Document mBowva7e22296mkzqxpeNqgEd

NATIONAL PAINT, VARNISH and LACQUER ASSOCIATION, INC. 71ST ANNUAL MEETING y Business Sessions October 27, 28, 29, 1958 Shoreham and Sheraton-Park Hotels Washington, D. C. The MASTER REPORTING COMPANY, Inc. Law Stenography Conventions General Reporting CHICAGO 540 NORTH MICHIGAN AVENUE Superior 3255 CLEVELAND STANDARO flUILOING Main 0894 NEW YORK 51 MAOISON AVENUE MUrray Hill 3-6667 WASHINGTON NATIONAL PRESS BUILDING National 8558 002226 INDEX Page Convention Call to Order..........................................................................................1 The National Anthem.........................................................................................................3 Invocation....................................................................................................... 3v Introduction of Guests Prom ForeignCountries.........................................4 Reading of Messages. . ...............................................................................................7 Introduction of Guests ............................................................................................ 9 Dr. Henry 0. Parr . . ..................................................................................10 Mr. Raymond H. Reynolds........................................................................12 Mr. Howard G. Sholl................................................................i>. . . l8 In Memoriam........................................................................................ 24 Report of the Treasurer.............................................................................................25 Preliminary Report of By-Laws Committee...................................................26 Preliminary Report of NominatingCommittee ........................................ 30 President's Address.......................................................................................................32 Adjournment. . .................................................................................................................59 002227 INDEX Page Final Business Session Call to Order o................................................................................ W\ v flS'.kClT*. -3 01 J Mr. Felix Juda.............................................................................. * * ^ -- Mr . Willian 3. Kood.................................................................... Nominating Committee Final report, marked 3-2 . . * f Remarks of: < * Mr. William H. Bernm.an .....................S3.................................................................................................................................................. Mr Henry Behnke. ........................................................................................................................................................................... . T T t t ^ Hidden Power Sales Training Program Skit....................................................... OQ Congratulatory Motion to President and Associationi Staff. . 120 Remarks of: Mr. Leo Cherne ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 123....................................................... Adjournment............................................................................................................................................................................ 149....................................................... 002228 NATIONAL PAINT, VARNISH AND LACQUER ASSOCIATION, INC. LEGISLATIVE FORUM Monday, October 27, 1958 Vv I I The Legislative Forum of the National Paint, Varnish and Lacquer Association, Inc., convened at ten-fifteen o'clock on Monday, October 27, 1958, in the Club Room of the Hotel Shoreham, Washington, D. C., Mr. Thomas J. McDowell, Chairman, presiding. 002229 T ::0n r l j j ' I o P0 ^::A ::v;AN ;.:o PQVrRLL: Apparently this session *s not ! i ,- v- )"^ pop"1 a? ^ i-v*. So, *f everybody would like to i , " > *r ; v r.'nv * * 7.t .v i.^ ^ ...a l * * h ... *.%^**.->* | ; -! n . At ' --nst, y'v. v-'n* t -*ee the' ^mpty -hair In front jf ' I Sn.v'orHi1 ' , v,'re are you? I think we bad ' >- t- - ><- vr>'i rl^ht up hove 'vh^vo I ran get vou go i no cp\ i. Before I start, I night introduce two of the orsf - . non 'vbo are be~e with on the program.. At my right Mr. S ter of ` 'hioajo, and Mr. Sanford Hill pf^W* in !ujton, the du Pont Company. I have one other announcement I would like to -nko ! before we start, which was handed to me here and asked to be made: Because the program is of such vital importance to every member of the paint, varnish and lacquer industry, every member *jed to be present in the West BalTioomof the Shor^ham 1Wednesday morning, the big day of the Seventy-first Annual Meeting. The new "Hidden Power Sales Training Book" i ! i v511 be 1ntroduced, live from the stage. Colonel Billy Hood .' '1 moderate a most entertaining and informative question and 1i answer suss ion. : Third, Leo Cherne will give us a look into the future: :i 002230 * a? he di- es the L'a'^uous ar.d e~iti~a: Sixties. _, 'V' c'n -'* lav rcvirnj, or to ho 20, the 'Vest r_ .`O ', "V 4 0: oy--han. I t i s th h'jgett :'?.v of the . '. ' >i- r>'% wt ;* > d r o ^ ' '* *? toqgv *` * * ~ Vs^ . ; * . V ?***<'. 4 *\ -.* sr *--.- +- _ * t" nr '-.a,,:.n_. a .ot.-or >` ' eg .viat : ve pro.::*- rj roc. a day a. ?o-- . y . *- ' c-'v' t-' V ,jn fhvs*' io t' ng ; on i t^ ^ n f r vr> a i nod >v * na* 1 groons. I ' Iff nk are at least Veepi ng tr"0 to fha : pattern anyway. Our rrnvn is a hit snail. gut there are very many problems that are coring no no'wad ays that are cvov.n .n^ae, and furthermore, tey are very expensive to companies. The labeling of our products, -av-\ 1arly those companies that engage in interstate commerce, is a <-ery serious problem. So we are going to try to have larger : legislative sessions and to bring more people into the legis- i lative problems, and along with it, the association has set up i a vision in the Washington office to handle legislative < o.'.ens, and it is centered up with Leo Fisher, who has been ' <ir.g a very excellent job. I think we will bo able to coordinate a good bit of ;Ue vork thatwill be going on in the future in a very fin--1 manner. Tn the past, a very excellent job has been done ';->y 002231 * 4* j Mr. Pitt, to whom I am sure we all owe a great deal of thanks jI for the unselfish attitude he has had and the great amount of time he has put to the work of the legislative group. One of the very troublesome problems confronting many! i of us in various parts of the country is the subject of air pollution. We have had it in a number of places. In Cleve land, I know we have had some problems there. But one of the members of our industry, Mr. Stresen- Reuter of Chicago of the Stresen-Reuter Company, has had a very first-hand experience with it and he is kind enough to come here today to tell us some of the problems he has encountered and what they have done in Chicago in reference to it. So, I would like to introduce Mr. Stresen-Reuter. I STATEMENT OF MR. STRESEN-REUTER OF THE STRESEN-REUTER COMPANY CHICAGO, ILLINOIS MR. STRESEN-REUTER: Thank you. Since last year, I have had to get a pair of glasses. i I can't read these papers any longer without them. * I have asked the officials of the Association not to j I publish the remarks that I am going to make this morning, not j because they are not true, but on this subject of air pollution I where so much of the subject matter is intangible and subject to personal opinions, a statement taken out of context can i 002232 o irreparably damage a lawsuit. There have been and shall be more lawsuits on air pollution during the next ten years. In our heading of this discussion this morning, it ji i j is mentioning the Chicago Air Pollution Ordinance. Fortunately ! this is a proposed ordinance and has as yet not been adopted by the City of Chicago. So we will start from there. Air pollution in the City of Chicago is officially in the same status as it was during my report last spring. The City of Chicago has an air pollution group called the Mayor's Citizens Air Pollution Control Committee, who have pro duced a proposed Chicago Air Pollution Control Ordinance. As mentioned in my discussion last spring on the pro posed ordinance , there is nothing specifically written into 1 this ordinance pertaining to the paint and varnish industries. However, there are portions of it which are broad enough to be used by enforcing officers should the occasion arise. Our Executive Secretary, Mr. Ray Bonash, is a member oi the State Air Pollution Committee coordinated by the i Illinois Manufacturers Association. Mr. Bonash is also on the ! Cleaner Air Committee of the Chicago Association of Commerce. There is in addition a Bi-State Air Pollution Committee represented by Professor Tiletts of Indiana, and a Mr. j ! j French of Illinois. They are gathering data for a bi-state 002233 6 ! survey on air pollution in the Chicago metropolitan area. This! survey, when complete, will be submitted to the U. S. Public Health Service. The Illinois Manufacturers Association has a committee to cooperate with this group. i It would be relatively simple at this time to state that the situation is in status quo and that we are maintaining our attention on air pollution in the Chicago area. However, I do not believe that we can dismiss this subject so conveni ently. There has been concern felt on both a national and local level that any discussion of fume control or-,air pollu tion should be contained. This view, I believe, is shared by i anyone in the industry who has been close to this problem, and ! certainly any work that we do or information that we procure I should be used only for our own benefit and planning. j Air pollution can very easily become a political i Jissue, and in several instances during the past few years this has happened. In the future, air pollution, regardless of its i merit, inherently will beget jobs for the faithful. Hence extreme care should be exercised by our industry so that, if j j ! at all possible, we should not be known as a problem in the air; pollution field. In 1950 I wrote a report which was published by the 002234 7 Chicago Paint, Varnish and Lacquer Association concerning fume ] control. I. should like to quote from this article: \ "As a matter of actual fact, it is well substantiated! that the problem presented by the paint and varnish industry is a very small and a very minor one from actual volume of i ! fumes emitted, danger to public health, and property damage. The chief complaint as derived from a survey made was the allegedly obnoxious type of odors encountered." The "allegedly" was my word. "As an air pollution problem, the committee did not feel that emphasis had been placed on the proper industries in relation to the true air pollution problem. This, however, is beside the point, and a very real problem has been found to exist concerning the alleged nuisance of fumes emitted by our industry. "In many localities the obnoxiousness of the alleged odor- nuisance, combined with the over-all air pollution prob lem, has pointed a finger at the paint and varnish industry as j a major offender, and this particular facet of the problem has given a political aspect to the air pollution problem as asso ciated with the paint and varnish industry." This was written in 1950. i I should also like to quote from "The Control of 002235 Atmospheric Emissions from Paint and Varnish Manufacturing Operations," prepared at the request of the National Paint, Varnish and Lacquer Association and compiled by Mr. Robert L. Stember: "Objectionable Odors. Whenever materials having objectionable odors are discharged to the atmosphere they ere- V ate an undesirable environment. A malodorous material need not be injurious to health to be considered undesirable. Fox' legal purposes, odors are generally classified as nuisances, and ordinances prohibiting nuisances exist at almost every level of government. . "Ample evidence exists to indicate the attitude of courts in holding creators of odor nuisances responsible for the control of such odors. "A number of organic raw materials used in the pro tective coatings industry and many of the decomposition and distillation by-products from such processes as heat polymer- zation and destearification of oils and resins have highly disagreeable odors. "The reduction or elimination of these odors is the principal reason that control of atmospheric emissions is required of this industry." I should also like to quote from the Wall Street 002236 9 1 Journal, an article entitled "Cleaning the Air," published on September 10, last: "Contrary to public belief, the largest contributor ' to air pollution is not industry. It is the individual who complains most, the resident," says Dr. Ilalden A. Leady, Director of the Armour Research Foundation and President of the Midwestern Air Pollution Prevention Association, an organi zation of Chicago executives. The purpose of quoting the above articles is a posi tive indication to our industry that air pollution per se is not a problem of our industry, but the concept of nuisance is changing from that of destruction of property or injury to health to include a more esthetic concept. This more esthetic concept brings into play the prob lem which faces our industry, and that is the fact that objec tionable odors are becoming accepted as a nuisance in a legal sense. It is the viewpoint of the Chicago Committee that our industry should be alerted to this fact, and that members who are possible offenders would do well to protect their individual plants before being forced to do so by a municipal The Chicago Committee also believes that in view of 002237 1 10 the many air pollution ordinances which are being proposed, ; that we take action to protect ourselves from any portion of these ordinances which may be detrimental to our welfare. In the proposed Chicago ordinance it has been stated i II ! * j that a maximum of 0.J5 grains per cubic foot of gas, measured i at a temperature of 60 degrees Fahrenheit and a pressure of 30 inches of mercury, will not constitute air pollution. V.'e have be'en asked whether or not our industry could exist under this limit. Frankly, we do not know. I should like at this time to present our Associa tion's attorney, Mr. Edward F. O'Toole's suggestion^ concerning! this problem. Every person has the right to have the air dif fused over his premises in its natural state and free from artificial impurities consistent with the locality and the character of the community. The pollution of air, so far as is reasonably necessary to the enjoyment of life and indis pensable to the progress of society is permitted. In places of population and business, not everything that causes discomfort, inconvenience and annoyance, or which j perhaps may lessen the value of surrounding property, will be ! icondemned and abated. Persons who live in cities or towns must: necessarily submit without legal resource to the annoyances andi discomforts which are incidental to city life and to the ' 002238 11 conduct of those trades and businesses which are properly located and carried on in the neighborhood in which they resides, and are more or less necessary for the trade and commerce and : the comfort and progress of the public at large. The right to use property in the prosecution of any lawful business which is not dangerous to others or injurious or offensive to persons within the vicinity is one of the legal attributes of the ownership of property, of which the owner cannot be deprived by the arbitrary declaration of any law of the state or municipal ordinance. However, a trade or business lawful in itself becomes v a nuisance when, from the situation of its inherent qualities or the manner in which it is conducted it causes material in jury to the property' of another, interferes with his comfort and enjoyment, injures the health of those living in the ; II i vicinity, or interferes with their ordinary physical comfort j measured by the habits and feelings of ordinary people. j The term "nuisance" is incapable of an exact and extensive definition which will fit all cases, because all the controlling facts are seldom alike and each case must stand on | its own footing. However, a public nuisance is generally thought of as the doing of or the failure to do something that injuriously t 002239 12 affects the safety, health, or morals of the public, or works i some substantial annoyance, inconvenience of injury to the pub- i lie. The state and a municipality in the exercise of its ! police power has authority to prevent or abate nuisances, and i under this power and subject to constitutional limitations, the legislature has authority to declare what shall be deemed { nuisances and to provide for their suppression. i As I stated, this power is subject to constitutional i ' limitations, and by that I mean the legislature has no power, j arbitrarily or capriciously, to declare any or ev^ry act a nuisance, nor can it by mere declaration make that a nuisance which is not so in fact and thereby destroy or prevent a lawful i use of property. | The action of the legislature in this regard is sub ject to review by the courts. What is a nuisance and whether the designation of a particular subject as a nuisance is with in the legislative powers are judicial questions to be deter mined by the court. A municipality faces many difficulties in proving a nuisance involving atmospheric pollution, where there is no i known scientific method of testing the character -- that is, the offensiveness -- of an odor. i 002240 13 There is available, however, a tentatively adopted j method for testing odor concentration in air and gases, but thq i concentration of an odor does not necessarily measure its I offensiveness. The suggested method of testing odor concentration i i points out that (1) the results depend upon the human olfactory sense and is subject to the variations of this sense from per- i son to person and from hour to hour in the same person. 1 (2) Extraneous odors and lingering taste effects can interfere with the test. (3) Smoking, chewing of tobacco or gum,wor eating i i should not be indulged in by observers for at least 30 minutes i prior to the test. (4) The physical condition of the observer may interfere with the test. (5) Not all observers are capable of carrying out the test. (6) Accuracy or results can be increased by increas ing the number of observers and can be varied to suit the pur pose of the test. (7) A group of at least twice the number of obser- vers required must be screened to select the most sensitive j j observers and the individuals with the better olfactory j 002241 14 perception should be selected as observers. I I Since it is so difficult to measure merely the conceni tration of an odor, how much more difficult it is to attempt to ! | measure the character or offensiveness of an odor. The normal j procedure in nuisance abatement cases is for the municipal ; authorities to bring in as witnesses, city inspectors and people , living in the vicinity of the plant. Rarely are they experts : in the field of air pollution. ' Odors emitted from a plant may travel miles away, lI : depending upon the velocity and direction of the wind, and it seems impossible for even a trained observer to eliminate such extraneous odors when standing in the vicinity of a plant whose operations are complained of. ! To overcome the difficulty in proving the existence of an odor nuisance, the city council of Chicago in the air : pollution ordinance now pending before it proposes to set up pro cedures for the adoption of limitations on the emission of particulate matter by various pieces, types or classes of manu facturing equipment which now emit particulate matter. Any emission in excess of the limitations so adopted = would be a nuisance under the proposed ordinance and subject to I abatement. This type of ordinance is being considered because j it sets up a yardstick of proof which the city does not now have. 002242 15 We are of the opinion that such an ordi nance would still be subject to the rule of law set forth above, that a municipality cannot by ordinance declare that to be a nuisance which in fact is not. In other words, the limitation on the emission of the particulate matter would be subject to review by the courts in each particular case. \ We wish to reiterate the utter necessity of having f tests made as to just what limitations the Chicago paint indus- , tries can live under in order to be prepared for the hearing that will surely be held if the proposed ordinance is actually adopted. S. Setting such arbitrary limitations upon equipment in a paint factory may be quite difficult because of the vari- | | ations in batches from week to week, day to day, hour to hour, and the changes in paint technology that occur from time to time. May I give you the following summary. We do not believe air pollution to be a problem of the paint industry, but until we have tests completed we shall not know whether or not we are being trapped by various ordinances which might be applicable to other industries, but do not apply to ourselves. (2) We do have a problem of odor. Unfortunately, odor is more objectionable to the majority of citizens than 002243 ? 16 smoke itself. Hence, any objectionable odor points to the offender as a major source of air pollution. The legal concept l of nuisance, we feel, is embracing the esthetic concept as well | as injury to property or person, which creates for us a very i j real problem industrywise. j !! , The Chicago Committee feels that means are available : iI ' to control the odor of paint and varnish fumes. Work accom plished during the past ten years has shown that satisfactory equipment can be installed to eliminate objectionable odors from our processes. i }1 j j We do not feel at this time that we should go into j the many facets of fume control operation. Suffice it to say j j J that fume control information is available and that plants and equipment can be inspected and costs can be compared, and we cordially invite any members of the Association who may have this problem to avail themselves of this information. (4) It occurred to the committee that there might be an area of tax advantage through noncapitalization of this | equipment. Fume control equipment in our industry does not I i materially affect air pollution one way or the other. It raerelv i j affects the esthetic sense of the community. i Also, this equipment is expensive, costly to operate,' i !! j and adds absolutely nothing to productivity. The added capitalj i 002244 Y outlay has prevented many manufacturers from installing such equipment.. However, if there were the incentive of the tax I i advantage through such an expenditure, I believe more of our members would be in a better frame of mind to cooperate with i \ air pollution campaigns. i Thank you. i ! (Applause) i : jj j CHAIRMAN MC DOWELL: If anybody from the audience I Ii | wouldlike to ask Mr.Stresen-Reuter questions, I am sure he j j ! willtryto answer them. I Are there any questions? | | I . A VOICE: Varnish plants have been mentioned quite a bit in ordnances -- are they any more of a problem than anything else? MR. STRESEN-REUTER: It is your varnish and resin plants that are the major offenders of the odor from an air pollution problem, but there is really no problem at all. It ! i figured out that if all of the resin plants and varnish plants | 1I ; in the United States were concentrated in New York, they would 1 put out approximately 48,000 pounds of particulate matter and j odors per day as against two million pounds per day from coal i i being burned in New York City. So, if you concentrated all of the plants in New York, 002245 18 | there is no problem from an air pollution standpoint, but it would certainly stink like hell. That's the problem -- is the i stench that you get from cooking these things when they are not] i controlled by these various means that we have available that ' causes our problem. MR. STAMER: You mentioned gas-fired or coal-burning equipment. That doesn't affect it either way, does it? MR. 3TRESEN-REUTER: No, not at all. That doesn't affect it. MR. STAMER: :.Te were amazed in Brooklyn when the Board of Health discovered some 15 years ago that'".they had missed a source of income, that along with abattoirs and other objectionable setups they had the right to license varnish , plants. Since I don't think that any of us are so old as to i i ' remember the old Congo cooks and the rest of the stuff that used to be done, you could smell them a mile away. They came in and they had a $50 fee, and simultane ously and concurrently with that they then took charge as to whether you stank or didn't. That means now that, even though we have this pollu tion control in New York and they are not kidding, they have everything that Chicago has got, but even,more, they have the i 002246 law and the power to enforce it. Regardless of what your counsel says, you stink and you get a summons, and if you stink a little bit more you get fined $500. That is the end of that. If you want to go to the Supreme Court with it, that is your business. So far as New York City is concerned, we have the nuisance control in our place. If you want to put in any apparatus which will'be of a gas-fired type, and so forth, you first have to clear with the Board of Health the fact that you want this put in and for what purpose, and you have to have the necessary fume control to go with that apparatus before you are allowed to put it in. That is where we are in New York. . MR. STRESEN-REUTER: I believe we will be in that spot very shortly in Chicago. MR. STAMER: Then I would say -- and I have been around 34 years -- don't let it bother you, it won't kill you. If you stink, yotr ought to stop stinking. MR. STRESEN-REUTER: That essentially is the story that we have. We do have the equipment available now, and the sooner that we face the facts that we have to stop, the less trouble we are going to have. MR. STAMER: We put in a gas incineration setup with our varnish cooking, and I can promise you -- I am not gilding 002247 . - 5*3^8? 20 the lily -- that you can hardly smell us, really. As far as your alkyd plants are concerned, if you cool: isotropically, you don't have any trouble. And if you are using the fusing method, you are using obsolete equipment. Right? MR. STRESEN-REUTER: Right. CHAIRMAN MC DOWELL: Thank you, Mr. Stresen-Reuter. That was a very informative talk. We will go'on to the next subject here, "The History and Future of Labeling." This seems to me to be a subject where an ounce of prevention can save a great deal of money for a company. . S I know I have trouble once in a while with our Sales Department on some of these things, but when I try to show them how much they might have to increase their volume to pay for the cost of handling a case, I get a- lot better cooperation, An ounce of prevention is of great help. .Years ago, I remember one case where one product was wax, which had a statement on the label, "If it congeals in the can, warm slightly." But unfortunately it also had a flash point of about 70. This poor lady got a can and it was congealed, and she put it on the stove, and the first thing you know it flashed and burned the poor woman's side of her face off. I remember it cost quite a bit to get rid of that case. 002248 21 We have learned a great deal from that, I believe. We try to do the things that are going to make our product safe and live up to any obligations that we have in connection with it. Nowadays we are running into a great number of legis lative problems that have to do with the registering of our products, the labeling of them, and the problems that are con nected with it. ' Mr. Sanford Hill is here today to talk to us about the problems associated with labels. He has had a great deal of experience in the field. He is really an experj^. He is more than 30 miles from home, so he can qualify not only by experience but by the rule of thumb that we apply to experts. He is a graduate of Massachusetts Institute of Tech nology, associated with du Pont for many years, and connected with the Legal Department of du Pont. So at this time I will ask Mr. Sanford Hill to talk to us on labeling and the prob lems connected with it. Mr. Hill. STATEMENT OF MR. SANFORD HILL OF THE DU PONT COMPANY MR. HILL: Tom, I was hoping that you would add the remark when you said I am associated with the Legal Department that I am not a lawyer. 002249 22 It is always a difficult thing to explain how I got in the Legal Department, but I don't know myself. I am a chemical engineer, to start with. Since I have been working on this sort of thing sine3 1S36, you can well imagine that labeling is about my favorite subject. My friends tell me that I have to restrain myself. So in order to contain my remarks within reasonable size, I have written this up.' It seems to me in some respects I ought to be talk ing this morning, as maybe some other people here, too, moreto the sales group -- whereas Tom says we are apt tq^have a selling job to do with sales people -- than possibly to the technical people. However, I think it is important that technical people, so that they can talk to- the sales folks, have some idea of what has been going on in the- field of labeling over the past two years, as far as I am concerned. I started on this in 1936, and labeling was hardly heard of at that time. We have come a long way since then, but I find it is not generally known what has taken place, and certainly that seems to be true among the regulatory officials. So, I think it is important that we have some idea of the history of the labeling activity so that we can take 002250 23 appropriate action at the present time. The National Paint, Varnish and Lacquer Association, together with many other trade associations, supports good Federal and State precautionary labeling legislation directed to products intended for use in the home, and considers it of the utmost importance that such legislation be uniform. To appreciate the situation as it exists today, it seems desirable to present a brief history of the development of precautionary labeling legislation, a review of existing labeling legislation and regulations, and the outlook for the coming legislative year. That sounds like a large order, and I can assure you that it won't be covered in detail this morn ing. Reference to the chemical industry in the following paragraphs is intended to include the paint industry, as most certainly paint is a combination of chemicals. The develop ment of precautionary labeling roughly parallels the develop ment of the chemical industry, but at the turn of the century chemicals were mostly inorganic, with mostly no synthetic organic chemicals. I put the word "synthetic" in there because, of course, there were many natural organic chemicals in use. Paint was white lead and oil, with inorganic 002251 24 pigments added. Until World War I, the public had compara tively little exposure to chemicals, and the various state poison and pharmacy acts, and later in 1S25 the Federal caus tic poison act, provided quite adequate protection by requir ing "Poison," and a skull and cross bones on those products rapidly fatal by ingestion. As chemical products multiplied, it became increas ingly evident thattappropriate labeling was necessary to insure safe handling and use by customers possibly unfamiliar with the properties of the new products. Federal labeling legislation was proposed in 1932, but in lieu thereof, a series of voluntary agreements covering the labeling of six chemical products was developed by the Surgeon General with the cooperation of an industry committee. These agreements served a very useful purpose from 1934 until their discontinuance in 1952. This discontinuance resulted from the development of large numbers of new, and in many cases, hazardous chemical products not covered by the agreements, and there followed the acceptance of the manufac turing chemists association warning labels which was consid ered to provide important, more appropriate warning labels for all chemical products requiring them. The United States Public Health Service reactivated 002252 25* the Chemical Products Committee to work with the MCA in evalu ating label requirements. Typical of the type of chemical that stirred everybody up back in thos days was DDT. That, of course, is a pesticide, but you remember the publicity and everything that DDT got. Pirst, it was going to cure every ill that man had, it seemed, and we spread it all over. Then, suddenly it became a poison. Then that' had to be worked out. And I think today it is back again where it belongs and is a useful tool, but is not a poison as such and is fitting into the picture very nicely. ^ Because of its long-time concern with the safe handl ing and use of chemicals since its founding in 1872, the Manu facturing Chemists Association has> been closely connected with all precautionary labeling matters. In 1936, a confidential bulletin on adequate labeling was sent to its member executives. The interest and action that this report engendered led to the establishment of the Labels and Precautionary Information Committee in 1944, which developed principles of labeling and illustrative labels as shown in its Manual L-l, "Warning Labels." I am afraid Lou thinks I am apt to plug for the MCA too much in this talk, but I hope you are all familiar with 26 this manual, which I think is probably the basic piece of information in the field today. This manual has been revised periodically since its first appearance in 1S45, and in the latest edition, 1S56, reflects the latest information in the field. Although the work of the MCA has been directed pri marily to the labeling of industrial chemicals, it has been found that the principles and illustrative labels are readily adaptable, with few appropriate minor changes, to the labeling of any group of chemical products. In recent years labeling committees have been established by a number of other trade associations, including the National Paint, Varnish and Lacquer Association, the Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association, and the American Petroleum Institute, all of which' fortunately found it pos sible to use the MCA Manual as a basis for their recommenda tions. It was gratifying that these associations have been able to work together regarding proposed legislation or regu lations pertaining to precautionary labeling. At this point, let us take a look at the status of legislative and regulated action to date. California, Illi nois, Oregon, New Jersey, New York State and City, and Hawaii have regulations under enabling laws based on the MCA 002254 labeling principles. In general, these regulations apply to materials supplied to employees by employers and cover many small pack ages as well as the usual industrial packages. It is surprising how little known some of these regu lations are. Perhaps the reason for that is that enforcement has not been too strong. In California, their safety orders are being enforced,* and I think that everybody knows that there are labeling provisions in California. So far as I know, they have not worked very heavily on paints, as such, although they have turned thei,r attention to solvents and thinners, and so on, there. In Illinois, the enforcement has been not too exten sive. When the Illinois Part J Regulations were put in, you may remember there was a flurry of excitement and* ar certain amount of labeling was done. But they have never pushed the thing the way they might have. In New Jersey, they have substantially the same type of regulation as California, and they are fixing for a little better enforcement. In fact, I expect to talk with the regu latory officials in New Jersey next Friday. They have put out a new booklet of regulations, and I think they are really going to work at it. 002255 28* In the other places mentioned, there is enforcement, but it is sporadic and lots of people think, M0h, well, they won't bother us." Of course they may or may not, at any given time. Recently, Texas, Connecticut, and Kansas passed laws covering the labeling of household chemicals which are very similar to the CSMA Model Act which will be discussed''presently, In addition, laws in' Indiana and Massachusetts are not incon sistent with the MCA principles, but are more limited in their scope. In drafting these laws and regulations, ^ach regula tory body considered the suggestions offered by trade associa tions with the gratifying result that uniformity has been achieved to a remarkable degree. Similar assistance wa9 offered in the case of three Federal Bills introduced into Congress just adjourned -- the Bush Bill is 1900; the Curtis Bill, H. R. 7388, and the identi cal Williams Bill, H. R. 9063. These bills, which provide for the labeling of house hold chemicals are very similar to the CSMA Model Bill and had the support of the chemical industry. We think you would be interested in reading the state ment made by Representative John Bell Williams of Mississippi 002256 29 when he introduced H. R. 9063. This appeared in the Congres sional Record of August 2, 1957. It is a very satisfactory explanation of why we need a labeling bill, and I suggest you read it. I didn't want to bring it along this morning. It would take too long to read it. \ It is interesting to note two other developments whici are not too well known about. In 1954 the International Asso ciation of Governmental Labeling Officials, Subcommittee on the Labeling of Dangerous Substances of the Committee on Industrial Health and Safety -- I copied this down to get it right -- issued a suggested draft for uniform rules and regulations related to the labeling for use, handling and storage of con tainers holding substances harmful to the safety and health of employees. This draft was based on the MCA Manual and is, so far as I know, one that would be satisfactory to industry. In fact, it is identical with the New Jersey Regulations because the New Jersey Legislature drafted them, but New Jersey has since brought theirs up to date a little bit. But there is this model set of regulations available in practically every state, but the IAGLO seems to have done little about it. But it is there and they have adopted it, and it may be useful legislation if a given state becomes active. 002257 30 A draft of regulations being prepared by the American Conference of Governmental and Industrial Hygienists Labeling Committee is fundamentally in agreement with the MCA Manual. Further get-togethers with industry groups are planned to resolve certain differences iir thinking regarding the labeling of mixtures. With the increase of state interest in labeling legislation, the need for modernization of the Federal Caustic Poison Acts became more apparent. Periodic efforts were made by the MCA and other associations to draft a modern Federal labeling bill that would serve as a pattern for uniform state legislation. Over the past two years the various association labeling committees have been: cooperating to draft such a bill. It was agreed that the Federal bill should be limited'' to house hold products. I think a word of explanation as to why that agreement occurred should be made. I am talking now, of course, about a Federal bill. Industry, so far as I know -- certain parts of industry -- had no objection to a Federal bill that would cover the labeling of all hazardous chemicals. But you have to be practical in these matters, and you have to wonder who was going to administer these bills. 002258 31 That was a poser, because so far as the household chemicals went, it seemed obvious that the Food and Drug Admin istration in HEW would presumably take over after the cancel lation of the Federal Caustic Poison Law. So that seemed to be the obvious place for it -- either there or in Public Healt 1. But when you get to industrial products, and so on, who in Government was going to administer it? Talks were had with folks in the Labour Department. They said they weren't set up to administer it, and at the present time there appeared to be no agency in the Federal Government which could properly take on the Industrial Chemical Labeling Bill. = So, the people who talked this over generally agreed that the bill federally should be limited to household pro ducts, with the possibility that at a later date when an appropriate agency seemed to turn up, we could have an indus trial labeling bill which would be similar but be under a different jurisdiction. Industrial chemicals did not lend themselves to con trol by the same regulatory body, and the problem there seemed to be so well in hand due to the voluntary efforts of industry in the various state regulations under enabling acts. You see, these enabling acts make it possible for the various Labor departments, or Public Health departments -- 3* as the case may be in a state -- to set up these regulations for the control of the labeling of industrial products. And where that has been done, it has proven satisfactory, as Cali fornia can testify. And it could serve as a pattern for other states. Having decided that the bill should be limited to household products, the Chemicals Manufacturers Association -- that is the association whose products were to be most affected -- took the lead with the cooperation of the other groups. We felt that somebody had to sort of be the leader in this. The Federal bills were introduced during the development of the CSMA bill; and had hearings been held, small changes would have been requested to agree with the final CSMA bill as drafted. Although minor differences of opinion exist, the industry generally supports- the. CSMA bill and hopes that it will be passed early in the next session, of Congress. It is obvious that in the labeling of hazardous chem icals, almost universal cooperation between and among the regu latory officials and industry groups has achieved uniformity which all agree is desirable. So far as we know, the states having uniform regulations or laws have found them to be satis factory. And then the monkey wrench came in. Early this year the Committee on Toxicology of the a s' rs 33 American Medical Association completed a draft of the Model Uniform Hazardous Substances Act and distributed it widely, with extensive publicity. I am sure you have come across it in many places. Although much of the draft is based upon MCA principles, a number of new concepts, if accepted, would cer tainly introduce confusion in existing laws and regulations, tc say the least. The National Paint, Varnish and Lacquer Association's comments on this draft were among those presented at a meeting of trade associations and industry representatives of the Com mittee on Toxicology on July 25. Copies of the consents made by the various groups are available from most of the associa tions there. It is to be hoped that the AMA Committee will accept suggestions made at the meeting and that it will meet with the trade associations and industry representatives to endeavor to work out a bill satisfactory to all concerned. Actually, there is to be such a meeting on November 5 in Cleveland, and we are going to hope, until proven other wise, that we can work out a bill that will be satisfactory to everybody. Unfortunately, the status of the AMA draft appears to have been misunderstood in some cases. It is a committee draft which is subject to change and has not been approved by - - --* 34 the AMA as an association. A request has been made to AMA to fully clarify this situation. They have not done so. We find that in many states this bill has been taken by the local medi cal societies and accepted as though it had AMA approval, and right now they are trying to get it ready for introduction into the state legislatures next year. There are a number of states in that spot right now, and as fast as we hear about them, we try to explain the situ ation and hold them back until the situation has been clari fied. The various industry labeling committees^feel that a major objective has been achieved when they observed the awakened interest in proper labeling of hazardous chemicals on the part of so many and varied groups. However, it is also somewhat alarming that well-meaning folks sometimes suggest that untried and unrealistic features be incorporated in the legislation. It has been the experience of the MCA committee that a labeling program, to be effective, must not go beyond the current development of the art and science available. Over the 14 years the co.mmittee has been working, many changes and additions and deletions have been made in its manual. The chairman of the Revision Committee already has a thick file A /'A for the fifth revision he hopes to bring out in 1959 or 1960. This committee is fully aware that changes in definitions and principles will be made as the science and toxicology and rela ted sciences advance and recognize the need for improvement in many cases. But, on the other hand, we feel that things should be orderly and we shouldn't leap beyond the present * state of the art. t Since MCA principles are part of industry proposals, it may be in order to discuss briefly two items which may be misunderstood. One, the definition of poison and the labeling of mixtures. They are controversial features whenever they come up. The poison definition is drafted for labeling pur- i 4* . - . .* poses only and primarily for application to new chemicals about which little or nothing.is known beyond limited experi ence in the laboratory. The application of the definition given in the principles should determine whether or not the word "poison" should be used in addition to other precautionary information, with a full understanding that it may be removed or added wher additional experience with the chemical is available. It has been our observation that the adequate 36 labeling of well-established chemicals is no problem, provided it is done by competent people trying to do a good job. I think that has been proven a good many times, if you try to do an honest job on labeling and you have competent folks, it is not too bad. The MCA poison definition appears in many existing I laws and regulations, and seems to give satisfactory "results when used as intended. The MCA treatment of mixtures is con sidered by some groups as too indefinite. We all should like to see some arbitrary scheme that would produce good labels by consulting tables or using a slide rule. This is ^specially true of mixtures, and of course that is what we are faced with in the paint industry. We shall continue to hope that advances in toxicology I! and other sciences will eventually make this easier system possible. But* with the present state of the art -- and label ing is still mostly an art, even though we don't like to admit it -- good judgment, together with adequate knowledge of the properties and components, are necessary to produce proper labels for mixtures. In some cases, appropriate toxicological tests of the mixtures will be necessary to assure proper results. Federal and State Food, Drug and Cosmetic Acts, '.A 37 * Federal and State Pesticide Acts, and the ICC Regulations, all have specific labeling requirements, although in some cases to a lesser degree. All may affect the labeling of paint products. That is rather a long story and a tricky one which we can't go into in detail on this morning. Time does not permit a discussion of these require ments. It should be noted in passing, however, that the Federal Insecticide-Fungicide Act and the ICC Regulations make use of the poison definition referred to above. In addition to the laws and regulations discussed thus far, there are others, some at municipal level, that spe- S. cifically refer to paint and paint products. These and most of the laws and regulations previously mentioned are to be found in the excellent compilation labeling laws and regulations pub lished by your association. There is another compilation recently issued by the CSMA on labeling laws which perhaps has a few more in, because Lou was thinking mostly of the needs of the paint industry, so there are the two if you wish to use them. As to the future, we can be sure of one thing, that more and more regulatory bodies will require precautionary labeling for hazardous substances as a matter of law. Right now, we know of many states that are considering such legislati 38 Forty-five state legislatures will convene in 1959, and we can be certain that many laws will be introduced for the labeling of hazardous household products. The National Paint, Varnish and Lacquer Association and the other associations involved will make every effort to secure uniform laws and develop reasonable regulations under them. We must realize that adequate precautionary labeling is a protection to our customers as well as to ourselves. We can make labeling an effective public relations tool. Let's not be afraid of it but utilize it to our advan tage. And as I tell some of our salesmen, let's not apologize but capitalize on the same idea. It seemed to me that a word might be said about some of the paint labeling laws that have been proposed. I picked up a label on the way out that seemed to be more or less typi cal of the industry's product. This happens to be a du Pont label, of course, which is for semi-gloss interior Dulux Enamel I was curious to see, if we had a labeling law passed today as is proposed, how this would fit into the picture. Well, all the proposed labeling laws say that you must show the composition at least insofar as the hazardous ingredients go. I find this label, complying as it does with the Virginia paint law, goes even further. It has all the 39 ingredients. It has the formula on here, the composition. Then all the proposed laws require that you give the necessary precautionary information, and as you know, the association has sent out proposed labels covering that. I find that this has what is more or less the standard paint warning label: "Warn ing, inflammable. Keep away from heat and flame." And because this is one of the odorless, so-called, paints, it has "Use with good ventilation," in a little larger letters. Then, "Avoid prolonged breathing of the vapor and repeated contact with the skin. Do not take internally" -- which personally I feel is unnecessary. "Before smoking or eating ar^ after using, clean hands thoroughly and keep container closed." Sor actually, I would say that this label already complies with any of- the proposed labeling laws: that we know about at the present time. There is one thing -- I don't know whether any old du Ponters are here or not, but as you can see, this warning is down here at the bottom, which you can't see- very well, perhaps I should say; and we do have rather ;;iaxrgp..-display up here at the top. This is one of the things that the regulatory offi cials criticize us about, that we should have the precautionary information and the things they want in a little larger type. 002267 4$ I think that the industry may as well realize that and make their claims accordingly. Certainly, we could do a little bit better job than we have done on there. But sales- men being what they are, as you know, I thought we did pretty well to get all this on. So, we are going to now push to get it a little bit bigger and put us in a little bit better position under various proposed laws. That concludes the formal part of this. If there is any discussion or questions, I would be glad to perhaps go into some of the details of the things that I slipped over rather rapidly. ^ (Applause) MR. STAMER: I know that is a semi-gloss label and I know you folks put down -- you call it "flammable.u Then you go on to say it has an odorless solvent in it. Haven*t they gone a little overboard? Surely the flash point of that material is above 80 degrees. You know what we folks do. We divide ours up into "Precaution" and "Warning" and "Danger," depending on the flash point ranges. That is a semi-gloss. Do you feel that maybe- your fellows have gone overboard in the warning phase of it? \ MR, HILL: Well, whether they have gone overboard or :i 4i not, I think they have tried to make life simple and I think they have made sort of a general label. I can't say that I am too happy with general labels. I think they should be tailored to the product. But in the case of paints generally, there has been the feeling that if we could get a label which we could put on which would cover the situation, it has been used. You probably know the genesis of this wording, most of it. So the industry more or less adopted it. But I certainly feel there is over-labeling and there is under-labeling. MR. STAMER: In that particular case, just to tell S. you how confused the situation could be, in the proposed changes in the Code of Ordinances, in Article XV, the Board of Hazard ous Trades, if you put the word "flammable" on there, do you know what you have said? Your flash point is below 80. MR. HILL: I realize that. MR* STAMER: So the point I am trying to make is, finally if we do get to it, I think there is going to be just as much an error in over-labeling as there is in under-labeling. That should be well pointed out. MR. HILL: You have raised a question which is a very controversial one -- where the break point should be in flammable and where it should be used. You will find various 42* arguments, as you know. I don't say that was the controlling thing here, but I think you will agree that things will burn pretty well, even though the flash point is up to 150. There are those people who think that, well, they put flammable on and play safe. Of course, the word "combustible" has been suggested % and a lot of people just don't like "combustible." So "flaramable" has been used father broadly, and perhaps too broadly. But that whole thing has got to be resolved some day, even though you know how flash point determinations are. They are very controversial as to what you should use. l^hope some body will try to set up a standard some day that will perhaps disregard all we have got and get a new one, because now there is utter confusion. I agree. i There is one thing 1 thought somebody might ask about, which I think should be mentioned. That is the situa tion regarding the lead labeling laws. I think that is a thing which is very hard to figure just where it should be, because you..-are labeling there for something which is quite different than we ordinarily think of as precautionary labeling. Yfhat we usually do is try to label the product in the can as it goes to the customer and for the customer to use. In these lead labeling laws, you are trying to label 43 for a condition which may occur considerably later on when the child eats the dried film and so on, and that is where the trouble seems to come. I don't know just how that fits in under any proposed labeling or any labeling that has been dis cussed. It is a special case, and I think it is too bad that it came up the way it did. I don't think it has been handled too well. But that is one where there isn't any simple answer. I think we could work out a way in which it could be fitted into precautionary labeling laws as presently proposed, per haps by regulation. But, of course, again we are all interested primarily in getting uniformity. MR. ECKART: Would you explain the CSMA Manufactur ing Association, the relationship with MCA and where does one stop? That is more household, isn't it? MR. HILL: The CSMA is called the household group and MCA is called the industrial group. As you know, they badly overlap. There is another point that comes in there. There is a gray place where we are having a little trouble right now, the so-called commercial chemicals. In connection with this AMA bill, the AMA boys want their bill to cover everything. I think there is some indication that they would be willing 44 to leave industrial out, but they want to get commercial in. Commercial is a vague term, and I think some people expect it to cover drums of detergent and so on, which the janitor uses for maintenance in buildings, and things like that. It is sort of in between. It isn't a manufacturing or industrial operation. It isn't a household use, but what is it? If we do use the term "Commercial," and that is included or excluded, somebody has got to define it. But "Commercial" comes into both CSMA and MCA, as you can see. But the CSMA is well known as the household group. They have all the specialty items, as you hajow. A good many of the paint people belong because of the automotive specialties, waxes, and so on. So, there is no sharp division, and yet it does sort of fall into the two groups rather well. MR. BRADY: To get back to that combustible and inflammable, I do labels for a few of the paint manufacturers. I have heard a lot of discussion on that. Most people feel that the word "combustible'' means a much more dangerous pro duct than a "flammable" one does. So they put "flammable" on, feeling that to the ordinary person it won't seem as dangerous a thing. I tested that out. I asked about ten people in my plant which they considered the most dangerous. Nine out of the ten said they thought "combustible" was. They think "com bustible" is something that is explosive. But if you ask any body who has had any chemical training, they will tell you right away "flammable" is a more dangerous thing than "com bustible." MR. HILL: I know your problem. All I can say is this: if industry Ls ever to agree on certain terminology, then it becomes necessary to educate the public as to the significance of these terms. We have a slightly controversial situation in the S. MCA labeling. We have "Danger," "Warning," and "Caution," indicating three degrees of hazard. A lot of people don't think too well of that because they don't know how to break them up. There are people who will argue that "caution" means just as much as "warning" and so on.. Maybe they do. I don't argue the point because you can prove anything that way. But I think that if we could establish certain.words as meaning certain things in the minds of the public,; we would be a little better off than we are now. But that is a hard job, admittedly. Of course, everybody knows what a "Poison" skull and cross bones mean. It has even been proposed that we nft?.T73 46 establish symbols, but nobody has come up with a set of symbols yet that could be used. But this terminology and the understanding of the terms is definitely a problem which I don't think could be handled any other way than having industry decide what they want, and then try to educate the people accordingly. A VOICE: We have got an enamel, for instance, in a chrome yellow color.* Then in that same line you have got one that is a gray. Of course, your chrome yellow would be a lead. You have one in a gray which would be nothing but Ti(>2 and lampblack. ^ Would you have the same type of precautionary label on both of them, or would you have special labels for certain colors? MR, HILL: If you ask me, the answer would be we would have the- label to fit the stuff in the can. But you know you like to have a label you can use pretty generally. So, sometimes, that breaks down. Of course, one answer to your question is this. As you know, in the paint law in Virginia, you have darn well got to have the can labeled for what is in it. While you are doing that, you may as well detail your precautionary information the same way. nrv>">74 47 We have got one now which is indicative to me of the type of problem we are going to run into in paint labeling. We had a fire-retardant paint which has got 9 percent, I believe, of antimony oxide in it, which we put down in accordance with Virginia law. Vfhere do we stand under the California poison law, which says that anything containing over 5 percent anti mony is poison and must have "Poison" and an antidote on it? I haven't figured that one out yet. There you are. You have got some others in the paint field along the same line. So far, we have gone along more or less merrily and nobody has bothered us. But with all this focus on labeling s* that is coming up today, I think a lot of these things are going to be brought to folks* attention and we haven't got all the answers yet. Also, I think as much as the paint people dislike to label things. -- I know all about that -- when I look at the composition of some of our recent finishes that we are develop ing, certainly they aren't paint as we used to know it. There are some pretty potent chemicals in there, and I don't think that I, for one, want to see them put out without appropriate warning statements on them, which certainly would go far beyond anything that has been proposed to the association so far, because they weren't anticipated when these precautionary labels! 43 were sent out. Thank you, gentlemen. You let me off very easily. (Applause) CHAIRMAN MC DOWELL: Thank you, Sanford. As part of one of the problems we have had recently in connection with labeling has been encountered in New York, our people up there have been doing a yeoman job on it. I wonder irf Mr. Eckart would like to give us a few words about the New York situation? MR. ECKART: In New York City, if you are there, you are on the twin horns of a dilemma, as you perhaps^know, because no matter how religiously you conform with our 1954 suggestions, you cannot satisfy the Fire Department and the Health Department in one fell swoop. That gets into this previous regulation of the Fire Department at the present time -- and frankly, check me if I am wrong -- you are supposed to label a product as such. In other words, it had better have "Paint," "Enamel," "Lacquer," "Varnish," "Shellac," or whatever is accepted as being sort of a generic term. Otherwise, you are supposed to put on the front of the label "This is a paint product," so even if you do all of the things -- most of us, I hope, are doing today -- you have a situation in New York City where it is impossible 002276 49 to satisfy the two departments. This kind of a hazard has gone into Baltimoi'e. I don't moan to get away from Hew York City too quickly, but you have Baltimore where they have their own ideas as regards labels. They, for instance, want the word "Window sills" put i j on thore. They don't want a product containing over one per cent of lead to be recommended for any interior sui-face that might be chewed by children. Dr. Williams is quite intent to get this particular : regulation put over and the description will subscribe to it, ; so we would like to have the Hew York City Health Department agree with him. That is a natural thing to do, because more | i j people, I guess, distribute in New York City than in Baltimore, and Hew York City is going to start policing this law that they have after the first of the year. 3o you have these situations coming up constantly. I r.m afraid this is going to become a political speech in favor of Federal legislation, but the more I study this and i the more I have contact with gentlemen like Mr. Trichter in Hew York City, who is a very sincere and dedicated person, to try to avoid these hazards, the more I realize that a Federal lav; has a lot of logic behind it. Once industry has subscribed to a Federal law and is i 002277 doing it generally, then it would really be very difficult for someone in a ^iven city to upset the whole applecart. i I could go on and on, but basically in Hew York City what v/c have is the Health Department, who wants the American Standards Association to button down a definition as to the s lead content and the other things that might be injurious by ingestion. Once that Z-66 standard was set up, we were able in 1954 to send out* our regulations which very well defined what the labeling procedure should be. put "Do Hew York City at Hot Apply on Toys, that time was Furniture" -- insistent that you S. the standai'd wording ''V for materials containing over one percent of lead. They are ! eminently happy at the present time with what they accomplished, and they said, "If we weren't happy with your paint labeling procedures, we would tell you so." I think there was a case of where we really and truly satisfied them, and of course their great problem is not ! from paints that are currently applied that cause damage to ; children. It is from the old paints that are falling off, that are peeling off, and are eaten by these small children, | j iJ j particularly in the low-cost housing areas. lei in laltimore. You have a paral- * II j j So, I think that Hew York City Health Department is nrm78 very anxious that in the City of Hew Yorl: one- law will satisfy both the I'ire and the Health Department. Perhaps that is a justification for jotting a federal law, Tom. I am not sure. Tut a would j o ...lad to answer any quest ions chat I can i. someone would like to ask them. I think lew York City perhaps has been instrumental in setting up or promoting these laws that we have, because there are so many people in ITew York City, and we do have *the low income areas where there have been a number of lead poisoning cases. Of course, lead became the arch foe and had to take all the blame for anything hat was ever poisonous in paint. A VOICS: Do you feel that a Federal law would cause the people in the City of Baltimore to fall in line? I can't imagine our recommending a Federal law which would tie in with Baltimore's requirements. MR. ECKART: I agree with you, because I think we have gone so far now that I would hope -- and the first draft which was very well done by Mr. O'Toole -- certainly accepts what we are doing today. I think if you got the backing informally, as we would probably do, of the New York City Health Department for that law -- and I think based on my conversations with Mr. Ti'ichter, he gave assurance that he would back that wording or 52 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- such a law; he is satisfied with the way we label paint prod- ! I I i acts today -- then you would hope that, we will say, the Fire Department falls in line, and then that Dr. Williams in Balti more would suddenly throv: in the sponge, because he realizes that industry has gone too far with this and his objections are really rather minor, aren't they? *. | i 3o, I think Mt*. Trichter would certainly -- in speak- ing* for the Hew York City Health Department -- he was so enthusiastic about the idea ox a Federal law, because those fellows have an awful lot to think about, and paint ^.s just one of them. v. If they can sort of clear it off their desk by fig- i uring, "Well, there is a Federal law that covers that," they love that. I think he has a counterpart in almost every city and in most states. A VOICE: You talk about they are going to enforce t he 1 aw after the first of the year. Is that the Fire Depart- r.cnt or tne Health Department? I,ill. ECHART: The Health Department. ' MR. 3TAMER: As you have read in IS54 and IS55, the j.o j cr j.7 the that v;e got from the national Association apropos J .cad clause -- they did not have the manpower to enxorcd this lav; and they told Dick that they would have the manpower 53 a*.'ter the first of the year. I, as the President o 1 the `.lev; York Association, sent a tor to all of our mamif acturers telling them that I had an idea that aCter January 1, this -.y o u Id be enforced in hew York City. Up to this point, they haven't bothered anybody that I know of. MR. ECKAHT': Are there any other questions? I think that the Mew York City Fire Department situa tion is perhaps going to fall in line. Frank 3tame^ has kept contact with the* Fire Department boys, and it meant*. lunches and a few martinis occasionally and all that. MR. 3TAM2R: The last bill was $25. MR. 2CKART: So we are contributing something to industry, you see. I have taken on the Health Department and ho coos the Fire Department, because we have the Fire Depart ment: permit anyway. CHAIRMAN I.IC D0V/2LL: Mr. 3tamer, would you have any thing you would like to tell us about the Fire Department j Iv'os the alcoholic side? i (Discussion off the x'ecord.) i | CHAIRMAN MC 'JOV.'DLL: I think probably we can pull 1 i together the Mow York experience and in some way or another work. nnr> r i 54 on the Baltimore situation to advantage. I am sure that your committee will try its best to do chat. *=.'0 7;ill welcome any ! suggestions or ideas that anybody cares to scud -i. i* to us. Ye arc getting close to the t l:.ie when we should adjourn. There are two other gentlemen I would 1 i; :c to cc\ 11 on before v;c leave. I Before that*, too, I would like to say I done a very fine jo*b of drafting, at leant nakir nw> t a ) \J 1 v i# ^;l -J l cirst : draft of a suggested federal lav/ that is going to be worked ; on by the members of the committee. we will push ,that along as fast as v;e can. u There are not only the two subjects to hear that we covered today that causes us many problems throughout the ! | country, but there are many others. I was wondering if frank i Pitt has anything to tell us about any other developments or anything that you think we ought to be thinking about, frank. You have been over this ground so often. MR. FRANK PITT: One thing we haven't spoken of except inferentially, Tom, and that ties right in with the subject of discussion about the first speaker this morning, that is air pollution -- is a matter of widespread interest I to a great number of the industry in every city and state and country 002282 DO Of course, the other matter that the industry has tal;en a prominent, incorest in over tne last eight or nine yeax*si 13 til6 matter of protection of our water resources. I commend to you measures to protect the two great- est natural resources that we have, to wit, a good clean atmosphere and water resources, . j S j i l ' I think, generally speaking, in the protection of these resources, the- paint and varnish industry has been ; advanced, like many other industries, just as we have I think taken a very progressive attitude in the matter of adopting protective labels, also product formula labeling. I think it has in the long run reacted on to our great credit as an industry, rendering public service of major interest, which j are affected by the operations of the industry. I think if we will continue to use that as our guide-- post, if we will so operate our plants, and we will always consider them from the viewpoint of public interest and how it is affected by our operations, we will be selling a lot I * more paint. It is nice to be with you this morning. \ j CHAIRMAN MC DOWELL: Thank you, Frank. A good bit of this work, practically all of the wox'k, is gradually descending upon Lou Fisher. I was j I ! A 50 j wondering if Lou has anything he would like to tell us at i this time. -iA. uOU Iiaii-iili; to the experience in the oa~t i year, v;c are ail very, very lucky that in practically all the ' ( states that had any legislation, they did want to have dif ferent wording and they have gotten over it and now they have ! found this change in lew York City very helpful. San Feirncn went to Soston and talked to Dr. Michaels ; up there, who had an AMA bill he was asked to introduce by the i . Governor. Feirnan had no official standing, and'we told him S. what we were doing. He was amazed to find out thaVt wo had ^ ! program on labeling. He has decided to go along with us, and he is just going to grab something after the first of the yearj Ij ; I imagine. I imagine it would be more along the lines of New j |; YorkCity. I As youknow, nextyear there are45 states meeting, j I think we are going to have one hell of a time on a lot of tilings,'workmen'sCompensation laws,labeling, andeverything : else. when an open bill is introduced, we notified the presi dent and secretary and the chairman of the Legislative Commit- toe locally, and we try to work with them and point out things. w'e think that the local people should get to the front. It is better to have local people act for. their own nn'j'jQ/1 bill than somebody from Washington, which is usually a pretty oad thing to do. we nelp them ano. advise tnem and guide them and give them all the help possible. io the main issue is that we get together on these things and notify each other very promptly of anything we hear about or anything in the development stage, so we.can take prompt action bef9re something is done, rather than try to fight it. If we 'can steer it our way at the beginning, we will have a whole lot more people. I certainly want to thank you for the help you and the other boys have given me on this thing. CHAIRMAN MC DOWELL: I am sure everybody will be glad to give it to you to handle. I know I want to be sure that you get notified quickly. We will do all we can to be of help to you. Before closing, I would just like to note that Dan Bolin has just walked in the room. I haven't seen Dan for a while. It is awfully good to see you, Dan. If there ai'e no further questions or subjects to be .wrought up, I would like to first thank the Messrs. Stresen- Ceuter and Sanford Hill for the very fine job they have done here today, and everybody on the floor, and for all the work you have done 002285 58 .-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 'i ` If there are no further questions oi- subjects to be then v/c are adjourned. (V/hcreupon, at 11:55 o'clock a.i.i., the Legislative .. 'orua of the rational Paint, Varnish and Lacquer Association, I i Incorporated, v.as adjourned.) ? * ,I i i I i w. i I -i i ! i ii L 002286