Document obboxkmgnqyOBM8GnGddgEgw

June 7, 1971 J, F. Cole, Sc.D., Manager environmental Health international Lead Line liesearch Organization, Inc. 2.)2 Madison Avenue New Yora, New YorK IUU17 Lear Jerry: Thanks for your Letter of June 1, and for the documents describing the new surveillance program prepared by the U.S. Potters association, with the collaboration (or at least tne approval) of the Food and Drug Administration. 1 have submitted this to ir. Choiak who considers the test to be satisfactory, in tne belief that it is not likely to yield different results from tne one devised here. Taeir acetic acid solution xs 4%, ana ours is 5%; but their timing of the test extends it to 24 hours. The latter procedure would, in seme instances, at least, sane taeir test more severe, .is to the atomic absorption procedure, v/o arc quite prepared to accept this as satisfactory. As you know, doubtless, our people are using it alter parallel comparisons. I refer to these- details, since, in the absence of parallel comparisons, the relative severity ox tne two procedures is not certainly established. 1 would not quibble about this. o.-j to tne standard approved by F.D.A., as stated by the Potters Association, 1 definitely object to it, quite anart from its truth or falsity as a level of safety lor pottery, itself. It is simply not consistent with the position taken generally by tne F.D.a ; namely, that any quantify of lead added unnecessarily or avoidably to food or beverages, is adulteration wider tne law, ana so is not to be countenanced as satisfactory. We were able to snow that it is - and has been ior a long time possible to achieve a laze from which lead can be ieaeneu out only to the extent of 2 p.p.ia. oy tile tost which was employed. There is, x believe, no good reason for '-couraging potters to be lenient in this matter. What can bo done should be required. It is not proper to add extraneous quantities of lead, from any source, unless it is necessary to do so in order to achieve a socially desirable purpose. One can compromise a little, perhaps, in matters of aesthetics, and to obtain a more coiorful character of life and surroundings. However, we have taxen the position, previously, in official governmental circles, that this should not be done. I wonder why, in this instance, it seems satisfactory or desirable to do so. I think the Potters are unwise to accept such an unnecessary compromise. I would be pleased if you would present this view of mine to Mr. fiervin, and find out whetner he agrees, and if not, why not. He has always had a reasonable and sensible attitude, it seems, and I value his opinion. If he and the others do not agree, I would have no rignt, to impose my views upon them, or on you. t Sincerely yours, IL*K:wb . Robert A. Kehoe, M.D. Professor Emeritus of Occupational Medicine