Document rBXJ5L6eeZbOR820pELD0GMe7

LEGISLATION/ Important government actions 0/ of poor /o tape j The complex question of aerosol j safety, with its implications of new I and more rigid consumer-protection i legislation, has been at low pressure 1 for several years. But now it has ] reached a critical point and is being intensively examined by Federal, state . and local governments, and by aerosol 1 packagers and suppliers. At stake is the ' continued growth and profitability of a U.S. industry that last year produced : more than 2.6 billion filled containers. This aerosol-production figure is significant in current concern over the safety of this package form because of a marketing factor that perhaps helped keep the estimated '71 output only slightly above '70's total of 2.62 billion units. Original forecasts of as much as 8% annual growth were dimmed in recent months by the shadow cast by the Food and Drug Administration over hexachlorophene, an ingredient widely used in feminine-hygiene prod ucts, including purse-size aerosols. \ Out of current studies and leg. islative proposals could come new laws ( or regulations to (1) minimize the ; toxicity hazard of refrigerant-type . fluorinated-hydrocarbon propellants I and other "inherently dangerous" product/propellant formulations, (2) reduce aerosol flammability and ex plosion hazards and (3) control delib erate and/or vandalistic misuse of inhalable aerosols and spray-on paints. The least that aerosol packagers can expect in new Federal controls this year is a regulation mandating graphic hazard symbols as an adjunct to printed label warnings, as requested of FTC by Rep. Fred Rooney (D.-Pa.) (MP, Dec. '71, p. 84). In the face of this situation, some aerosol-product packagers and sup pliers hew to the defensive argument that the pressure container is as safe as practicable technology can make it, that personal injuries are statistically minuscule, and that accidents are al most always traceable to consumer misuse. Safety: the last word Valid as this argument may be, it doesn't count for much when con sumer protection is a powerful politi cal and legislative issue that ranks among packaging's most serious prob lems (see p. 22). It is further weak ened by the fact that even one pre ventable death is one too many--the heart of such new packaging-control legislation as the Federal Poison Pre vention Packaging Act (MP, Jan, '72, p. 22). I Nor is industry's defensive posture j strengthened by periodic evidence that j seems to argue for stronger industry j self-policing or. in its absence, leg- 1 islative fiat. For example: Item: A recent issue of the presti gious Journal of the American Medi cal Assn, carried a report by Drs, Nancy C. Flowers and Leo G. Horan of the Medical College of Georgia in dicting fluorocarbon propellants as the cause of irregular heartbeat and even tual death in dogs that breathed the concentrated vapors. The Georgia re port follows by little more than a year a similar Journal story identifying the same propellant as the "possible cause" of sudden deaths among asthma patients after spray-inhalation therapy and calling for immediate studies "to determine the amounts of these propellant gases inhaled by and entering the blood of patients with asthma, housewives and others who use pressurized aerosol dispensers many times a day." (MP, Dec. '70, p. 84.) Dr. Flowers concedes that the ' Georgia experiment was conducted under controlled abnormal circum stances (i.e., placing a plastic bag over each dog's head to achieve high vapor concentrations). Unfortunately for the industry, however, the report has the apparent stamp of authority that ' serves only to goad those who seek i new and more restrictive controls. Item: At the annual meeting of the Chemical Specialty Mfrs. Assn, in De cember, R. L. Allen of the U.S. Envi ronmental Protection Agency noted that incinerator workers in Detroit plan to request extra hazard pay be cause of the explosion danger in empty, but still partly pressurized, aerosol cans. And then he added this first-person observation: "While vis iting an incinerator in a large Midwest ern city, a colleague and I were al most struck by an exploding aerosol container as additional waste was being placed into the incinerator. The potential hazard increases, of course, if substances such as paints and lac quers or other highly volatile products are involved. There are also potential dangers if the cans containing such volatile substances are compacted or performance is caused by your tape machine! 1 i When your gummed tape fails to perform, 91% of the time \ an Improperly functioning tape moistening machine is at fault! Even when a tape machine is performing well mechanically, it might be doing a poor moistening job due to worn or clogged brushes, or even an incorrect water level. The wrong "tape machine tor the job -- such as one incapable of properly moistening reinforcea tape -- ! is responsible tor some failures. If your tape performance is less than perfect, complete and return the coupon below; one of our factory trained mechanics will stop by, inspect your machine and tell you what's wrong -- free. I Better Packages, Inc. Tin Eight Break Street. Shelton, Conn 06484 I Setter Packages also distributes, services and rants Triner Scales. rn,,S" --------! Name Compear Addrsss City Tsl. No. Title State Zip MARCH 1972 ASI-PR 0003132 For more data, circle 109 on Service Card 109 t LEGISLATION , SEMI-AUTOMATIC [ EQUIPMENT FOR EFFICIENCY, VERSATILITY AND SIMPLICITY Semi-Automatic packaging equip ment replaces the hand opera tions, lowers cost of conveying, cleaning, and filling, The same equipment can be used on a wide variety of containers and product change-over is fast and efficient. Stainless Steel on all contact parts for sanitary operation. All ma chines custom engineered to spe cific production and container requirements. Litarature availabla. U-S* BOTTLERS MACHINERY l COMPANY ? 4015 N. Rockwell Street Chicago, Illinois 60618 Telephone: 312/478-0263 t Manutaclurars of SOTTUNG AND PACKAGING EQUIPMENT For more deta, circle 110 on Service Cord 110 passed through a baler, shredder or | mission on Product Safety cited aero- grinder ... I am quite sure that there i sols as a hazardous-items category are many other potential possibilities (MP, Sept. '70, p. 96)-is being for explosions and minor accidents spearheaded by FDA's Bureau of even though manufacturers have Foods. A task-force committee, repre warned consumers that explosion will senting various interested FDA bu- occur if container temperature is ele . reaus and the Federal Environmental vated above a specific level." , Protection Administration and headed Seeking the solutions by Dr, Albert C. Kolbye, Jr. (deputy director of the Bureau of Foods), is Not all of industry's efforts are I asking these questions as part of an strictly defensive. R&D money has, for ; overview of potential aerosol prob- example, been invested in the search * lems: for a reliable, integral and inexpensive What label warnings should be con- pressure-relief device to trigger con 1 sidered? trolled and non-explosive prod What are the chief propellant haz- uct/propellant venting when a pres , ards? surized container is subjected to sudden Which are the most hazardous temperature elevation. A front runner product/propellant combinations and in this venture is American Can's , what controls--if any--will they re RVR (Rim-Vent-Release) aerosol quire? container, already in commercial use. Dr. Kolbye emphasizes to Modern Then, the Sterigard Corp. has a special Packaging that the task-force probe, pressure-relief valve that rises auto still in its early stages, has not yet de matically under high heat to expose termined that an "aerosol problem" extra contents-release ports in the exists and must be remedied. He con valve stem, then retracts when inter cedes that, if such a determination is nal-pressure balance is reachieved made, the task force will recommend (MP, Apr. '71, p. 14). reasonable approaches to solutions, in And the industry-supported Aerosol order of problem priorities. Educational Bureau is attempting to . Dr. Kolbye says that FDA can issue alleviate the deadly vapor-inhalation remedial regulations under existing problem via an ongoing educational , law (i.e.. the Federal Hazardous Sub- program aimed at high-schoolers. Re- : stances Labeling Act). But he adds iportedly, no inhalation deaths have ] that strong opposition by industry occurred among students in 7,000 * could lead to requests for new leg- schools already exposed to its anti i islation. He does not, however, foresee sniffing filmstrip and supportive edu | the need for such a stringent measure, cational aids. Finally, fluorocarbon- and notes that the committee wel- ; propellant suppliers are researching j comes data developed by industry and ( additives that will make aerosol in- i others who may be conducting their j i halation repugnant to thrill-seeking own aerosol-hazards investigations. ` youngsters (like mustard additives used i Coordinated industry research is ex- ^ by manufacturers of model-airplane J emplified by an aerosol-toxicity inves glue). tigation launched by the Cosmetics, j Still, such efforts are rated as "not , Toiletries and Fragrances Assn. ; (good enough" by watchdogs of the public interest. For example, in his pe- (CTFA). formerly known as the Toi- . let Goods Assn., in cooperating with j i tition to FTC requesting a trade regu- the Chemical Specialties Mfrs. Assn, i S lation mandating grisly hazard sym ; (CSMA) and independent packagers / bols, Rep. Rooney noted that neither and suppliers. CTFA's Pharmaceutical/ . the AEB's efforts nor stringent label and Toxicology Committee, through! warnings have halted deaths caused by its Aerosol Safety Subcommittee, has' excessive inhalation of aerosol vapors ; set up a panel of medical scientists; (more than 160 in the last official ; (authorities in epidemiology, cardiol- i tally). So what can be done to control ogy and lungs). They will investigate the aerosol-hazards problem? It is a ) all aspects of aerosol inhalation and its question being explored independently ` effects on the human system. Al ? by the Federal government, by indus- though the investigation is still too ? try itself and, not least important, by young to speculate on results, a CTFA j consumer crusader Ralph Nader. spokesman says that "we do not in , The Federal investigation--an out- tend to dilly-dally and put ourselves in ' growth of a report to Congress in a situation where we have to respond | which the now-defunct National Com- to a crisis situation similar to the ASI-PR 0003133 MODERN PACKAGING 1 legislation GREATER ECONOMYHIGHER PERFORMANCE^'; ' AND FASTER OPERATION / 'MINI-LIGHT' SEMI-AUTOMATIC SAND STRAPPING MACHINE MODEL LMB-L Two MINI LIGHT models are available immediately to put more speed and ease into band strapping and heat sealing, regardless of package size. Operation is trouble-free and 10 times faster than strapping by hand--from 7 to 10 strappings a minutel And as an additional greater profits feature, MINI LIGHT takes all strapping bands on the market. It's an all-industry, all product machine that can be custom ized to your specifications. Model LMB-H also available. Writ* for details and enclose a sample of your package for 'customized' estimate. Totally new for heavyduty and light-duty packaging. Incorpo rate* many high-per* formance features that insure fast band strap ping and heat sealing. New efficiency boosts the number of strip pings to 13 to 15 a minute. Extra advan tages take the form of a compact size, so it consumes less space; a roller arrangement 'LIGHT' AUTOMATIC BAND STRAPPING MACHINE MODEL LNP-65 that permits quick, easy handling of large packages; and a strap ping capacity that enablet strapping up to maximum size without adjustment. Model LNP-88 also available. djefiD For further information, please write to: NIPPON HOSO-KIKAI CO.. LTD. Head Office: 24-16, 3-chome, Higashishmagawa, Shmagawa-ku, Tokyo, Japan Phone: Tokyo (03) 471-3300 Cable Address. "PAK LlQHTHOSOKI" TOKYO For more data, circle 112 on Service Card 112 cyclamates and hexachlorophene dis-j asters." . On the other side of the philosophic fence, consumerist Ralph Nader's or- . 1 ganization is investigating aerosol tox icity and explosion/flammability haz ards. The toxicity problem--keyed to? aerosol hairsprays--is being con-. ducted by Byron Bloch, a Los Angeles consultant in biotechnology who works under contract to Nader. Al though his report is not yet complete, Mr. Bloch says that after a year of evaluation he concludes that even nor- , mally healthy people can suffer lung- cilia deterioration or cardiac sensi tization as a result of inhaling aerosol hairspray vapors. Noting that commercial hairspray manufacturers neglect to mention these hazards on container labels--much less identify ingredients--Mr, Bloch says he hopes his report will "encourage the industry ;to provide more information to the consumer, ideally on a voluntary basis 'that will preclude the necessity of (Government standards and bureaui cratic entanglement." The explosion/flammability investi gation--by Ralf Hotchkiss, director of Nader's Center for Concerned Engi neering, Washington, D.C.--also is still in progress, with final results and recommendations pending. However, Mr. Hotchkiss tells Modern Pack aging that preliminary findings reveal "no question but that there is a prob lem of consumer safety in both of these areas, and that some rectifica tion will have to be made." He adds that his report will include cost/effec tiveness evaluations of solutions pro posed by industry and will encourage industry self-regulation. A question of eminence While aerosol-product marketers and suppliers ponder the possibility of new Federal controls, they must also cope with current lower-legislature ac tions that pose monumental problems of complying with laws that may dif fer intrastate as well as interstate. For example, state and municipal leg islatures are considering outright bans or financial restrictions on the sale of paints in aerosol containers--on the ground that vandals use such items for wanton defacement of public buildings and monuments. Though aerosol spokesmen point out that such controls would solve nothing (felt-tip markers, for example, already are be ginning to replace the aerosol paint can as a cheaper and more convenient graffiti instrument), successful at tempts to legislate restrictions on the sale of aerosol paints are a real possi bility. Pending in Pennsylvania, for ex ample, are two control measures: one to ban spray-paint sales in the state's major cities; another to subject paint dealers to a SI00 fine and 30 days' im prisonment for selling aerosol paints to a minor without written consent of his parent or guardian. Of course, the threat of such leg islative assumptions of power could be annihilated by new assertion of the pre-eminence of Federal law in all matters relating to interstate com merce. Such a decision might make a landmark case out of a Federal-court trial (imminent but as yet unscheduled as this issue goes to press) involving the aerosol industry, as represented by CSMA and the New York City Fire Dept. (NYFD). This vital court test had its origins in a proposed NYFD regulation that would control flammable or com bustible aerosol products sold or stored locally. Among other things, the rule would require prominent dis play of a NYFD certificate or permit number on affected retail containers (MP, Dec. '70, p. 86), Industry-repre sentative CSMA challenged the pro posal on the ground that Federal law is pre-emptive, arguing also that such a local law would impose special label ing. warehousing and distribution re quirements on out-of-state packagers. CSMA lost the first court test, but since has won a 2-1 reversal decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals, The ma jority decision granted CSMA's plea for an injunction against the regu lation and ordered the Federal trial, noting that there is a need for "or derly factual investigation of the rela tionship between city regulations and relevant Federal laws." The dissenting opinion held that the Federal Hazard ous Substances Labeling Act (FHSLA). the key Federal statute at issue in this dispute, is pre-emptive only for cautionary labeling, not for the additional identification labeling sought by the NYFD. This latter point represents the pivotal difference be tween the NYFD proposal and the FHSLA. So a Federal court decision that upholds CSMA's position could put the crusher on many state and lo cal legislative proposals that are at variance with Federal law. It's some thing to keep your eye on. ASI-PR 0003134 MODERN PACKAGING \ ! :