Document ymJrYrZMX9oYV5KLY33nawjnD

?r. Kehoe January Dr. E. E. ware The Sherwin-Williams Company Cleveland, Ohio Dear Or. *#5re; I greatly appreciate year letter of January ?f and 1 understand, your attitude. I 6& not tenor wh&t can be done elons;, the lines that you suggest--l*e. f to convince the Food *nd nrug ^Amlnlstraticn that they should conduct the Investigation of lead toxicity under the guidance of a ommlttee, chosen to reoreeent the experiment stations, federal horticulturists, manufacturers, end fruit growera, #is veil e s the Food'end trug administration Itself. I agree dth you that prejudices would. he checked at the Poor. X as certain th<t the- frnlt growing industry would have that attitude if it were allowed reoreeent&tion. !5y interview with T>r. Campbell and Mr, Phillip*g opinion of hl hv# made me curt, however, that any investi gation that they conduct will hva as its sole purpose the ascertainment of fects. On the other hand, I can easily see that, if it Is conducted without the representntion of interests other than enforcement officials, It. ^ill fee open to the criticism that you hare in taind--that it# sno. oeed purpose will be "to get ammunition*. Also, It ie certainly true that this Investigation can be planned in such a way that it ^iU fee fundamentally {scientifically) satisfactory or unsatisfactory to all interest^ and that the only way to insure satisfactory planning 1# to have all Interests represented. For example, the lead arsenate cn washed apples is probably such leas toxic than acid lead arsenate, because of the weathering that has taken place on the fruit, which tend to tr&n*foils it to basic lead arsenate, and because the cashing process probably removes the particle# that are most easily dissolved. Therefore, washed apples should be used as one source.of lead'arsenate. A toxioclegist or biochemist not ex perienced in horticulture would overlook this point. He might even imagine that he would fee more scientific If he were to use cure acid lead aren*` because It 1* undecompoeed and tmeontamin-.ted. He might think, also, that he could get the purest lead arsenate from -a chemical supply house. There are probably a. number of Important point# of that sort, nest Important of all, carhops, le the point that field Investigations should constitute an important part of the investigation, by which I mean an examination of consumer for evidences of lead poisoning. I tfelote, as you do, that representatives of the various Interests pr. k -ere January 1936 would oe-rtleicate in -perfectly fair way; presumably, also,' the be-? t cosoani^r, horti ewlturlats, fruit growers, etc., could help the- Food and Prug Administration actively efter. the facts were established. I have attempted to state the situation i* you see it in ay r trord. as far a* I know, oy statement is complete, and the argument is absolutely sound. The arguments for conducting' separate- invest 1*. potion at the fettering Laboratory can be stated very briefly ry saying t***t i_t ^ould foe exactly frfn* rf an 1 nytig^irjg?- wrer-e yen tne on of *e von and rvruy 4,N^f ni wr/p^r-* or"""*" In n* rofitcfciww t ysr, that r is.re*-'tA'*y Is ml rnculcucly *x mn^ rer deln*- t*> -eyt, r*r r r %n<- ev~ pense. -nf effort xould therefore be obri^t^h because re vould not )*nvfj tc '-icrh frer. the greuad u- , that the results of the experiment o'.x Ic r, aecenfc'*nle tc m* boor ?nc nn;r * ***$ styr: tion, ^ell a.e to other Interests, imf last, hut not le^et, that would net have to rth the Food and frog /.drnlnl * tret ion io see-:" <: r ncltcy s-ith irblch they srs not .slrt-ody in eyrar^y^. I sonlft he esenmin.;; entirely too such if j *^r? x-: say, : the result of s*y brief interview vlt.h r r. Ca-rntbell, thru 1 h:. v c- e-yrresse." hi* flooi attitude. /t- I t:-V: t-r, T thin'- that bo i fcRxiuue for oil the ft* 1 r- th*t ho car. get in crrivlro ! X tr* trnstii. Ycurfr very truly I^.G.AiET '**t.r * * r " Enc. ocj .Krayhi 11 C'yeriey Qre erne Hewlett Talbert risir K efeoe "ickett Sourley fhUlioe Chief in co-rolor hbyeicloRy 0008542 THE SHEHWIH-'WILLIAMS CO. Cleveland, Ohio January 2, 1936 Or. w. A. Ruth, University of Illinois, College of Agriculture, TJrbana, Illinois. Dear Or. Ruth: I thank you for your letter of the 26th enclosing conies of your paper, "The Spray Residue Situation*. I'r. Gunderson and I have discussed the whole situation several times-; and both cf us feel that a conference with you might result in a different understanding on our part. I sincerely wish there could be some neutral ground on which producers, consumers, and. federal agencies could get together, he could all agree to Chech our personal prejudices at the door along with our hate and discuss matters of mutual interest from the standpoint of public welfare, why should it be necessary for Dr. Campbell to conduct seml-eeeret Investiga tions, apparently to get ammunition with which to combat industry if it should attempt to promote sale of a product that in hie opinion is inimical to the public interest? Why couldn't such governmental investigations be conducted under the guidance of a committee, membership to be chosen from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Experiment station staffs Growers' Association membership, and manufacturing industry. One ns 1 ght even consider the advisability of asking the ''ana Chemurgic Council to cooperate. It seems to me that we must concentrate on the problem of promoting a better understanding and mutual respect between Federal Research and Regulatory Bureaus on the one hand and agricultural and industrial organisations on the other. There must be some Mosea who can lead us out of the widernees of mis understanding. Very truly yours, THE SHERRIK-AILLIAMh COMPAKI Ew:w E. E. ^-&re (signs E E. W ARE tfE 0003543 N9748.01