Document eOVaaOJzbpGna9192xn7KrD4

Tr. Kehoe January 9, 1936 Dr. . E'. ware . Tbe Sherwin-Williams Comrjany Clvelane, Ohio Dear Dr. vmret I 'greatly appreciate your letter f January 5s, and i understand your .attitude. I <5 not 1mr what can be done along the lines that you surest-- 1. a. r to convince the Food and Prue dmlnletratlon that they should conduct' the investigation of lee3' toxicity under the guidance of a com mittee, chosen to reoreeent tfe# experiment tation, federal horticulturists, sieouf.noturare, *d fruit growers, ne veil es the Feed'and Trug Administration itself. I agree with you thet prejudices would be checked at the door. I a certIn tbit the- fruit growing Industry would hare that attitude if It were allowed reoreaent&tion. !5y Interview with T>r. Campbell find Mr, Phillip *g opinion of hia have made me sure, however, that any Investi gation thrit they conduct 4 1 1 have ss its sole purpose the ascertainment of facts* On the other hand, I can easily eee that, If it is conducted without the representation of interests other than enforcement officials, It. -*111 be open to the criticise that you have in mind-- that its suo-.'eeed urpese will he "to get ammunition*. Also, it is certainly true that this investigation can be oleaned ia such a way thet It -*111 fee fund ament ally (scientifically) satisfactory or unsatisfactory to all interest? and that the only way to insure setisfactory planning le to have all Interests represented. For ex&rsple, the lead arsenate on washed apple* is probably such less toxic than acid lead arsenate, because of the weathering tbs? has taken place on the fruit, which tend to transform it to basic lead arsenate, and because the washing process probably removes the articles that are most easily dissolved. Therefore, washed apples should be used os one source of lead'arsenate. A toxicologist or biochemist not ex perienced in horticulture would overlook this point. Be might even imagine that he would be more scientific 1? be were to use pure acid lead arsenate because It le undeoempoeed and uncontsaln.ted. He sight think, also, that he could get the purest lead arsenate from -a chemical supply house* There are probebly a number of Important points of that sort* Host Important cf all, perhaps, is the point that field investigations should constitute an important part of the investigation, fey which. I mean an examination of consumers for evidences of lead poisoning. I think, a you do, that representatives of the various interests YY% ~vS'-!--- .pm #**"';. pr. k. *r.re Janur-ry I$j6 woui otriiclwts in oerfeetly fair way: nreenaefely, also,' the be-?t eosaoanV-r, hart! ewltrl*ts, fruit grere, to., could. hf.lp the Food &<rso Pru g ration actively after. the faotc were eetabllehefi. . I have a.ttainted to test# the aitu&ticn j?j you ?;#e It- In ay -own tsord. a far a I Iedo, ey tatment 1 ooaolet e, iritii] th orguaent is absolutely sound. The argument for conducting & eepurfctfc investi ert ion at the fettering Laboratory can be stvted very briefly ry eying w>*t i_t ^onld be exactlr tr-t >1 n* of 1 sr^ttgr rcf-'-t ror t ccc^'^eTi on of "vh * "'vooa sn-* -n}r4 tr^'e1 or in n* etHiuefcinir tn *orr, trat r ls.bo*-`tA'y Is nlrnoiilc'ici *? nnn^ for <?olr % * -nrf, ?-*t roet- or fv. pens. :ni effort Tould therefor be- obviated because re voulf not h"Vi-:; to word: frc,?. the ground uw, that the results of thc- xoerl.'Jent '-euIf, 1 *- *ecerfe*nir to in* Poor- "nir ***?tn$ r.ra tion, y: vf. '1 as to other Interest, ism is>~T, hut not that `-f -would net have to .* the rood ant trug i.Svainl *tr*tin to case r ucltcy a'ith which they are not already in gyrarr- I ouih be &eumirn: entirely too ouch if l `"er? tc say, the result of s*y brief Interview -with Tr. csme be11, thru I h :.vc- errre 5 e- hi* find atTitude. I tcif ; T thin'- that bf t rnuious for oil the heir- thri he enr,get in rrrivlm r!, yyi,* tmutlJ. Ycnr'V very truly, k j .d o JF >>- & t v V, * Enc. ecj .Kreyblli #iair C*v#ri*y K ehoe Greene -lekett Hewlett Gonrley Telbert FhUlloo Chief in corroloiflcs ?hyelolosy 0008542 * THE SHERWIH-WIIiLXAMS CO. - Cleveland, Ohio January 2, 1936 Or. w. A. Ruth, '' University of Illinois, College of Agriculture, Urbane, Illinois. ' Dear Dr. Ruth: I thank you for your letter of the 26th enclosing conies of your paper, #The Spray Residue Situation*. l!r. Gunderson and I have discussed the whole situation several times-; and both cf ue feel that a conference with you might result in a different understanding on our part. I sincerely wish there could be some neutral ground on which producers, consumers, and. federal agencies could get together. Te could all agree to check our personal prejudice? at the door along with our hate and discuss matters of mutual interest from the standpoint of public welfare, lihy should it be necessary for Dr. Campbell to conduct semi-secret investiga tions, apparently to get- ammunition with which to combat industry if it should attempt to promote sale of & product that in hie opinion ie inimical to the public interest^ Why couldn*t such governmental investigations be conducted under the guidance of & committee, membership to be chosen from the U. S. Department of Agriculture and Experiment Station staffs Growers* Association membership, and manufacturing industry. One m\ght even consider the advisability of asking the ''arts Chemurgic Council to cooperate. It seems to me that we must concentrate on the problem of promoting a better understanding and mutual respect between Federal Research and Regulatory Bureaus on the one hand and agricultural and industrial organisations on the other. There must be some Moses who can lead us out of the widernees of mis understanding. Very truly yours, Ew:w THE SREFDT K-.?;ILLIAMS COM?ANV F. E. ?'&re (signs F. F.. Vi ARE . KE 0003543 N9748.01