The research our team has been doing on the lead-based paint case and the issues surrounding it has, as Doctor Rosner assured us it would, led us into other branches of research. Investigating a present issue through historical articles has been extremely interesting; it is a whole new way of doing research and finding out why things currently are the way they are. The relationships between manufacturers, consumers, and government were very different in the early 1900s, and I am just beginning to uncover some of the reasons why these situations were altered over the course of history.



What began with lead paint poisoning in children can be traced back even further to lead poisoning in children due to the consumption of candy. In 1850, Dr. Arthur Hill Hassall voiced his concern over the poisons that were being put into candy, including lead. Here we see an earlier awareness of children’s sensitivity to harmful chemicals, especially when they were being added into a product targeted for children. Dr. Hassall was one of the pioneers for the legislation of the first Food and Drug Act, and his work was grounded in children’s safety. It’s ironic that they are still the ones who suffer.
For a look into chemicals used in the early 1900s, see:
http://www.chemistry.org/portal/a/c/s/1/feature_ent.html?id=c373e9ffe3859dc28f6a17245d830100



In my last blog, I touched upon the addition of lead in makeup and how some cases of lead poisoning arose from cosmetics. After uncovering articles from 1906 that discussed a case of lead poisoning from toothpaste and how sugar of lead was being used in hair dye, I changed my focus to a larger issue that Dr. Rosner suggested. He suggested we begin to look into the Food and Drug Acts of 1906 and 1938 and use these events to look at the situations in the United States at the time. The first Food and Drug Act quickly became obsolete with the rise of an industrial culture. Cosmetics were not included in the first Act.



A large problem in the early 1900s with medicines and cosmetics is that advertisers were able to make a person believe that they were inflicted with an ailment while advertising for its cure. Everyone began to claim, “guaranteed under the Food and Drug Act” but it seemed to have almost no meaning whatsoever! One example of a ridiculous advertisement was for “Newbro’s Herpicide” which claimed to kill dandruff germs, which is actually a contagious disease that would eventually lead to baldness. (1907).
In the article ““Bar All Food Poison; U.S. So Pleads in Flour Case Before Supreme Court. SEES HARM EVEN IN LITTLE” the government had to present this argument to the Supreme Court in May 12, 1913 –
“If minute quantities of nitrates may be added to flour,” it was declared in a government brief presented to the court, “of boric acid to eggs, of chromate of lead to the coffee bean, of sulphate of copper to peas, or arsenic or lead to baking powder, of Martin’s yellow to macaroni, of wood alcohol to flavoring extracts, so long as it is not provable that enough in each case to possibly injure the health of someone, than the statute is incapable of enforcement…If actual injury must be shown, what standard of resistance is to be adopted? Will it be that of the sickly infant, or the strong man?”
The original Pure Food and Drug Act was clearly not doing its job, but it was not changed until the 1930s. I wondered what brought about this change, and after looking deeper into the issue a number of fascinating and frightening things came to my attention.



The awareness of poisons in cosmetics really arose in the late 1920s; I found articles warning women of lead and mercury in some makeups in 1927. Also in this year, the rising popularity of lipstick and rouge led members of the New York State Medical Society to suggest that cosmetics be included in the Pure Food and Drug Act. Around this time people are starting to furnish the idea that it is the government’s responsibility to regulate the labeling on foods, drugs, and cosmetics. In an article entitled “A Housewife Praises,” written in 1934, Catherine Hackett makes it clear that she wants legislation in order to make sure she gets what she pays for in a store. But her major concerns besides not getting enough chicken in her jar of chicken and noodles, are the drugs and cosmetics that she purchases. The public push for legislation seems to arise from consumers, which are mostly women. The National League of Women Voters even gave lectures entitles “Buyers Beware,” and argued that consumers as a group lack bargaining power and are not protected from producers and sellers. They also urged members to support a new and improved Food and Drug Act.



This was definitely a time of exposing the wrongdoings of manufacturers and sellers; the information out there is both amazing and horrifying. For example, in 1935 an undercover detective bought alcohol that had poisoned 9 inmates at Rancho Los Amigos. The mixture, labeled “whiskey,” contained alcohol, acetate, paint solvent, and some gasoline. The seller later claimed that it was not intended for drinking purposes. Senator Copeland, a physician from New York, was one of the men who introduced a bill into the Senate for possible changes of legislation. He also set up a “school” one day in the Senate and showed bottles and packages that were either false or dangerous. Some of his examples were poisonous candy and cosmetics that had blinded women. There was so much going on at this time that I don’t even have enough space to finish discussing it! Basically, the times were changing and there were many other issues at stake besides outlawing what is put into food or not. The government still had to figure out how to enforce and make changes and what the consequences would be to America and its economy. Manufacturers had their own spin on things as well. More about the revision of the Food and Drug Act and the effects next week! Thanks for reading, and have a great day.



(Here is an interesting advertisement in celebration of the first Food and Drug Act and the man who began the push for it--)
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=7&did=289040122&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=1143563735&clientId=15403

Following up on my post from last week concerning regulations in the cosmetic industry, I started looking at the policies of the Food and Drug Administration regarding the regulations of cosmetics. The information that I found expanded on the articles I read last week regarding policy changes in California and offered new insight into issues our group is interesting in concerning warning labels and industrial responsibility.

The FDA website (www.fda.org) sites two acts as the most important laws pertaining to cosmetics marketing in the United States. These two acts are the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act and the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act. First passed in 1938, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act defines what constitutes adulterated and misbranded cosmetics. It is constantly being updated. The Fair Packaging and Labeling Act outlines the requirements for how all cosmetic products must be labeled. Following this act, which came in to play in 1966, all ingredients must be declared on every cosmetic product offered to sale and must be listed in descending order of quantity. This act also requires the use of a warning label when it states “The label of a cosmetic product shall bear a warning statement whenever necessary or appropriate to prevent a health hazard that may be associated with the product.” Even though cosmetic companies are not required by the FDA to undergo safety testing, if a product has not been tested it must have the following warning label – “WARNING: The Safety of this product has not been determined.”

Food and drugs are strictly monitored by the FDA, but the regulatory requirements for the cosmetic industry are not nearly as strict as those that apply to other FDA-regulated products. The ingredients in cosmetics are not required to undergo approval before they are sold to the public. This means that the cosmetic industry can use any ingredient to market a product without government approval. The only exception to this is color additives, which do require government review before entering the market. Despite the lack of strict regulations on the cosmetic industry, cosmetic firms are still responsible for the safety of their products.

In an article I found on the FDA website called “Clearing up Cosmetic Confusion,” Carol Lewis defines the difference between a drug and a cosmetic according the FDA. These definitions determine the level of monitoring for various products. Cosmetics are defined as products that are “applied to the human body for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance without affecting the body's structure or functions.” Products that are meant to treat or prevent diseases, or affect function of the human body are considered drugs. Cosmetics that make therapeutic claims are regulated as both drugs and cosmetics, and must meet regulatory requirements for both. These definitions are those used in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

Reading about the current regulations on the cosmetic industry made me realize how easy it is for companies to hide possible hazards in the ingredients. This is an industry that affects nearly the whole public and there should be more awareness for the issues involved in the industry. I am very pleased that some states, like California, have been working to raise standards for this industry. This is something that should be done across the board for all states and all chemical industries.

Initially, I could not understand how the jury in the first trial was deadlocked and how the jury in the second trial found it difficult to reach their final decision. I thought a verdict in favor of the state was a no-brainer. However, after delving deeper into the case, it seems that the information presented could easily leave a person confused and wary of the validity of the state’s claim.
Although I undoubtedly agree with the jury’s final decision in the retrial, the defense deserves credit for their efforts. The question at stake in the first trial was whether lead paint constituted a public nuisance. The defense argued that lead paint is not harmful if intact, and only poses a threat if allowed to deteriorate, thereby placing the blame on parents and landlords for the lead poisoning. This argument may lead a juror, whose knowledge of the issue is limited to the courtroom, to believe that lead paint constitutes a private, not public nuisance. Defense lawyers stated that lead poisoning only occurred in one in twelve homes in Rhode Island that contained lead paint. The argument about lead paint constituting a private nuisance was bolstered when Rhode Island’s lawyers also did not seem to completely prove their case by not proving that children were poisoned in hospitals, schools, and other public buildings. The state only checks for the presence of lead paint in homes of children who suffer lead poisoning. In 1993, 35, 227 children supposedly suffered from lead poisoning. Some of the testing procedures used to determine this number were later deemed inaccurate, causing further controversy over the state’s claim. Finally, the representatives of the companies believed that they should not be blamed for their predecessor’s actions. Arguments such as those stated above allowed the lead paint companies to win 40 cases prior to the Rhode Island case.
In the retrial, jurors were able to see past the defense’s tactics to manipulate the jury into believing that lead paint was actually a private nuisance. The most important issue is that even if lead paint does appear intact, even banging on a wall or shutting windows or doors covered with lead paint can produce harmful dust that can easily poison young children. Even if lead paint were not harmful if intact, the companies did not warn consumers about the potential harm of allowing paint to deteriorate. This fact alone proved that the companies acted negligently and should be held liable for their actions. Rhode Island has had to bear the financial burden of financing education, abatement, and lead detection. Had the companies properly warned consumers, the paint would likely not have been used and the state would not have to clean up the problem that the companies created. The fact that lead paint is never safe and that the state has been forced to amend the problem on its own proves that lead paint is not only a private, but also a public nuisance.

Once we had really begun our research looking in to the lead paint industry and industrial pollution, our group met once again with Dr. David Rosner to discuss what we had found. During this meeting Dr. Rosner also updated us on his personal involvement in the case and the amazing success of the case. We talked about how once the Rhode Island decision came in, numerous other states around the country made rulings against the lead paint industry. I was curious about the direct connection between all of these cases and how those cases preceding the Rhode Island decision use that decision in their case. Dr. Rosner explained that in most instances, states where recent rulings have occurred, such as New Jersey and California, have already been in the middle of cases and the Rhode Island ruling gave them even more reason to rule against the lead paint industries.

Dr. Rosner was also extremely helpful in guiding along our research. Talking with him gave him as well as the three of us the opportunity to brainstorm new ideas about what direction our research should take. I told Rosner about the articles I had read from the last five years about regulations on the cosmetic industry in California. The cosmetic industry is not regulated at the same standards as many other industries because they have their own system of regulations different from the Food and Drug Administration. Recently, California has started requiring that the industry give their consumers more information on possible cancer causing agents in various cosmetics. Dr. Rosner was surprised the cosmetic industry has such a relaxed policy because they were one of the first industries to have warning labels on their products. He suggested that I look at documents from congressional hearings around the 1930s when the Food and Drug Administration first took on a major role in the government. I am interested to learn whether cosmetics were included under FDA’s control, how regulation of cosmetics has changed over time, and how this has effected consumers as the cosmetic industry is very large and effects many people.

In my search on the internet for information on industrial pollution I came across the Environmental Working Group site. This is a group that has done a lot of work to put a stop to industrial pollution. They conducted a study on ingredients in many cosmetics and give a safety assessment rating system for 14,000 products. Here is the web address if you are interested in looking at this study.

Before leaving for break, our team met with Doctor Rosner to discuss the research we have been doing and the progress being made in the lead based paint cases. We began our session by discussing the case and its remarkable progress. After the win in Rhode Island, so much had been happening and it was moving rapidly. Like wildfire, the court’s decision has spread and influenced other pending cases across the country. In New Jersey, the Supreme Court overturned the lower court’s decision and there had been talk about moving the case to the national Supreme Court.



At first I was hesitant to show Doctor Rosner what I have found in my research, thinking that he may have already seen many of the documents that I uncovered online. He reassured all of us that the work we are doing is important, and reminded us to not assume that he has seen anything. He showed us the importance of continuing our historical quest by illustrating the impact his own personal research had on the Rhode Island case. He remarked about the outcome, “its all hitching on this history…these documents that they found.” Rosner also let us see us a slide show of some of the advertisements and memos that were uncovered and used during the case. They blew my mind because the paint companies blatantly went out of their way to advertise to young children, to push for their walls and even the bars of their cribs to be covered with poison paint. And the memos show that they knew about the poisonous nature of their product all along. Another interesting thing that Rosner pointed out to us was the way the lead-paint companies had positioned their defense. They argued that they did not know about the dangerous nature of their product while stating that since the poisonous nature of lead was well known, they could not be held accountable. This double-edge sword argument seems contradictory, but it was used throughout the trial to defend the lead paint companies. Doctor Rosner told us about another fascinating historical aspect of the issue concerning lead paint and children—the condition known as “pica.” It was argued that some children have an “abnormal and morbid” craving to put things in their mouths, and some pica-afflicted children crave lead. The industry basically set up a system to blame others for lead poisoning while launching an advertising campaign using children to sell lead. (Think, dutch boy paint). Rosner really knows so much about the history of lead base paint and he learned through historical documents. I never knew researching archival documents could be so interesting and make such an impact, but Doctor Rosner has proved it to be both. Not only has he tapped into a way of making companies pay to help clean up their mistakes, he has started to end the poisoning of children in Rhode Island and hopefully it will spread to the entire nation.



My own personal research has been moving along and now that I am back from break I can really get the ball moving. The advertisements and articles from the early 1900s are ridiculous. Seeing some makes me sick, while others are so unbelievable that one almost questions how they could be true. A few of the more entertaining things that I have come across include the titles, “Louis Kosoks Hair Turns Green From Lead Poisoning” and “Blanche Walsh was Dying; Actresses Illness Due to Lead Poisoning Contracted in Making Up for Stage” 3/03/1909. Some heartbreaking articles show children dying from lead poisoning contracted from ice cream tubs that had lead in them and pewter drinking cups. I also found an advertisement from the Medical News selling a product known as “Thalialion” which is supposed to cure lead poisoning specifically in children. This ad was from the year 1900, so as early as the turn of the century people began recognizing that lead poisoning occurred specifically in children.



If interested and you want to explore further, here are a few sites I recommend. http://www.cincinnatichildrens.org/research/project/enviro/hazard/lead/lead-advertising/ shows some of the ways lead paint advertised towards children. http://costume.dm.net/makeup.html My personal favorite, this website illustrates how women such as Queen Elizabeth wore lead based makeup and even lead paint throughout history. A look to die for? More about cosmetics and lead next week. Until then, thanks for reading and have a great day!

Before leaving for break, our team met with Doctor Rosner to discuss the research we have been doing and the progress being made in the lead based paint cases. We began our session by discussing the case and its remarkable progress. After the win in Rhode Island, so much had been happening and it was moving rapidly. Like wildfire, the court's decision has spread and influenced other pending cases across the country. In New Jersey, the Supreme Court overturned the lower court'’s decision and there had been talk about moving the case to the national Supreme Court.


At first I was hesitant to show Doctor Rosner what I have found in my research, thinking that he may have already seen many of the documents that I uncovered online. He reassured all of us that the work we are doing is important, and reminded us to not assume that he has seen anything. He showed us the importance of continuing our historical quest by illustrating the impact his own personal research had on the Rhode Island case. He remarked about the outcome, "“its all hintching on this history these documents that they found."” Rosner also let us see us a slide show of some of the advertisements and memos that were uncovered and used during the case. They blew my mind because the paint compablatantlyntely went out of their way to advertise to young children, to push for their walls and even the bars of their cribs to be covered with poison paint. And the memos show that they knew about the poisonous nature of their product all along. Another interesting thing that Rosner pointed out to us was the way the lead-paint companies had positioned their defense. They argued that they did not know about the dangerous nature of their product while stating that since the poisonous nature of lead was well known, they could not be held accountable. This double-edge sword argument seems contradictory, but it was used throughout the trial to defend the lead paint companies. Doctor Rosner told us about another fascinating historical aspect of the issue concerning lead paint and children—the condition known as “"pica."” It was argued that some children have an "“abnormal and morbid"” craving to put things in their mouths, and some pica afflicted children crave lead. The industry basically set up a system to blame others for lead poisoning while launching an advertising campaign using children to sell lead. (Think, dutch boy paint). Rosner really knows so much about the history of lead base paint and he learned through historical documents. I never knew researching archival documents could be so interesting and make such an impact, but Doctor Rosner has proved it to be both. Not only has he tapped into a way of making companies pay to help clean up their mistakes, he has started to end the poisoning of children in Rhode Island and hopefully it will spread to the entire nation.


My own personal research has been moving along and now that I am back from break I can really get the ball moving. The advertisements and articles from the early 1900s are ridiculous. Seeing some makes me sick, while others are so unbelievable that one almost questions how they could be true. A few of the more entertaining things that I have come across include the titles, "Louis Kosoks Hair Turns Green From Lead Poisoning"” and "“Blanche Walsh was Dying; Actresses Illness Due to Lead Poisoning Contracted in Making Up for Stage" 3/03/1909. Some heartbreaking articles show children dying from lead poisoning contracted from ice cream tubs that had lead in them and pewter drinking cups. I came across an advertisment from the Medical News selling a product known as Thalialion” which was supposed to cure lead poisoning specifically in children. This ad was from the year 1900, so as early as the turn of the century people began recognizing that lead poisoning occurred specifically in children.


If interested and you want to explore further, here are a few sites I recommend. http://www.cincinnatichildrens.org/research/project/enviro/hazard/lead/lead-advertising/ shows some of the ways lead paint advertised towards children. http://costume.dm.net/makeup.html My personal favorite, this website illustrates how women such as Queen Elizabeth wore lead based makeup and even lead paint throughout history. A look to die for? More about cosmetics and lead next week. Until then, thanks for reading and have a great day!

While spending time in Rhode Island this past week, I was fortunate enough to speak with Peter Lord, the Providence Journal Bulletin’s environmental journalist who has been responsible for covering the RI trial. He witnessed every aspect of the trial, while other news outlets only arrived for the closing of the trial. The outcome of this trial was of particular interest for investment bankers, children’s advocacy groups, and parties across the nation who may choose to pursue similar trials. It was fascinating to be able to speak with someone who witnessed the trial firsthand from an unbiased point of view. He noted that a case in California, The County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield, does not mention the Rhode Island case at all and it is probably coincidental that these cases are taking place at the same time. However, he stated that he believes that there will be future cases that will directly result from the Rhode Island case.
There were two interesting points that Mr. Lord brought up that really caught my attention. He discussed the politics of the case, the way in which each side acted towards the jury and the way in which each side has the opportunity to manipulate evidence. Rhode Island has presented itself as a liberal party; the state’s lawyers, despite their Ivy-League educations, presented themselves as “regular guys” who seemed friendly and laid back. The defense, on the other hand, was more conservative, as they represented big business in which the only major concern was money, rather than the lives of thousands of children. Most of the victims of lead poisoning were poor minorities with no political clout, so it was difficult for this issue to gain recognition on a large-scale. During the trial, none of the witnesses were victims of lead poisoning; the witnesses were primarily medical experts and historians. The problem with this is, as Mr. Lord pointed out, that it is possible to “buy” history; in other words, pay someone to say what one wants to hear. Although Dr. Rosner’s testimony was clearly valid and well researched, the defense sought to use this idea to discredit his testimony and question his status as a historian. After reading through Peter English’s book Old Paint, it seems that the defense tried to use this book to downplay the hazards of lead paint. The trial was so political because of its importance to so many different groups. As mentioned above, investment bankers and children’s advocacy groups watched the trial closely. Following the hung jury in the first round, the paint companies’ stocks increased; they dropped following the state’s victory.
A second issue that caught my attention was the effects of lead poisoning and the way in which it may affect future criminal cases. Lead poisoning can severely damage its victims’ brains, leaving them unable to think and function properly. Mr. Lord questioned whether lead poisoning could be used as a defense in a criminal case, much like an insanity plea. It may explain a “stupid” criminal’s actions. This could open a whole new can of worms in the legal system.
The large questions that remains are: what will be the next material that will trigger such a significant lawsuit? Will the battle over lead paint become so great, with so many cases being filed, that there will need to be a settlement similar to that of tobacco?

Reading Encounters with the Archdruid brought an interesting perspective to work I am doing for another class. I have been researching the case Sierra Club v. Morton and other early conservation issues in environmental law. The case, which was heard in the early 1970s, was about a controversy over Mineral Kind Valley and the desire to build a ski resort in the area. The Sierra Club brought the case up because they were concerned that the ski resort would adversely affect the aesthetic beauty of the area and their enjoyment of the area. The book was written before the case went to court, but it did briefly discuss the issue in the second part. Looking at both this case and reading about similar issues regarding conservation and development helped me to better understand how the public thought about conservation at that time. The case gave citizens the right to enforce environmental laws through the judicial process. The case and the book really helped me to understand how environmental conservation and protection began in the legal world and how the line between preserving the natural world and allowing humans to enjoy it has changed over time.

In another realm of environmental law, the research for our project regarding industrial pollution is really progressing. I have begun to look at current social and health issues that have resulted from the chemical industries. One of the things that really grabbed my attention this week was in regards to the recent controversy over the DuPont Co. and the use of chemicals in Teflon. The company failed to inform its consumers about the risks of the chemical, perfluorooctanoic acid, and is now facing the consequences. This chemical has been shown to cause cancer in animals and it is highly possible that it would have the same effects in humans. The DuPont Co. was not willing to take full responsibility, but has agreed to phase out the chemical within the next ten years. Environmental Protection Agency and the Environmental Working Group are working to have Teflon on the banned substance list. Studies have also shown that perfluorooctanoic acid is polluting groundwater in Minnesota as a result of the manufacturing company 3M. The articles I read regarding these problems really reinforced for me how important the issue of industrial moral responsibility is for human health and the environment.

Blog 3/7/06

The readings for this week’s class sparked my interest because my current research has brought up the issue of mining. I am slowly realizing how what is inside of the earth affects our lives. In essence, mankind is like Park in Encounters With the Archdruid, smashing into the earth to see what pops out. Lead is one of the oldest metals known to man; the ancient Egyptians were aware of it and we have been figuring out different ways to use it ever since. Lead was also one of the first metals mined in America.
The United States produced and used more refined lead than any other country by the twentieth century. The National Academy of Science reported that by 1980, the United States consumed 1.3 tons of lead per year. (http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/perspect/lead.htm)

I have been looking into information on the beginnings of lead poisoning awareness in the United States and it is amazing how much was known about lead and its dangerous properties. Plumbism, or lead poisoning, has been recorded since the first century. Some even suggest that the fall of the Roman Empire can be partially attributed to lead in their food and wine. The EPA website states, ”The result, according to many modern scholars, was the death by slow poisoning of the greatest empire the world has ever known.” But lead is a mineral in the earth, and its very presence encouraged humankind to continue to mine and figure out ways to use lead.

Manufacturing of lead paint in the United States began in the early 1800s by John Harrison of Philadelphia. Lead has been also been used as an additive to gasoline; tetraethyl lead was developed by General Motors engineers in the 1920s. Around the time that Europe was banning lead based paint, GM Corporation was pumping it into our fuel. As soon as this compound began to be used people started getting sick. One of the engineers that developed and tested the fuel became sick, as well as workers in refineries in New Jersey and Ohio. Effects were well known; journalists in a number of articles refer to it as “loony gas.” For a short time, the production and use of leaded gasoline was banned, but the industry pushed the deciding panel to a decision before proper research could be done on the compound, so they ruled that there were “no good grounds for prohibiting the use of ethyl gasoline…as a motor fuel provided that its distribution and use are controlled by proper regulations.” A government standard was set, but it turned out to be equal to the amount of lead being manufactured. In other words, there was no standard. The industry did, on its own, take initiative and tried to make the refineries safer for the workers, but similar to lead paint, lead in gasoline was not stopped until much later on. (http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=0&did=104266796&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=1141664625&clientId=15403)

It is incredible how much industries have covered up and denied well-known information, as well as influencing government regulations for the sake of profit. How can a person wake up everyday with the knowledge that their career involves hurting others? It is sickening. It is ridiculous that individuals could argue that they never knew their product was dangerous. I found articles dating from 1838 discussing children getting sick from paint. An article from 1852 entitled “Lead v. Zinc” stated that zinc paint should be used because lead paint “yellows” and “the unhealthiness of lead is to (sic) well known to need comment.” The article goes on to mention the thousands of workers that had been treated for poisoning in Europe. A similar article published in 1860 by the Medical and Surgical Reporter discussed the “deleterious influence of lead paint on those whose occupations are in making or applying it…” The pre-1900 articles printed about lead contain a steady stream of pseudo-scientific debates over whether or not it was the lead in the paint, its fumes, turpentine, or something else that made the paint poisonous, if it was poisonous at all. Yet, these debates are surrounded with articles about animals, children, and workers getting poisoned from lead paint. One would think that the government would regulate its use or manufacturing until the source of the problem was discovered, especially since people were dying. It is obvious that the poisonous properties of lead paint were known. Regardless of whether or not it was the lead in the paint or some reaction arising from lead and another chemical, its poisonous nature was well known. It should have been stopped so much sooner. The lead industry pumped lead into paint because it was sucking it up from the earth. The question is what makes someone step up and take responsibility for it. When are people forced to be responsible and how? Is it only laws and policies that can step in to regulate these practices over the course of history? Hopefully our project will uncover individuals who want to make a difference for reasons other than profit or legal necessity, other people like Rosner who are not afraid to step up.
(For more in-depth/ really interesting information about lead in ancient times, see http://www.lead.org.au/lanv2n3/lanv2n3-22.html)

We have been moving right along with our project, conducting research and planning out our final report. The latest update from the trial is that the judge dismissed punitive damages claims, declaring that such damages are intended to punish criminal behavior. The companies have not manufactured the paint for a long time and standards for lead poisoning of children have changed since the first half of the twentieth century when most of the paints were sold. Because of this, the companies should not be held to current standards and thus should not be held responsible for punitive damages.
This decision does not mean that the companies will not suffer severe penalties for their negligence. The main goal of this trial was to force the companies to pay for the abatement of the lead paint, which was achieved. Consequently, the companies will have to pay over $1 billion to clean up an estimated 240,000 homes in Rhode Island.
My section of the project will be broken down into seven parts in order to closely examine each of the two trials that took place in Rhode Island. I chose not to compare this case to other toxic torts such as the national tobacco litigation because, as Rhode Island’s lawyer Jack McConnell stated, each case is unique. Mr. McConnell played a significant role in the tobacco litigation. Unlike tobacco, the issue of lead paint has not been addressed in court at the federal level and there have not been any nationwide consensuses on how to deal with this toxic substance. Mr. McConnell has stated, however, that he has already received calls from other states that wish to pursue lawsuits similar to the case in Rhode Island. Below I have included the initial outline of my paper.

1. 1st Case Summary
On October 12, 1999, the first of the two Rhode Island lead paint cases, Rhode Island v. Lead Industries Association, the Attorney General of the State of Rhode Island, Sheldon Whitehouse, filed a complaint against several lead pigment manufacturers and their trade association. The defendants included nine named corporations in addition to a number of unnamed corporations. Rhode Island pled ten causes of action in seeking injunctive, punitive, and compensatory relief: (1) public nuisance, (2) violation of the Rhode Island Unfair Trade Practice and Consumer Protection Act, (3) strict liability, (4) negligence, (5) negligent misrepresentations and omissions, (6) fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions, (7) civil conspiracy, (8) unjust enrichment, (9) indemnity, and (10) equitable relief to protect children. This case lasted seven weeks and ended in a mistrial; four jurors sided with the paint companies and two sided with the state.
2. 2nd Case Summary
In 2002, the Attorney General of the State of Rhode Island filed the second of the two cases, Whitehouse v. Lead Industries Association. In this case, the jury was faced with the following questions: (1) Whether lead-based paints are a public nuisance in Rhode Island, (2) Whether each company liable for creating the nuisance, and (3) Whether the companies should be responsible for the abatement of lead paints. This trial lasted fifteen weeks and ended when the jury found three companies, Sherwin Williams, NL Industries, and Millennium Holdings liable for creating a public nuisance; Atlantic Richfield was not found liable and DuPont settled with the plaintiff for $12 million about two months before the second trial was scheduled to begin. This paper will focus primarily on the second case.
3. Why Rhode Island?
It was important for Rhode Island in particular to file this lawsuit because the poisoning rate in Rhode Island is more than twice the national average, prompting the state to require blood tests of every child less than 6 years of age. The state has many older homes built before lead paint was banned in 1978, with many urban homes having been poorly maintained. This poor maintenance damaged Rhode Island by forcing the state to pay discovering and abating lead, detecting lead poisoning, providing medical care for lead-poisoned residents of the state, education programs for children injured from lead exposure, and education programs for state residents.
4. Who is Involved?
There are many people involved on the plaintiff’s side of the case. The individual primarily involved is Sheldon Whitehouse, the former Rhode Island Attorney General who originally filed the first suit in 1999. Because the case has continued for such a long period of time, the current Rhode Island Attorney General, Patrick Lynch, has been involved as well. There were three attorneys representing the state in this case. Leonard DeCof, the dean of the state’s personal injury lawyers, was the primary lawyer. He retained by the former governor of Rhode Island, Bruce Sundlun, to recover millions of dollars in damages from accounting firms, insurance companies, and credit unions after the state’s credit unions collapsed. Linn Freedman is the deputy chief of the attorney general’s civil division and argued most of the pretrial motions for Rhode Island for the first trial. The third lawyer is Jack McConnell, a partner in Ness Motley’s Rhode Island office and state Democratic Party treasurer. He was one of Ness Motley’s lawyers who negotiated the $240 billion tobacco settlement. Most importantly, this case involved about 230,000-250,000 homeowners in Rhode Island whose houses are coated with lead paint. Each of the lawyers in the trial represents a specific corporation, but because the trial focuses on the general question of public nuisance, the three represent all eight companies.
The defense side involved the following companies: NL, ARCO, DuPont, Sherwin Williams, Millenium, ConAgra, The O’Brien Corporation, and American Cyanimid Company. There were three attorneys representing these companies. John Tarantino, the president of the Providence law firm in Providence, Adler Pollack and Sheehan, was a strong asset for the team because he was a local lawyer, whereas the others were from other states. Another lawyer is Donald E. Scott, a partner at Bartlit Beckin Company in Colorado. He successfully defended Dutch Boy paint company in 2000 from a suit by gentleman who said he was poisoned as a toddler. The final member of the defense team, Laura Ellsworth, is a partner at Jones Day in Pittsburgh, a firm that has represented half the Fortune 500 companies. She has frequently lectured and written about the use of expert witnesses and trial tactics.
5. Arguments
In the second case, the plaintiff argued that lead-based paints are a public nuisance and that it is the manufacturers’ responsibility to pay for abatement. The defendant argued that lead-based paint does not cause problems if it is properly maintained. The risks that lead paint poses can be solved through educating the public, making a better effort to maintain properties, and doing more enforcement against landlords who let properties deteriorate.
6. Analysis of Differences Between the Cases
The first trial was supposed to be the first phase of a series of hearings. For the second trial, the state consolidated its nuisance case with evidence about liability that was supposed to be heard in a separate phase. The question for the second trial was simpler than the one imposed for the first trial and was opposed by defense lawyers, who said it tilted in favor of the state. The second question was: "Do you find that a consequence of the presence of lead pigment in paint and coatings in buildings throughout the state of Rhode Island and, if any, the harm and/or threat of harm resulting therefrom is a public nuisance?" The question for the first trial was: "Does the presence of lead pigment in paint and in coatings, in homes, schools, hospitals and other public and private buildings throughout the state of Rhode Island constitute a public nuisance?" That statement was difficult to prove because the state does not generally look for lead problems in schools, hospitals and other public buildings. Nearly all inspections are confined to homes where lead-poisoned children live.
7. Importance of This Case: Past, Present, Future
This case represents a historical precedent. It marks the first loss that paint companies have suffered in the face of many lawsuits by communities, counties, and state governments in 16 other states. It will certainly pave the way for other states to bring similar suits, as there have already been recent procedural victories in New Jersey and Milwaukee, as well as a go-ahead for class action suit in Chicago. Presently, the defense is trying to get the case dismissed and will be appealing the verdict. After the verdict was read, stocks in the paint companies fell, proving that consumers are gaining power and will raise their expectations of manufacturers of toxic substances. This case will create more awareness about the dangers of toxic substances and will draw attention to the manufacturers’ responsibility of communicating that danger to the consumers.