufacturers to add a product to their line consisting of 100% prepared white lead paint in colors . . . . It is also noteworthy that attacks on white lead, which was one of the reasons for undertaking our campaign have declined greatly.... "200 185. As a result of the LIA's efforts, mixed paint companies and white lead paint companiesNJbegan to manufacture white lead paint in the ready-to-use form and it sold ^ 2cv" \ n d weli.yWhite lead was made available in more and more colors in prepared paint form. "Mixed paint manufacturers --who three years ago showed little respect for white lead -- now j\(LJiIbth jUc/'f jjM ) y,,L h & 'Y I tJ 198 09116. LIA, White "Lead Promotion Campaign, Annual Summary, October 11, 1940, LIA 599 LIA, Annual Meeting, May 16, 1939, 5606. 200 LIA, Report of the Secretary, Annual Meeting, June 6, 1940, 5615. >6 fti G / Gn f e p o A j O Q -tvU r l( f lt 2/ show a change of and a willingness to increase their use of white lead pigment under pressure of defense shortages. Many of them definitely favor the Lead Industries Campaign."201 186. The LIA asserted that "A ground swell of white lead interest had been set in motion in important places affecting the consuming habits of the next generation. Vocational school instructors, 4-H club leaders and the like have eagerly received white lead promotional material and expressed a genuine desire for more."202 187. The LIA saw its promotional campaign as an important antidote to the negative publicity that lead was receiving in the national press: "The problem is [sic?] how to obtain a better press for our products is indeed a troublesome one. Our promotional work as [sic?] especially our national advertising helps to build up good-will for our metal and in the long run will share in dispelling anxiety about its use. In any event the problem remains serious for our industry. Hardly a day goes passes but what this office has to devote some attention to lead poisoning."202 188. In December 1945, the LIA proposed another full-scale campaign to counteract the "medical and public misinformation usually amounting to actual prejudice against lead, because of its toxic qualities, [which] is a subject of vital importance to all the lead industries in the United States . . . The LIA complained of the spread of considerable anti-lead propaganda and ... occasional faulty medical research which has penetrated deep into medical annals and caused many physicians and hospitals to assume 201 LIA Advisory Committee of White lead Promotion, "Minutes of 10th Meeting," Oct. 20, 1941, LIA 08958. 202 LIA Advisory Committee of White lead Promotion, "Minutes of 10th Meeting," Oct. 20, 1941, LIA 08961.203 203 LIA, Annual Report, September 22, 1941. -72- erroneous positions on the question of lead poisoning. ... [This problem is] so fundamental . . . to the .future welfare of the lead industries and the continued manufacture and use of many important lead products ... that unless some immediate attention is paid to the problem above and beyond what the Association has already accomplished [and] is currently doing, the opposing forces may grow strong enough to do us injury which it would take years of work to correct. The LIA called for a concerted effort, which it deceptively named The Safety and Hygiene Program, to undercut the existing literature: "The dissemination of accurate publicity about lead to newspapers, magazines and radio should be organized specifically through a professional agency such as our own advertising agency."204 189. From the beginning, the LIA promoted white lead for interior as we exterior use, without distinction. Some of these advertisements are described in the Affidavit of Lawrence White. Many LIA advertisements were directed specifically toward encouraging the use of lead paint in the interiors of "low-cost homes." The September 1941 issue recounted how the entire town of Boys Town, Nebraska, created to house homeless, abandoned boys, was painted with white lead, noting particularly the beautiful white lead paint job on the interior of the new chapel. (LIA25662). The November 1939 issue contained an article about the new home built with U.S.D.A. assistance for "Willis and Julia Thurman, Negro small land owners in Elmore County, Alabama," and their children, at a cost of $690.50, in which "all painting was done with white lead and oil, similar to the practice of the Farm Security Administration." (LIA25558)., During World War II, the LIA crowed about the construction of a Bridgeport, Connecticut housing project by the Federal Works Agency, n .^ "Painted Inside and Out with White Lead." (LIA25699). In July 1939, under the headline, 204 LIA, Executive Committee Meeting, Exhibit D, December 28, 1945 [LIA 02726-29], -73- Successful Low-Cost Homes Benefit With White Lead the LIA quoted a developer with approval as saying, "A sure sign of wise low cost home building is the fact the `we use pure white lead on all our work,'" and went^n to remark on the interior and exterior use of white lead in the tiny house pictured. (LIA25536).203 190. The LIA ran the same or similar articles as advertisements in magazines such as American Painter And Decorator and Architectural Forum. In the February 1940 issue of American Fainter, the LIA claimed that it was advertising "to millions of homeowners every month." 191. The September 1940 issue of Lead reported that a majority of the interiors of Baltimore's schools were being painted with pure white lead and that most of the interiors at Baltimore City Hospital were painted with white lead thus "permitting repeated kwashings for sanitary purposes." ^ 192. In 194Jr, the LIA published a book entitled Painting Farm Buildings and Equipment, which recommended white lead for domestic interiors, provided handy formulas //) fl i l/ L \W for "home-mixed interior paint," and suggested, at 59, that lower walls be painted with darker colors of lead paint so that finger marks of small children would be less visible. This book sold more than 100,000 copiesJ^-According to HOL n.92, this book was co-authored by the U.S. Office of Education, Federal Security Agency and the LIA, and published in 1943. GET from PETER?? or do we have it??2056 205 See also, e .g ,, "Lead Products Aid in Pierce Foundation Experimental Home: Low Cost House Styled with White Lead and Flashed with Sheet Lead," Lead (July 1939) p. 10, LIA 25547-48; article about low-cost "Certigrade Home" (July 1938 (LIA25477-78)); small Cape Cod exhibition home (Mar. 1939 (LIA25508); and experimental low-cost home "designed for large families with weekly incomes of about $20" (Sept. 1939 (LIA25547)), 206 Minutes of LIA's annual meeting, May 17-18, 1951 (LIA20827 -74- 193. In 1942, the LIA published a booklet entitled, "What to Expect From White Lead Paint" in which they promoted the use of white lead for both interior and exterior surfaces, suggesting that for "interior wood, plaster and wall board," that 40 pounds of white lead should be mixed with lead mixing or reducing oil to produce enough paint to cover 1000 square feet of surface.207 194. In 1946 Felix Wormser asserted that "so far as white inside paint is concerned there is no lead in it."208 195. In 1949, the LIA republished Painting Farm Buildings and Equipment.209210 196. Continuing to promote white lead for both exteriors as well as interiors, in 1952 the LIA published Lead in Modern Industry. It stated: [W]hite lead ... has practically no undesirable qualities to nullify its advantages . . . . [T]he profitable application of white lead is not confined to exterior use. Pure white lead paints can be utilized to advantage for interior decoration, particularly in public and traditional buildings ....3i0 197. While promoting lead for interior use, this book acknowledged that lead poisoning could occur when lead gained "entrance into the human system in measurable quantity either through inhalation of vapors and dusts or ingestion of lead compounds introduced into the mouth on the fingers . . . It maintained that "ingestion is by far the less important [danger] and is most often associated with children chewing on objects coated with 207 What to Expect From White Lead Paint," LIA [1942]. 208 Felix Wormser, Discussion in Conference on Lead Poisoning, 7th Annual Conference on Industrial Health, American Medical Association, September 30~October 2, 1946, p.51. 209 Minutes of LIA's annual meeting, May 17-18, 1951 (LIA20827). 210 LIA, Lead in Modem Industry, 1952, p. 153-54. -75- paints containing lead." The chapter allayed readers' fears by claiming that "since most inside paints and paints used by manufacturers on children's furniture and toys contained no lead, a hazard usually ex*ists only if children are allowed to chew outside painted surfaces, like porch railings, or if parents inadvertently repaint furniture with outside house paint."2*1 This statement, of course, turns a blind eye to the LIA's simultaneous promotion of lead paint for interiors. 198. On August 13, 1952, Manfred Bowditch wrote to Robert Kehoe about the book. He apologized for what he himself described as the "meager section" entitled "Safe Handling of Lead and Its Products": Before yielding to the quite natural impulse to comment caustically on the meager section starting on page 174, please consider that the volume represents the thinking of our 70 odd member companies and that the book which it supersedes, published in 1931, made no mention of the toxicity of the metal which is our bread and butter. a ^ 199. In December 1952, the LIA decided to "discontinue all activities of the Association relating to the promotion of white lead in house paints." It transferred funds to the red lead activities. "It was apparently felt that the economic obstacles faced by white lead pigments nullify whatever technical advantages these pigments enjoy and thus further expenditures of money by the Association are not justified."212 200. Nevertheless, even after this, and at least until 1959, the LIA continued to distribute Lead in Modern Industry, in which it advocated the use of white ~ Z s / *2. * lead for interiors. 2:1 LIA, LeacHh Modem Industry. 1952, p. 174. 21~ Secretary, LIA to Members of White Lead Division, "Subject: Discontinuance of White Lead Program," January 8lVd3i5T7'TJA 08819. 1 B. The Manufacturers' Promotion And Specification Of White Lead For Interior Use ________________ .. 201. * Inn.1L..Q920A6-w298-fFE.aa<7g1lee--PPiipc.hheerr aaddvveerrttiisseedd iittss FE.naogllee PPoure White Lead for interior and exterior use. In 1937ftHesame company proclaimed, "No longer do you need buy two paints when doing both interiors and exteriors. All-Purpose White Lead is made to do both iobs Easle-Picher's 1941 ad in American Painter and Decorator for this same paint borrowed the slogan and picture of the LIA's contemporaneous white lead campaign. ^ j "Z 202. In 1929 and 1933 National Lead Company authorized the expenditures of $17,000 for the production of films "designed to promote the use of white lead by painters."213 203. In 1930, the year in which the LIA explicitly recognized the dangers of lead paint on toys, National Lead distributed "The Dutch Boy Conquers Old Man Gloom --A Paint Book for Boys and Girls.". The girl and boy felt very blue Their toys were old and shabby too, They couldn't play in such a place, The room was really a disgrace. The book shows the Dutch Boy mixing white lead with red and yellow colors. The yellow paint is applied to the walls of the children's room, and the Dutch Boy applies red to the brown dresser, to the previously unpainted doll house roof, to the bottom of the rocking horse, and to the brown chair. The text reads: And as the work went on and on The old and shabby room was gone And sunny colors, soft ancfgay, Made it a lovely place to playTx 213 National Lead company, Minutes of Meeting of Executive Committee, April 30, ^ /i / / o 1929, NLI 003277; National Loa^on^jan; Minutes of Meeting of Executive Committee, June 28, 1933, NLI 003279. -77- Then Old Man Gloom cried: "It's a fact That I will have to change my act. My work is all undone!" he said "By Dutch Boy art and Dutch Boy lead!"214 204. National Lead, in a 1931 issue of Modem Hospital, contended that its paint will "speed patients' recovery" and maintained that, "Painted walls have proved so satisfactory from the standpoint of hospital sanitation and cleanliness that their adoption has been universal."215216 In 1933, National Lead advertised in the same magazine that its AllPurpose Soft Paste White Lead was "equally suitable for inside as well as outside use."256 205. Numerous Dutch Boy ads depicted children painting houses and carrying paint. In 1931 the company produced a free paint and cut out game for children which the Dutch Bov Quarterly suggested using "dutch Boy White `Lead" in painting "nurseries, kindergartens, play rooms, and other places where children gather.". [YSG Ex 44, 47 ** 1932, 1935]. 217 206. Over the decades, National Lead continued to target children in its advertising. In 1949, National Lead bragged that "[thousands of homes and offices still have souvenir [Dutch Boy] figures in the form of paper weights, statuettes, etc. The appeal was 214 YSGExhs. 40 & 41. 2b YSG Exh. 57. Similar claims appeared in other National Lead ; Modem Hospital. 216 The Modem Hospital citation, (emphasis added??) 217 "Stencils --Why to Use Them , . . Where to Use Them," Dutc 1935 cite?? - 78- particularly strong to children and the company has never overlooked the opportunity to plant the trademark image in young and receptive minds. One of the most successful promotions for many years was a Y .trfs paint book containing paper chips of paint from which the pictures (including, of course, several Dutch Boys) could be colored.^The company still will loan a Dutch Boy costume --cap, wig, shirt, overalls and wooden shoes --to any person who writes in and asks for it for any reasonable purpose, and the little painter has graced thousands of parades and masquerades." This marketing of the Dutch Boy image was seen as instrumental in sustaining National Lead's profitability and in the rise of its sales from $80 million in 1939 to more than $320 million in 1948.258 207. Glidden in 1936 published The Age of Color, a paint book promoting the use of Glidden's products, including its white lead, in nurseries, recreation rooms, schools and hospitals. This book recommended the use of its white lead based "Endurance House Paint" for the ceilings, blinds and walls, and white lead based "Florenamel" and "Jap-A~Lac" for use in infants' and children's rooms. Under the headline "Play . . . Little Ones . . . Play . . Glidden claimed that: Children will play ... and the finishes in nurseries or playrooms must be designed to "take it." Nursery floors ... enameled with Glidden Florenamel, will stand a lot of punishment without marring. . . , Giidden suggested the use of "Jap-A-Lac" on the woodwork and toys including wagons, in an apparent violation of the industry's voluntary ban of using such paints on toys, and highly recommended "Florenamel" "for nursery floors". Glidden recognized that [c]hildren are naturally active--and feet are constantly scuffing and scraping andj3qunding^oailoors, and-often.,on furniture. The ----1--------------------------2181National Lead Company\ "Important, '] NLI 003497. youngster, just learning to walk, seeks support on walls and furniture with pudgy, smudgy hands, leaving finger marks galore. Toys are banged against baseboards; floors are scuffed. Hands sticky with candy or cake or jam are placed on walls and floors. These are nursery problems which must be kept in mind when making color recommendations. The book recommended "Florenamel" and "Jap-A-Lac" for the base of school classrooms, because "[pjaint brings . . , sanitation to the school."2'9 208. An article published in 1936 in the Dutch Bov Quarterly pointed out the a \l q advantages of w hitejeadjpr s^ool interiors. ^ S ^ E x J. 50. November 1, 1937, Sherwin-Williams' Allied Research Laboratory acknowledged the toxicity of white lead in its "White Pigment Catechism": (X White Leads have been and to some extent still are used for - / j ^ 'ccertain interior enamels, but. owing to their toxicity, the resistance '**0 them has resulted in their practical elimination. The use of ( / / White Lead is forbidden in certain states. )f: %sf: White Lead Carbonate finds its chief utility as an ingredient of house paints. It has been used to some extent in high gloss enamels for interior painting, but this is now outlawed in many states due to the toxic properties of this pigment. V L i'k tu tf y tA" I W I <S P r " ' d * c t U fiA iW f "of/IfoC -liM t * f, ^ vsr*nj i /$ l p f>*J & -*{ U t o s f ^ pd</> 6 woodwork."221 The. pigment in Shemi^Witeiams' ZILO paint, aoId- fftHTKgrit^tise, contained 62% lead carbonate in^ : r 22 [Tg 7TT n HTTP fWTV -PV J^PTP9~| As late as 1954, Sherwin-Williams sold ''House Paint" that contained from 14% to 23% white lead and bore the label "For Exterior or Interior Use".22' ri^"/ j Wi a ^ r%?y^VM ,,,,op(la ^ s L sd ^ ^ 210.rt i a tFi rom ati lleast. -1i 936z' t,1hroug(h"''itlhe i1A94i 0As, SA1herwi`n-Wt i ritlnliams ad1vert.i*sedi *i.ts CXf V* l^ Enameioid paint for use on toys.224 This paint contained 2% white lead in 1936.225 Yet in -4. 1930, the LIA assured the public that there was no lead in paint used on toys, and, by letter dated May 2, 1935, Sherwin-Williams itself assured Dr. Ella Oppenheimer of the.U.S. Y Children's Bureau that toy enamelis contain Mnlyy "%ton-poisonous pigments.226 YSG Exhibit 79 (S-W-005052). 2s ( ^Sa-Eshihii3M99?-SWP-6O09O2-852). Sherwin-Williams stated in 1937 th Trite Lead is the same as used in famous SWP Fiouse Paint and the enormous quantities of white lead required for SWP and other S-W products naturally gives Sherwin- o Williams definite manufacturing advantages." (0007-SWP-000000011) See also SherwinCiWilliams Dealer's Counter Book, at 82 0007-SWP-000002727, 2729, 2811. [Y artrrt-caift Y^ad-Tho-dafe-on-tMs*.^^^?]- A Sherwin-Williams ZILO label fTs4F~a-k b e&]-Trom 1946'^^ . ??jshows that its pigment contained 62% lead carbonate, and that Sherwin-Williams recommended it for interior use. (I have this in my YSG file.) SEE FNS 205, 209 FOR SAME CITATIONS. 223 See, e.g,, labels of the following paints marketed by Sherwin-Williams under their ,, Lowe Brothers label; Lowe Brothers High Standard Primer," "For Exterior or Interior / Work," pigment 28% white lead, registered Dec. 29, 1954; "Super One Coat "For Exterior or Interior," pigment 28% white lead, registered with Virgini Agriculture, May 1, 1953. K tJ' Lo{ 0\ 1 224 See, e / , 1936 advertisement for Enameioid; Use it on woodwork, furniture, walls and toy." (0007-SWP-000001496) 1 Id-; h rou I 6 v f i>* ^ ,T ^ *{ e* ^ b(tX >fr*iJ*C4 ufiy Fo ~y 0iyJ /2*frWi p po CjUt 226 Letter from 1 Oppenheimeri It was weH-kndwn, by this date, that even , small amounts of ad coull ison a child. \For exam pte/ihe LIA discussed, at its tv ri/- % Board of Directo/s meetim on\December 12,\l930, th ^ V ovember 20, 1930 article in the C^ c u Ptf m it YM.. r. 7 211. In 1940. Anaconda recommended usage of its white lead on interiors, 2:7 and Glidden still marketed its lead-based 'Tlorenamel" for interior walls and for use by schools.228 And in 1942, Glidden specified the use of its lead-based "Florenamel" and "JapA-Lac" for use in nurseries and children's rooms, describing a play area painted with these lead-based products as "[a] good idea for giving small tots a safe, pleasant place to play." In violation of the LIA's policy, lead-based 'dap-A-i .ac" was recommended for the children's' furniture.2>' ,e -~ jy'SurK/*}' m C*-212. The theme of safety continued to be usecPto promote leaded paint through the early war years. In 1943 Eagle Pieher advertised in the National Painters Magazine that professional painters should use 'dour arguments with prospects --you'll find they really sol! paint jobs.' The fourth of its points was that "Eagle White head is just about the purest, safest, most fool-proof paint you or anybody else can use."230 213. in 1945 and 1946 issues of Dutch Bov Painter. National Lead promoted the painting of interiors and furniture in schools with white lead. YSG Exs. 81 & 82. United States Daily stating that "small amounts of lead which may cause only chronic lead poisoning in an older person may be of sufficient quantity to cause acuterpoi^pning, leading to death, in an infant." 227 The Story of Anaconda Electrolytic White Lead" (ISR00800. \ W228 m'Painting and Decorating Contractors Handbook," (GLD040177T 7 'g^G iidden, Color for America. at^86,__ , ___. YSG ex. 80. 230 "These 4 Points WHLHelpGou\eIl Paint Jobs Today," [Eagle Pieher] National Painters Mag???. 1943.^ M ^ / / _g?. 214. In 1948 anvi-&Ffr931, Glidden (feeloped a-ttcwr4me"-efeyhite lead paint, ,,_ 7 which.included* interior wall finishes."* In 1948 or 1949, GHdden suggested newspaper ad copy to its paint dealers that promoted Glidden's Huston Whlte Lead in Oil for "interior walls f c\ ( fr ^ '1 7 and woodwork." in the very same documents, Glidden encouraged its dealers to advertise its Zme-O-Lith House Pamt as "Lead free --non-polsonous." YSG ex. 92 (GLD32114-32124). ' Glidden in 1951 specified its Huston white lead for interior surfaces, and claimed that its "All Purpose Soft Paste [lead] is most popular . . . applicable to interior decoration."232 215. fe.1wUk^ ?. National Lead was only permitting a limited number of its / V j ft7 6- dealers to carry its ruw4oatkxf line of paints, even though it conceded that they w'ere superior, because that would not "serve the best interests of both dealers and the Company.",233'T U n Lcph 216. By 1950, National Lead had spent $19 million promoting its Dutch Boy products.23'1 217. In 1952. John R. MacGregor, ignoring the hundreds of reports of % childhood lead poisoning, predicted that the UA\s ''advertising of.white lead\ advantages will \ <| undoubtedly help the irenditdfathc increased use of white lead,""35 uttr 231 Catalog of Glidden IlayvM aterials for (^Protective Coating Industry, September 1, 1948. GLD 32i 00. "7: o ?h \ ] <' |Y 232 YSG Exhibit "Painting Specifications for Glidden Company," 1951, GLD 32165-66 in which Huston Lead is suggested for "ceilings, walls, trim, doors, etc." ^ 233 National Lead Sales Manual, ysg Exhibit 93 (NLI 101869 or 003535). 2;u National Lead Co. v. Wolfe. 223 E.2d 195, 197 (9th Cir. 195?). 235 Presentation of John R. M acG regor^^^^^^pril 18-19, 1952 (LIA 16331-16332)2 f e {J-g CicoviA tStrf- \ /iK 218. In 1958, National Lead listed its Dutch Boy paints `'having 1% or more of lead content." The lengthy list included paints such as Flat Wall Enamel Light Blending Base, Flat Wall Enamel Deep Blending Base, and Green Porch and Floor, clearly intended for interior use. In 1959, National Lead explicitly acknowledged that it produced interior paints containing more than the 1% lead permitted under the Baltimore law.2j6 1 j- 2 219. Notwithstanding repeated statements over the years that they no longer produced white lead paint for interior use, the industry continued to sell white lead paints that were applied on interiors, either because they were specified for interior use or because they contained no labels warning that interior use could cause lead poisoning, A study of housing in Pittsburgh showed that 62 percent of houses built before 1940 has surfaces with high concentrations of lead, and so did about one third of the house* built between 1940 and 1959.*237 Similar results were found in Washington, D.C."38 A national survey published by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development found that fully 28% of units built v between 1951 and 1959 had interior surfaces with more than 2.0 mg/cnr of lead, and even in housing built between 1960 and 1972, 9% had at least one surface with that high a concentration of lead.239 236 Letter from H. Schreyer, National Lead Co., Philadelphia Branch, to C, E. Couchman, Bureau of Industrial Hygiene, Baltimore, Md., Sept. 18, 19 r. (0035BHD000003191-94); letter from G.M. Hammond, Manager, Paint Division, National Lead Co., to C.E. Couchman, Bureau of Industrial Hygiene, Baltimore City Health Dept., June 16, 1959 (0035BHD000003167). 237 RABIN reference 53. 0 \ d RABIN ref. 54. 239 RABIN 55. AO - 84- VII. THE LEAD INDUSTRY'S FIGHT AGAINST LEGISLATION REQUIRING WARNING LABELS________ 220. The decision of the LIA, at the end of 1952, to cease direct promotion of leaded paint for interior walls was a tacit acknowledgement of lead paints' danger to children. In the succeeding years of that decade, departments of public health increasingly pushed for warning labels and outright bans of the use of lead in interior paints. 221. An early labelling law was put into effect by California in 1945, but was "suspended pending further review" following lobbying by the Li A, the NPVLA, and individual companies including National Lead and W.P. Fuller. This law would have required that toxic chemicals be listed on the label. The industry lobbied for a general warning label that merely said, " WARNING - FLAMMABLE - ... DO NOT 'FAKE INTERNALLY. AFTER USING, CLEANSE HANDS THOROUGHLY;' making no specific mention of lead, or indeed of any poisons.3'10 222. Not until 1954, and even then only under external pressure, did the industry belatedly turn its attention to labels warning of lead hazards. A subcommittee on Model Labeling of the NPVLA began to meet to discuss warning labels for their product and even then their position was largely defensive, an attempt to allay public fear and shape proposed regulations and legislation, rather than warn or educate the public. They were particularly concerned "there is much agitation by various groups throughout the United States 240 NPVLA, Minutes of the Executive Committee, Apr. 16, letter from M.Q. MacDonald, General Counsel, NPVL^ W.P. Fuller & Co., Jan. 25, 1946. 45 and Jan. 31, 1946; Margetts, Secretary, - 85~ which could result in. conflicting legislation by individual states and municipalities on methods of labeling paint products/'-^ Jt fj, ^ f j^ 223. T J. McDofell,*ofm\e NPVLA, proposed a "Suggested Course of V 4e4c Action" regarding labeling laws in which he reviewed the pressure that had been exerted on industry to become more responsible: ^Jir industry has suffered from a period of bad publicity mostly arising from incidents where it was easier to blame the results on to paint than to seek further for the true cause." These incidents included the death of small children laid to lead poisoning allegedly incurred while chewing on various painted surfaces. The legislators from various states are constantly being contacted by pressure groups to pass a law -- any law will do - to eliminate this hazard to our children . . . It appears that the best course to pursue from the standpoint of the industries interested in the use of lead as a pigment and otherwise is to launch a campaign of education directed at the legislators to forestall any further unnecessary legislation, at the pressure groups who are promoting the passage of these laws, at the user and sellers of these products so that the proper use is made of them and the hazards reduced to a minimum and most important of all at the general public to remove the false impressions from their minds and educate them in the proper use, the precautions to be taken and the real causes of these unfortunate occurrences.342 224. in May 1954 the Board of Health of New York City proposed a san code provision that would have banned the sale in New York City of paints containing more than 1% lead, and would have required lead paint to be labelled as "poisonous," and as not for241* 241 NPVLA, Minutes, Subcommittee on Model Labeling, June 15, 1954, NCA 00 00437. 242 T.J. McDgwell, "Suggested Course of Action for NPVL Association Re: labeling Laws," [oardfaly(l954] in NPVfcA^^iim tes,"SntomtmtttceTrM5riabclt{g7Kfely-15,f L&J^NCA 00 00478. \ -86 interior use,243 The NPVLA, after consultation with the LA, opposed the proposal as "unnecessary unjustified'1244 and unduly burdensome, lobbying instead for a very narrow warning that emphasized paints' flammability and referred only to dangers that could arise from "surfaces that might be chewed by children," omitting any reference to lead paint as "poisonous".24*" This omission was contrary to the warning proposed by the American Medical Association in September of that year: "WARNING: this paint contains an amount of lead which may be POISONOUS and should not be used to paint children's toys or furniture or interior surfaces in dwelling units which might be chewed by children.""46 22$. The New York City Board of Health, at its October 29, 1954 meeting, dropped the proposed ban of lead paint, and adopted a warning label requirement without the word "poisonous". The NPVLA noted that the word "poison" had been removed as the "result of cooperation between the New York City Health Department officials and representatives of the New York and National Paint, Varnish, and Lacquer Association."24647 The LA also claimed some credit: "The initial proposal of the New York City Health Department to require a poison label on all paints containing any lead whatsoever was 243 Jerome Trichter to C.W. Slocum, August 24, 1954, EPI 00084. 244 1>tJ f S f V L P } 1 /C/lu ^ S fo j / v r j 245 "Precautionary labels Recommended by the National Paint, Varnish and Laquer Association..." in Battley, president, NPVLA to Members of the Executive committee.A October 6, 1954, EPI 000903i 246 Bernard E. Conley to Jerome Trichter, September 9, 1954. 247 NPVLA, Minutes, Toxic Materials Committee Meeting, October 27, 1954, "Confidential" EPI 000840;New York City Department of Health, Press Release, November 10, 1954, EPI 000849. - 87- ultimately modified through the establishment, at our instance, of a committee of the American Standards Association ,,,."248 226. In February 1955, the LIA urged its members to oppose a bill then pending in the New York State legislature that would have required warning labels for leadbased paints. LIA Secretary Ziegfeld claimed that this bill was "essentially duplicative" of the New York City law, although, of course, the New York City law did not apply in Buffalo.240 In April of that same year, Ziegfeld informed the LIA membership that following the LIA's lobbying, this bill "did not come out of committee."250 227. The previous month, LA Health and Safety Director Manfred Bowditch wrote, in a letter to a British professor: With us, childhood lead poisoning is common enough to constitute perhaps my major "headache," this being in part due to the very poor prognosis in many such cases, and also to the fact that the only real remedy lies in educating a relatively ineducable category of parents. It is mainly a slum problem with us, estimated by Kehoe to run into four figures annually, and as we have no monopoly on either substandard housing or substandard mentalities in the USA,...25' 228. Shortly thereafter, the American Standards Association, a voluntary made up of representatives from a variety of medical, public health and industry groups, including as the LA and the NPVLA, developed a standard to "Minimize Hazards to Children." It was drafted by a subcommittee which included representatives of the LA and National Lead 248 LA, Annual Report for the Year 1955, p. 6, LIA 22972. 240 LIA 22868-69. 250 LIA 22961. 251 T O uary - 88- rv'Cd oi*/ii'6juk ip R , / . /Ld/v/i k Company, with alternates from Sherwin-Williams and Glidden."52 The ASA standard provided that paint used for interiors or any surface that children might chew on should not eontain more than 1% lead of its total weight. The standard did not require that the word "poison" be included in the warning. 229. The LIA made "[e]very effort ... to confine the regulatory measures ... the field of warning labels, which, as applied to paints, are obviously less detrimental to our interests than would be any legislation of a prohibitory nature."2iJ VIII. THE LEAD INDUSTRY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT LEAD PAINT POISONS CHILDREN___________________________ 230. As the economic importance of white lead to the industry declined, it became more important to defend the use of lead in gasoline, and the industry shifted its position: now, all lead poisoning was blamed on paint, so better to defend the use of lead as a gasoline additive. 231. At the 1957 LIA annual meeting, more than half a century after the first articles about childhood lead poisoning appeared, Bowditch acknowledged that ''the major source of trouble is the flaking of lead paint in the ancient slum dwellings of our older cities.""54 According to the LIA, however, the victims themselves, not the lead industry, was253* 252 ASA, "American Standards Specifications to Minimize Hazards to Children from Residual Surface Coating Materials," (Z66.1-1955) ASA, Approved February 16, 1955. 253 LXA, Quarterly Report, April 2, 1958, p. 2, LIA 22234. 2>i LIA, Report of Health and Safety Division, Manfred Bowditch , Director Annual Meeting, April 24-25, 1957, LIA 20954. - 89- . , . will often taste anything that gets into their hands,"25* Jerome Cole, formerly of the LIA and in 1982 executive vice-president of the internation Lead Zinc Research Organization, Inc., wrote in the New York Times, 4'Oid Paint, Not Gasoline, Is The Problem In Lead Poisoning."259 CONCLUSION THIS IS ALAN'S PRELIMINARY DRAFT. The conclusion will be re-written after we finish the rest, so take what's here with several grains of salt. 234. From the first decades of this century, the manufacturers of lead products, including white lead pigments, liad significant knowledge of the hazards of lead from experiences with lead poisonings of their workers. This knowledge, combined with ever increasing published reports of lead toxicity, including injury from lead paints, was more than sufficient to cause a reasonable manufacturer to switch to safer pigments. Indeed, SherwinWilliams and Glidden each promoted lead-free pigments as safe alternatives to toxic lead V pigments.260 235. in 1928, the industry delegated much of the handling of the lead poisoning problem to the newly-crcated LI A. Although the archival record is incomplete, it is obvious that the LI A never treated the problem of lead poisoning objectively. Scores of reports of lead poisoning from paints were received by the LiA. Not one of these reports Lead Industries Association, Inc., "Old Paints and Rural Lead Poisonmg" (Junj .980) (EPI000753). 250 N.Y. Times, Aug. 23, 1982. HOL n. 192. PETER. AQj 260 As to Sherwin Williams, see footnote 33, supra. Glidden promotetHtsTead-free zinc-based paints in the 1920s, Glidden, `'White House Painting (GLD31314 and 313 "Counter Rook" (GLD3994); advertisement in the Literary Digest. February 13, 19^6 (GLD33467-68). - 91- -.1 Y. . . were regarded by the LiA as accurate until after the LA's members ceased production of lead pigments for interior use. LIA-funded research was limited to scientists deemed sympathetic to or compliant with the LiA's goal of increasing lead pigment sales. When the LiA's consultants expressed positions contrary to the LiA's public opinion, they were ignored. 236. For decades, the L(A promoted white iead pigments for interiors at the same time it was suppressing or manipulating information about childhood lead paint poisoning. As the LIA itself boasted, the LA promotion of white iead pigment was successful, increasing sales of white lead even as knowledge of its harms continued to grow. 237. Neither the id A nor the industry voluntarily agreed to apply warnings to lead pigment or paint. In the 1930s and 1940s, the LIA was dismissing concerns about the hazards of cribs, furniture and toys painted with lead paint, hazards which could have been minimized by warning labels. In the early 1950s, the LIA rebutted concerns about lead poisoning by asserting that interior paints did not contain lead. These assertions were belied by the persistence of industry and LIA efforts to promote lead paints for both interiors and exteriors. Concerns, too, about lead paint on interiors could have been minimized by warning labels. The LA approved of warning labels only in response to governmental efforts to regulate lead paint, and then only because voluntary warning labels were seen as economically less harmful than government warning requirements or bans. The LIA stopped promoting lead paint only after it was seen as [it saw it was] no. longer profitable. 238. The LIA apparently kept secret the knowledge about the harmfulness of lead discussed at the 1937 conference. No Li A document we have seen discusses the conclusions of Dr. Aub --the expert retained by the LA to conduct research --that children are more susceptible to lead than adults, that eliminating lead after it has entered the body is - 92- "almost impossible, that two milligrams of lead a day may cause "eventual trouble/1or that there may be long-term effects of sub-clinical lead toxication. Dr. Aub repeatedly concluded in the occupational context that prevention was key. This advice was utterly ignored when it came to the promotion of lead paint. The LIA would not recommend even the placement of warnings until threatened government action forced it to endorse watered-down warnings in 1955. Sworn to before me this day of , 1998 NOTARY PUBLIC DAVID ROSNER MARKOWITZ Sworn to belore me tins day of , 1998 NOTARY PUBLIC GERALD E. 239. One particularly controversial issue that arose during the 1920s was the environmental and public health impact of the introduction of lead into gasoline used for motor vehicles. A number of workers at tetraethyl lead production sites in New Jersey developed severe neurological symptoms after exposure to this new gas additive. In 1925 leaded gasoline was banned for sale in New York City, New Jersey and Philadelphia and national conferences were organized to discuss the potential health hazards associated with widespread exposure to lead. At the height of the controversy, Yandeli Henderson of Yale University wrote to an official of the Public Health Service, "I note that you compare the risk [to tetraethyl workers] to that which is faced by painters. I think this comparison is very well - 93-