According to lead industry spokespersons and their right-wing allies, the industry did not obtain such knowledge until the late 1940s. See, for instance the opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal (October 1999) by Judyth Pendell of the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank. She tries to make the case that the companies that formerly sold lead paint were model corporate citizens that discontinued the sale of their product almost as soon as they became aware of its hazardous nature. When did they actually find out that lead paint was harmful to young children? Here's a brief chronology: 1904 - Sherwin-Williams Co. informs its representatives in a company newsletter that research in Europe shows that lead paint is harmful to both painters and inhabitants. 1904 - J. Lockhart Gibson, a physician in Queensland, Australia, publishes an article in a medical journal showing lead paint in the home to be the source of child lead poisoning. 1914 - The first journal article appears in the U.S. describing a case of lead paint poisoning of an infant. Scores of such articles were to appear over the next 25 years. 1930 - The Metropolitan Life Insurance Company publishes in its bulletin the results of a survey of prominent pediatricians. The conclusion is that lead paint poisoning is quite common and that it frequently goes undiagnosed because most physicians are not looking for it. 1930-1943 - Dr. Robert Kehoe, a frequent consultant to the lead industry and a national authority on lead poisoning, warns - in published articles, in medical association meetings and in correspondence with the head of the Lead Industries Association - that lead paint is a serious threat to young children. 1939 - The paint industry's trade association counsels its members, in a confidential letter, that when they sell a hazardous product (such as lead paint) they have a legal obligation to so inform the customer. According to the industry, when did the paint industry stop selling lead paint? During the Congressional hearings in 1970 for the bill that would ban lead paint, the General Counsel for the National Paint, Varnish and Lacquer Association contended that the sale of lead paint had ended by 1940. It must be noted that by this time the dangers of lead paint were widely known and many cases of children dying and made gravely ill were making headlines. Therefore, there was a need for the industry to distance itself as much as possible, in the public's eye, from this deadly product. And since the industry was publicly supporting this very popular bill, it apparently had little concern that anyone would question its historical account. Now fast-forward about 30 years. Lawsuits and and greater general knowledge of the history of lead poisoning make untenable the claim that lead paint sales ended by 1940. Instead, the industry and its well-paid publicists put forward the equally ludicrous (but reasonably-sounding) position that it only learned of lead paint's hazards in the late 1940s and then rapidly, and very responsibly, phased it out. Dutch Boy Paint (now owned by Sherwin-Williams) claims on its website that it has not contained any lead hazards since 1930! http://www.dutchboy.com/faq/faq.asp?categ ory=products&answer=2 When did the paint companies actually stop selling lead paint for housing? There was indeed a notable decline in the use of lead paint in the 1940s; however, production still remained significant. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) estimates that while the number of pounds of white lead per housing unit was 42 in the 1930s, it was still 22 in the next decade. Even after 1955, when the industry signed on to a voluntary standard of no more than 1% lead for interior paints, there was much noncompliance. The largest producer of white lead pigments, National Lead Company, admitted in 1959 that it produced interior lead paints with a lead content (1%) exceeding the amount allowed by law in Baltimore. In 1971 the New York City Health Department conducted a survey of interior paints sold in paint and hardware stores. It found that over 10% of the paints exceeded the legal limit. If the paint industry had ceased selling lead paint by 1940, or was phasing it out in the 1940s, there wouldn't seem to be much reason to expend significant time and resources to fight restrictions on its use. But that's exactly what it did.: 1945 - the Lead Industries Association, the National Paint, Varnish and Lacquer Association (NPVLA) and some of their individual members successfully lobbies the California state government to suspend a regulation that required the labelling of lead paint. 1949-50 - the state of Maryland passes a law that requires the labelling of paints with ingredients of a "deleterious and poisonous nature." The following year the law is repealed, due to lobbying by the LIA and NPVLA. 1954 - the City of New York proposes a regulation requiring a label on lead paints with a warning that the paint is "poisonous." LIA and NPVLA opposition to that term results in a label without it. AND THE BEAT GOES ON... More recently the lead and paint industries and their allies in general industry have vigorously opposed legislation that would facilitate lawsuits against them. In Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Maryland and Milwaukee laws and resolutions have been proposed in the last several years that would facilitate or authorize lawsuits against the lead paint companies. These companies and their allies have spared no effort or expense to spread disinformation in opposing such legislation. Activists in Massachusetts supported such a bill in 1993-94. In response, several of the likely defendants (Atlantic Richfield, Glidden, NL Industries and Sherwin-Williams) and one of their trade associations (National Paint and Coatings Association) paid out well over $200,000 between January, 1993 and June, 1994 to their lobbyists to squash the bill. (For an example of how the lead industry lies and misleads to sway public and legislative opinion, see the letter from one of the industry's lobbyists - click the icon to the left.) And they won. No surprise, given the weakness so many legislators have for corporate donations and the servility that they show towards legislative leaders. In 2000 each of the three states introduced similar bill to hold the lead industry to account. This time not only did the industry lobby, they also mobilized high-profile figures to testify at legislative hearings. Alan Wheat, a former congressman, has orchestrated much of the lead industry's campaign. Among those who have testified for the lead industry are Benjamin Civiletti, former US Attorney General, Walter Dellinger, former US Solicitor General, and Andrew Miller, former Attorney General of Virginia. The U.S. Chamber of Congress also chipped in with an op-ed piece in the Boston Globe. (In the interest of "fairness," the Globe printed the Chamber's opinion along with a pro-lawsuit one by the Massachusetts bill's main legislative sponsors.) Conservative think tanks have been recruited as well. The Manhattan Institute published an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal shortly after the Rhode Island Attorney General filed his lawsuit (the WSJ did not see fit to print a contrary view). LEAD INDUSTRY WEBSITE Several of the lead industry defendants have established a website that presents lead paint history, legal issues and other related matters from their point of view. Of course, it repeats the usual distortions and lies about when they learned of lead paint's dangers to young children. To see for yourself, click here. |
Enter Link |
Enter Link |
