As the research of our project is wrapping up and we begins to write our paper, I have been able to reflect on the outcome of our project and the environmental message I am hoping to get out to the public. The course of the group research has shown that knowledge is the most important weapon for combating the dangerous world of industrial pollution. The majority of companies that are contributing to industrial pollution are extremely wealthy and powerful and as a result are able to exert immense amounts of control over society. It would be extremely difficult and nearly impossible to force every industry in the United States to completely change the way these companies are organized and the kinds of products they are being manufacturing. Society cannot rely on industries to fix the problems that come with industrial pollution. Instead, individuals must take responsibility for themselves and for keeping their communities safe. All of the information regarding possible hazards associated with toxic chemicals in the environment is available in some form. However, the ability to access the information is limited by industries’ attempts to hide anything that would place their companies in a negative light. The best thing consumers can do is to constantly be aware of what kind of chemicals they are exposed to in the cosmetics they use, the food they eat, the water they drink, and the various other products they chose to purchase. The hard work of public interest and environmental groups has made this process easier. It is the work that is done to get the information about industrial pollution out to the public that will make with biggest difference in keeping consumers safe and keeping chemicals out of the environment. If consumers continue to increase their own level of awareness and hold companies to higher levels of responsibility, then consumers and society as a whole will find reason to feel hopeful about the ability to escape industrial pollution. Often learning about the environment can be a very depressing subject as there are always disastersoccurringg, pollution needing to be cleaned up, and individuals suffering the effects of adererioriatingg environment. However, this project did not leave me feeling this way. It left me with the feeling that individuals can make a difference in society to clean up the environment and provide a better living environment in all aspects of term.

The main goal of the ELEA project The Deadly Politics of Industrial Pollution is to shed light on a manufacturer’s responsibility to properly communicate information about its products to the public, specifically manufacturers of toxic or potentially toxic substances. Manufacturers of toxic materials are responsible for assuring consumer safety and for creating proper awareness of any potential harm. Revealing, rather than concealing information about the potential harm of lead paint helps reduce the number of individuals at risk for lead poisoning and creates a healthier environment for all. Companies need to acknowledge and address consumers’ rights and uphold their responsibility as a member of society.
This study focuses primarily on lead paint, a highly toxic substance that has harmed millions of people across the country. The use of lead in products such as paint and cosmetics has created harmful, even fatal conditions for children and adults. The purpose of this study is to draw attention to the consequences that both consumers and manufacturers face when this information is not properly conveyed.
The goal of this study is accomplished through the examination of the history of awareness of the dangers of lead, a court case in Rhode Island that is currently taking place, and recent measures to increase awareness of the toxicity of such substances and to call for their removal from consumer products. The first component of this study focuses on the history of consumer awareness of the dangers of lead as used in products such as cosmetics and paint. It examines newspaper articles documenting customers’ concerns as well as citizens’ actions that culminated in the passing of the Food and Drug Act in 1938 in order to trace the rise in consumer awareness of the dangers of toxic materials. As early as the mid-nineteenth century, Americans argued for the removal of lead from paint, as they began to recognize that it posed a significant health threat.
The second aspect of the study focuses on a court case that the state of Rhode Island brought against eight companies that used to produce lead paint. The jury in this case found three paint companies liable for creating a public nuisance in the state by failing to properly warn consumers of the risks of using lead paint and leaving Rhode Island to pay for the consequences of this negligence. This study will examine the reason that the Rhode Island Attorney General chose to bring this lawsuit and how the state was able to win the second of the two trials after the first ended with a deadlocked jury.
The third component explores the growth of government control over industrial pollution. This is achieved through the examination of recent legal actions focused on more closely monitoring manufacturers of toxic substances’ actions and forcing them to warn consumers of the potential danger of their products. In the twentieth century, the United States government made significant strides in banning lead paint and in passing legislation such as the Food and Drug Act of 1938.
The target audience of this study is the American public. Consumers have a right to know what they are purchasing, while manufacturers need to adhere to strict guidelines and standards. The information in this study will be important in the future, as the case in Rhode Island may serve as a model for other states that file similar suits regarding lead paint or as a model for other types of toxic torts. Nonetheless, this case is a landmark in United States jurisprudence, as 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. In Rhode Island, the result of this case will bring justice to those who suffered lead poisoning, as well as over 200,000 homeowners whose homes still contain lead paint. The government must continue to monitor the sale of toxic products to ensure consumer safety. In creating a product that addresses a tremendous public health issue, this paper will seek to promote a healthy environment for Americans of all ages as well as expose the significant consequences of a party’s irresponsibility and failure to fulfill its obligation to the public.

What's the Topic?

Our team conducted research for Dr. David Rosner, the Director of History and Ethics of Public Health at the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health. The reason for this research is what turned out to be a landmark court case in Rhode Island. In this case, the state sued four companies that used to manufacture lead paint for creating a public nuisance by neglecting to properly warn the public of the potential harm of their products. Because of the companies’ negligence, the state claims, many people suffered from lead poisoning after being exposed to lead paint. The project focused on this case because the problem of lead paint was a public health issue that placed millions of consumers at risk. Lead paint served as a consistent and constant source of income for lead companies, which owned the paint companies involved, so the companies were adamant about removing the lead from their products. Our team researched the history of warning labels and the manufacturers’ role in warning the public about potentially harmful substances. The information gathered through this research may be valuable as evidence in future cases in which Dr. Rosner, or others, will testify. This information shows that the companies did not fulfill their responsibilities to properly warn the public about the potential health hazards associated with their products.

Why Does This Matter?

It was very exciting work with Dr. Rosner. The outcome of the case in Rhode Island could set the stage for other states to bring similar suits. Dr. Rosner played an important role in the case as a witness, so working with him was a very valuable experience. It was important to our team to be involved in this research because the companies that manufactured lead paint harmed many children and could have avoided doing so by properly communicating with the public. The information we gathered will shed light on the companies’ responsibilities at the time and will hopefully assure that other potentially harmful products are properly labeled in the future. A ruling in favor of the state will draw attention to the importance of assuring consumer safety. One of the members of our team, Rebecca Levine, is a Rhode Island resident, so she has been particularly interested in this case because she has been following it since it began.

What's the scope of the problem?

The use of lead paint in America presented a significant hazard to the general public. The presence of this material in the environment left children vulnerable to lead poisoning by consuming the paint. Had the companies that manufactured the paint properly labeled their products and made the public aware of the products’ potential hazards, Americans would have been less likely to use them and fewer people would have suffered. Until the late 1970s, lead paint was commonly used to paint building interiors and exteriors, and some of this paint is still present in buildings across the country. Lead paint that is allowed to deteriorate creates a hazard by contaminating household dust as well as bare soil around the house, where children may play. Even lead paint that appears intact can leave dust particles when a window or a door covered with this substance is opened or shut. Children may consume the lead paint particles through hand-to-mouth activity, with even the lead dust equivalent of a single grain of salt registering an elevated blood lead level. For children, even very low levels of exposure can result in reduced IQ, learning disabilities, attention deficit disorders, behavioral problems, stunted growth, impaired hearing, and kidney damage. At high levels of exposure, a child may become mentally retarded, fall into a coma, and even die. In adults, lead can increase blood pressure and cause fertility problems, nerve disorders, muscle and joint pain, irritability, and memory or concentration problems (http://www.nsc.org/library/facts/lead.htm).

What's the Focal Point of the Problem?

The project focused on the Rhode Island case because the problem of lead paint was a public health issue that placed millions of consumers at risk. Lead paint served as a consistent and constant source of income for lead companies, which owned the paint companies involved, so the companies were adamant about removing the lead from their products.

What is Being Done?

On February 1, 2006, our team had our first meeting with Dr. Rosner. At our meeting, he told us the history of his involvement in the Rhode Island lead-based paint case and where his research has led him since that time. What began as an intellectual query has become a 20 year project to study areas relating to occupational and environmental health in the United States. Dr. Rosner and his colleagues wanted to uncover information dealing with these subjects. Through writing books about diseases such as silicosis and vinyl chloride poisoning, they uncovered a valuable narrative history. As a result, Dr. Rosner became involved in court cases as an expert witness. Through the legal process of discovery, he was able to use internal records to write a history of industries and the undisclosed information that they have kept hidden. In 1999, the state of Rhode Island sued the lead industry for $2 billion dollars. The case allowed Dr. Rosner and Gerald Markowitz access to internal documents, which led to the book Deceit and Denial: The Deadly Politics of Industrial Pollution (University of California Press, 2002) in which they examine the lead and chemical industries and their knowledge of poisoning throughout history. This project began as a historical search, but has become a mission to uncover the truth; our place is to try and work with Dr. Rosner to achieve this goal.

What Can I Do?

Rhode Island was victorious in the lead paint case, but the criteria for the cleanup of the paint remains unsettled. This marks a significant step towards holding large corporations liable for poisoning consumers. Our place in this quest is to help Dr. Rosner answer the question, “Historically, what were the responsibilities of the industry to let people know the information that they had?” This question guided our examination of past labels. Our team used the information we gathered to understand the development of consumers’ expectations of industry to warn people of products’ potential hazards. Our team traced the evolution of formal mechanisms of warnings and directions and how they emerged as industry grew over the 20th century. Dr. Rosner believes that legal history is a valuable tool that can be used to correspond to the broader social history over the course of the 20th century. Warnings most likely emerged out of personal relationships between storekeepers and then began to serve as protection from liability.

What Will the Product Be?

At the beginning of the project, our team began working with Dr. Rosner to do research on the history of labeling and label laws. We began by compiling a bibliography, a list of relevant cases, and information to determine when large industries began to assume a sense of responsibility. We also researched newspapers to find old articles in order to find the rise in consumer awareness regarding the paint’s potential harm. This research proved valuable in uncovering the way in which industries began to view unskilled workers as disposable. Researching the history of labels and labeling allowed us to create a timeline of industries’ taking responsibility for placing warning labels on their products. One of our main goals was to assist Dr. Rosner pursue his question about manufacturers’ obligations to the general public. Dr. Rosner was very enthusiastic in having our team work with him, as he stated: “You do wonder how they (industry) rationalize their actions.” Who knows what information industry has been keeping from the public in order to avoid taking responsibility. Overall, it was our mission to assist Dr. Rosner in his journey for justice.

Who Will the Audience Be?

The issues surrounding the lead-paint case in Rhode Island are extremely relevant to a very diverse group of people, and we hope that our research reaches as many people as possible. Hopefully, we will be able to raise awareness regarding the issues that have come up as a result of the trial and Dr. Rosner’s research. Because the state of Rhode Island brought the lawsuit, Rhode Island residents are probably the most interested in our research on the history of liability and the responsibility of industries to warn the public of possible hazards associated with their products. However, consumers across the country may become concerned as this case becomes more publicized and other states pick up similar suits. In addition, we would like to reach law offices and others who may be involved in future cases that are similar to the Rhode Island case. Both children and workers will benefit from the research we will be doing, since the industries involved in the production of hazardous materials will also be affected.

What is the Purpose?

The main purpose of our project was assisting Dr. Rosner with all of his work relating to the Rhode Island case, specifically in his research on the history of warning labels and how this legal history corresponds to a broader social history. Through this research we aimed to shed light upon manufacturers’ responsibilities to protect the environment and the health of their consumers. The effect of the lead paint on the children of Rhode Island is devastating. Through our research, we hope to prevent such tragedies in the future. Our goal is to make a difference in the world of environmental ethics while receiving excellent experience in legal work and environmental policy. The issue of responsibility of manufacturers in producing safe products and warning consumers of any possible dangers is an issue that affects all kinds of people. Creating awareness and ensuring that manufacturers are held to a higher level of responsibility to distribute safe products to their costumers is an important aspect of our project. The research we have done will assist Dr. Rosner and others like him acquire a wealth of information that can be used in future cases. This work will move towards protecting the health and safety of the general public and assuring a safer social environment.

Who is Interested?

Many people were involved and interested in this case and the work that we conducted on researching the history of warning labels and the expectations of companies involving warning labels. Dr. Rosner was extremely interested and actively involved in this project. It goes without saying that he himself has done a great deal of research on the topic and has guided us in our research. The law school provided us with an excellent base for support, as there is an amazing library full of legal literature and plenty of resource librarians, law professors, and law students that gave us insights and tips on legal research. It was our mission to make this stewardship project bring about a meaningful change. By providing Dr. Rosner with the research assistance that he needed, we wish to help save lives and to prevent any future loss of life from occupational and environmental health hazards.

Our mentor has gone abroad for this final month, but Helen and I got a chance to meet with Doctor Rosner and one of his colleagues one last time before his departure for France. We traveled to his office on 168th street last Friday and got a chance to see our historian in his element; his office was full of amazing books and historical artifacts from his research. He let us feel a hunk of pure lead and reminded us to wash our hands and to not touch our mouths. More than once I forgot and almost consumed some lead myself which brings me to wonder how you can expect infants whose walls and toys were literally covered in lead to not put their fingers in their mouths when I, a 21 year old adult can barely manage?




Rosner was impressed with the work that we have been doing on cosmetics and the Food and Drug Act. His interest and energy have really inspired me to continue searching deeper into the threads that are emerging from the lead based paint research. The year that the Food and Drug Act was revised, 1938, is significant because at the same time lead companies were becoming aware of the need to warn consumers of the dangers of their product, Rosner said. He also said our work has been very useful to him and we have uncovered certain things that he believes will help him in his next project. We also had the privilege to see some of the documents that he compiled for the case, including little coloring books from lead paint companies that urged kids to “chase away Mr. Gloom” through colorful lead paint. He also showed us the ratios of lead in the paint and trust me, the stuff going on these walls in the 20s and 30s was almost pure lead.




One of the excerpts from our reading for today entitled “The Death of Environmentalism: Global Warming Politics in a Post-Environmental World” struck me as significant to our project and really got me thinking about the larger issues at hand. The authors write, “Issues only matter to the extent that they are positioned in ways linking them to proposals carrying with them a set of core beliefs, principles, or values.” The “bottom line” – what we are doing or have done in the past is not enough. This leads to another conversation we had with Rosner, and that is the idea of threshold amounts of poisons in the foods we eat and the products we use. Until very recently and still today, small amounts of poisons are allowed in so many of the things we use in our everyday lives. They are regulated and even accepted as long as there are warnings on the packages and instructions for proper use. But these toxins are out there, being released into our bodies and our children’s bodies. They get into our groundwater and into our lives without a second thought. Take the lead paint issue; where were people’s priorities when children were becoming mentally handicapped, convulsing, or dying? Clearly their lives were not being valued. Then what was? Money? Jobs? More than anything, I feel that life should be our number one priority. Our future. There are still debates over how much lead should be allowed in candy, and you would be surprised at how widespread this poison still is. See http://www.ocregister.com/investigations/2004/lead/ as an example. Why are we still questioning how much poison these little bodies can take? The idea of threshold levels is ridiculous; lead builds up in bodies and never goes away. We do need a re-evaluation of what is important in order to start making some changes. Until next time, thanks for reading and have a great day.




Upon Request: Some individuals inquired about natural makeup products. Here are a few interesting links.
For Earth Month, 2006, Aveda is offering ways to fix this problem, including a petition to protect endangered plants. For more information, go to www.Aveda.com. “Plants provide the air we breathe, food, medicine and shelter. In fact, 1/4 of all prescriptions written in the U.S. are derived from wild plant species.† Yet right now, 29% of U.S. plant species are at risk of extinction, 1 plant in 8 is at risk worldwide.†† It's our turn to provide for them.” -Aveda
Burts Bees also offers a line of natural cosmetics and products. See www.burtsbees.com

Our mentor has gone abroad for this final month, but Helen and I got a chance to meet with Doctor Rosner and one of his colleagues one last time before his departure for France. We traveled to his office on 168th street last Friday and got a chance to see our historian in his element; his office was full of amazing books and historical artifacts from his research. He let us feel a hunk of pure lead and reminded us to wash our hands and to not touch our mouths. More than once I forgot and almost consumed some lead myself which brings me to wonder how you can expect an infant whose walls and toys were literally covered in lead not put their fingers in their mouths when I, a 21 year old adult can barely manage?




Rosner was impressed with the work that we have been doing on cosmetics and the Food and Drug Act. His interest and energy have really inspired me to continue searching deeper into the threads that are emerging from the lead based paint research. The year that the Food and Drug Act was revised, 1938, is significant because at the same time lead companies were becoming aware of the need to warn consumers of the dangers of their product, Rosner said. He also said our work has been very useful to him and we have uncovered certain things that he believes will help him in his next project. We also had the privilege to see some of the documents that he compiled for the case, including little coloring books from lead paint companies that urged kids to “chase away Mr. Gloom” through colorful lead paint. He also showed us the ratios of lead in the paint and trust me, the stuff going on these walls in the 20s and 30s was almost pure lead.




One of the excerpts from our reading for today entitled “The Death of Environmentalism: Global Warming Politics in a Post-Environmental World” struck me as significant to our project and really got me thinking about the larger issues at hand. The authors write, “Issues only matter to the extent that they are positioned in ways linking them to proposals carrying with them a set of core beliefs, principles, or values.” The “bottom line” – what we are doing or have done in the past is not enough. This leads to another conversation we had with Rosner, and that is the idea of threshold amounts of poisons in the foods we eat and the products we use. Until very recently and still today, small amounts of poisons are allowed in so many of the things we use in our everyday lives. They are regulated and even accepted as long as there are warnings on the packages and instructions for proper use. But these toxins are out there, being released into our bodies and our children’s bodies. They get into our groundwater and into our lives without a second thought. Take the lead paint issue; where were people’s priorities when children were becoming mentally handicapped, convulsing, or dying? Clearly their lives were not being valued. Then what was? Money? Jobs? More than anything, I feel that life should be our number one priority. Our future. There are still debates over how much lead should be allowed in candy, and you would be surprised at how widespread this poison still is. See http://www.ocregister.com/investigations/2004/lead/ as an example. Why are we still questioning how much poison these little bodies can take? The idea of threshold levels is ridiculous; lead builds up in bodies and never goes away. We do need a re-evaluation of what is important in order to start making some changes. Until next time, thanks for reading and have a great day.




Upon Request: Some individuals inquired about natural makeup products. Here are a few interesting links.
For Earth Month, 2006, Aveda is offering ways to fix this problem, including a petition to protect endangered plants. For more information, go to www.Aveda.com. “Plants provide the air we breathe, food, medicine and shelter. In fact, 1/4 of all prescriptions written in the U.S. are derived from wild plant species.† Yet right now, 29% of U.S. plant species are at risk of extinction, 1 plant in 8 is at risk worldwide.†† It's our turn to provide for them.” -Aveda
Burts Bees also offers a line of natural cosmetics and products. See www.burtsbees.com

Rhode Island’s case against the country’s largest paint manufacturers has been an extremely controversial case that is a landmark for a variety of reasons. After reading an article published in The New York Times today, April 2, there have been many thoughts stirring in my head about the effects that this case will have beyond the paint companies. In this entry I have chosen to basically sum up the issues that the article presents, in an effort to show the magnitude of each of the case’s elements. The article can be found on the New York Times website: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/02/business/yourmoney/02paint.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print
The case has created controversy because the companies have not sold lead paint for over thirty years and the state did not explicitly prove that paint that these specific companies manufactured was used on the walls of Rhode Island houses. Although, it is important to note that the companies manufactured 80 percent of the paint in the country. One of the jurors stated that this fact would not have had such an effect if the companies simply stated that the number was not correct. However, in not offering any witnesses, they did not effectively rebut any of the state’s arguments. The lead poisoning crisis that the state has faced for many years seems to be diminishing, as the incidence of lead poisoning in children is declining. There is also a significant debate taking place over the state’s contracting its public health and public nuisance case out to a private law firm that tried the case for free but will take a percentage of any recoveries. The defense challenged this and the issue has yet to be resolved.
The factor distinguishing this case from others against the lead paint companies is that in this case, the state argued that the paint created a public nuisance, as opposed to other cases that argued that the companies violated product liability laws. This is significant because product liability lawsuits are limited to a certain time frame since the product was manufactured and require the plaintiff to specifically identify the manufacturer of the product. In these cases, the companies were successful by arguing that they had not made lead paint in 4 or 5 decades and that it was not possible to differentiate between each company’s paint. The public nuisance allegation put a new spin on the case because no other lawsuit against the companies had used this claim. This avoided the time limit problem because the paint is still creating a nuisance, which is defined as something that interferes in an unreasonable way with the public right. Because the state was arguing that the paint was interfering with the public right, it did not have to tie a specific company to a specific house or case of lead poisoning. The issue of product liability was dismissed in this case, just like all the others, so the issue of public nuisance was the only argument that proved to have any merit.
The defense criticized DuPont, who agreed to donate 12 million dollars to nonprofit organizations in exchange for the state dropping its suit against the company because it makes the company appear vulnerable so that other parties will sue thinking they can obtain such an agreement. If the defense had presented witnesses supporting its arguments, or at least challenging the state’s witnesses’ arguments, then it might have been more successful. Instead, the companies stuck to an argument that the state’s witnesses validly and clearly disproved, paving the way for the state’s win. I am extremely glad that the state was able to win this case, but it is important to note how easily the jury could have found for the defense.