Document nkZmVaNYGZEMZzoOZVR2wNmzz

De pa r t me n t of H o r t ic u l t u r e i UNIVERSITY1'of ILLINOIS COLLEGE of AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION URBAN A, I LLI N O I S January 2^, 1936 Dr. Robert A. Kehoe, Director Kettering Laboratory University of Cincinnati Cincinnati, Ohio Dear Dr. Kehoe: Attached is a copy of ray letter to Mr. L. S. Hltchner, President, Agricultural Insecticide and Fungicide Association, in response to his request for information concerning developments since Professor Pickett and I saw him in December. I shall aparecate it if you will read my reply, in spite of its length. I have put a lot of thought (that is, from ray standpoint) on this letter. If anything that I have said needs clari fication or emphasis, please write to Mr. Hitchner directly. I do not know just when he Intends to present the matter to his organization; however, it xvlll be within a few days. Yours very truly, WAR:MH Enc. Chief in pomological Physiology 0008554 N9754 F O R IN FORM ATION OF. January 1936 Mr. L. 3. Hitchner, President Agricultural Insecticide A Fungicide Association 285 Madison Avenue New York City Fear Mr. Hitchner: After seeing you in New Yorlt, profeeeor Pickett and I called uoon Mr. F*. E. Wormser, Secretary and Treasurer, Lead Industries Association, ^20 Lexington Avenue, New York. We also talked with Mr. Robert f. Wilson, In thelofflce of the Associated Grocery Manufacturers of Alter*nut, Fast ^2nd street, New York. The Lead Industries Association is ''financing a #ippOO fellowship at Harvard. Mr. Worwae^Thvited us aaks a trip td Harvard with him. We aade the trip, and discovered some Interest ing faots which confirmed us in our beVlef that experimentation of the type that we had outlined woula be desirable. Equally encouraging was the fact thatSthe mpn who were doing the work at Harvard (Drs. Aub, Falrhall ancKP^thoun) agreed entirely with our general conception of tfetr sSre^tion as a whole. You probably know that Aub and Falrhall/nave beenvworking on the bioohemlstry of lead for ten or twelye years. WhatXhey say et Harvard carries a great deal of weight/ j ___ Kr.Varorniser e/id that their budget for the year was already martTFTtp, thq^learfr arsenate was not a major produot of theirs, jmd lndlcatecYKat In 11 probability they would not contribute/ However, \lt Is my opinion that a contribution from them In thfe future woulld not be an impossibility. \ After my return to t7rbna I wrote to Mr. ^omtser, telling h l m w ^ gt w$^4ere doing and hoped to do. I am quoting a paragraph fromRYsreply: *1 am particularly pleased that you are getting in touch with the apple growers, ae I firmly feel that their position, so far as the spray residue Is concerned, will not be Improved until they have marshaled sufficient scientific evidence to answer the allegations of the various State and Government departments about the toxicity of lead arsenate. Needless to say, we shall be glad to help you all we can and I hope you will keep us posted with whatever program Is finally adopted, for w should Indeed like to know what pro gress you make with your Investlgotlon. At the same time, If anything should occur at this and which I think will be of interest to you, I shall pass It on promptly." ' Mr. Nlleon, of the Associated Grocery Manufac turers, told us that many of their constituent organisations were Interested in lead toxicity. They have a fellowship at Yale, Mr. L. S. Ritohner 2 January 2k, 19 3 6 with Or. George R. Cowglll, Associate Professor of Physiologies! Chemistry. Mr. Vllson oekea me to write to hi* when I returned. He said that he would then take the matter up with Mr. Willis, President of their organisation. I rote Mr. Willis, hot hare not yet received a reply. I know that they re greatly interest ed in all phases of the lead problem, but I do not know, of course, how much they would be interested in lead arsenate exoerimentation. Presumably they will be decidedly interested, although they may think that the lead work at Yale is enough. (This may be a good place to say gain that they only way to settle the lead tolerance problem Is direct work, with humans.) Professor Pickett and I had a very intereating and instructive visit with Aub, Pairhall end Calhoun at the Huntington Memorial Hospital in Boston (Harvard). Their work and the work at the Kettering Laboratory has had a great deal to do with modern conceptions of the behavior of lead in the body. It should be said, also, that a great deal of this work has been done since 19 ?6 , when the limit of .01k grains of lead ner ooxind of apples was set by the physiologists advising the Pood and Prug Adminlstration. Of articles referred to In a recent paper by Aub on the biochemical behavior of lead In the body (Journal of the American Medical Association, January 1?, 1935) 9 bad been published in 1931 6 In 193? and in 1933* The subject is therefore a very live one. You might have occasion to use very brief general summary of the most important facts in lead bloohealstry. My attempt in that direction follows: Lead is ingested In minute amounts in the normal diet and excreted in quantities which are, in the long run, equi valent. Under normal circumstances, lead Is not cumulative except that very small amounts are normally stored In the bones with increasing age. A large part of the lead in the diet probably passes through the body unabsorbed; inhaled lead is much more dan gerous. when comparatively large amounts of lead are ingested or inhaled, whloh is likely to happen in certain industries, accumu lation takes place. Storage Is in the bones, along with calcium. After removal from exposure, (for example, when a factory worker exposed to white lead dust leaves the factory) stored lead Is normally slowly excreted, aleo along with calcium. If a metabolic upset results in the rapid liberation of large amounts of stored lead, very deleterious effects may result. The rate of liberation of lead from the bones can be regulated, however, by regulating the supply of calcium in the diet or blood, whloh Is the basis of medical treatment. The amount of lead arsenate or, as a matter of fact, of any other form of lead, that can be ingested before storage takes plaoe is unknown. Several factors probably nter, one of which is the chemical and physical nature of the lead compOTind itself. Hf 0003556 Mr. L. 3. Kltchner 3 January 1936 In this connection, also, t an sending you taro rsorints from the Kettering Laboratory *nd am writing to Ur. Aub, asking him to sand you a reprint of the article to which X have Just referred. The supply of the larger reprint from the Kettering Laboratory is exhausted; otherwise, I would send you several copies'. Since we talked to you, it has become more and more apparent to me that the effect upon ordinary apple consumers of the normal consumption of applet, bearing the amount of lead at present permitted, should be investigated. The moet logical way to find out whether danger exists Is to look for instances of injury. This procedure was used when the United states Public Health Service investigated the tetra-ethyl lead gasoline pro blem. A failure to find actual Instances of lead poisoning among consumers of ethyl gasoline was considered a good reason for permitting Its use. To ouote from the report of the study, published In Public Health Bulletin 163, Treasure Department, United States Public Health Service, op. 109, 110, 1926, In the regions In which ethyl gasoline has been used to the greatest extent for a period of between two and three years no definite cases have been discovered of recognizable lead poisoning or other diseases resulting from the use of ethyl gasoline. In view of these conclusions (which include the result of a study of automobile users and garage employees) your committee beg to report that in their opinion there are at present no good grounds for prohibiting the use ethyl gasoline of the composition specified as motor fuel, provided that Ite distribution and use Is controlled by proper regulations.* (The regulations apply to plants whleh manufacture tetra-ethyl le*d and blend it with gneollne.) In this connection, two very Important fcts are fundamental. The first Is that lead, In amounts below a certain minimum, Is not a cumulative nelson; the second Is that lead normally disappears from the body. If these general faots had not already been established, we might seatime that the Investi gation would be certain to reveal almost universal lead poisoning. Since they exist, we ay perhaps assume that lead poisoning Is correspondingly rare. Dr. Kehoe, Director of the Kettering Laboratory, has already Included a field Investlg*tion* In his plan, which he drew up In September, 193*>f but I did not realize Its comparative Importance until recently. You are, of course, familiar with the objects of the laboratory Investigation. This part of the Investigation also has assumed more Importance as I've thought It over. In the third paragraph on Page 2 of the mimeographed copy of the paper that I gave at Hartford I quote Dr. White's reference to the toxicity of lead in drinking water. The 0.1 milligram of laed which, Ingested dally, is supposedly capable of causing chronic poisoning is very muoh below the average dally Ingestion of lead In the food, which, as shown by work at the Kettering Laboratory, amounts to approximately 0.25 8 (approximately .00^ grains). Kf" 0003557 Ur . L. Hitchner U January ?ht 1936 The toxicity of lead In drinking water, therefore, seems to be sfcnoraally high. It is another demonstration of th f^ct that the toxicity of each individual lead comnoun* showId be deter mined individually and that it should be ingested ~tth the food with which the compound naturally is taken into the body. There must be e. reason for the extreme toxicity of lead in drinking water, because a greater mount of lead In food 1? not toxic. Aleo, the fact that s greeter mount of lead in food Is not toxic let good reason for not basing the tolerance for lead on ap- les and other food on the toxicity of lead in drinking ter. However, this seems t<* be a possibility, Judging by the references by sm official of the Food end nrug Administration ('r. White) to its possible importance. if th"t wrre done, the reduction in the lead tolerance would be very drastic. I should also say that the work already done at the Kettering i, borntory, which ought to prevent such a reduction, he been done without expense to the interests most directly concerned; furthermore, without active effort on the part of scientifically ooellfied, alert and Informed individuals a defense on scientific grounds would go by the board-- it would never be formulated. After seeing you, professor Pickett and j visited entomologl.str and chemists in w* hlngton, to be reasonably certain that no substitute for lead arsenate was Just over the horixon. There has been a greet deal of activity by entomologists and taanuf cturera, as you, of course, Know, to find a substitute. Overley and others in ^eehlns^on St te have hones of calcium arsenate with xinc sulfate and lime as a safener. ^e know, however, from experimente here at Illinois that xinc sulfate and lime cannot be used in this climate as a safener on ocles, because the xino russets the anrlea, and ^e know that calcium arsenate is variable in its properties and hr other disadvantages. It is to be hoped that a substitute *111 be found, because such a discovery would settle the whole thing at once, but, to out it. very con servatively, ther* 1 nothing in immediate prcepeot for general use. Mr. R. <1. Phillips, Secretary of the International Apple Association (whose address is 1108 Mercantile Rullding, Rochester, Mew York) and I also called upon "Dr. Camobell, Mead of the Food and T'rug Administration. I asked him if he would accept the results of the experiment that *e pror-osed. Re said that he ws anxious to secure sny scientifically acceptable Information that would help to settle the problem. I eked him If he would take a part in the organisation and conduct of the experiment. He sld that he would not, that, his division would conduct an Investigation of ite o-n, nd that two entirely separate investigations would be more desirable th^n the one Investigation tht would result if th*re were close cooperation. In their Investigation commercial interests of any sort, are not to be represented, so that the result ill be entirely free from bias; that 1, it will be based nurely and slmnly unon biological and chemical facts. I have had pulte a little correspondence with r-r. F. f . v;are, of the ^hrrwln 'villlams Company, bout the Mr. L. S. Hltehner 5 January P*l, 1936 proposed Kettering Laboratory experiment. Dr. fare's last letter expresses hie hope that the attitude of the Food and Drug Adminis tration toward cooperation can be changed, without Dr. Ware`a permission and with d&d^apologies to Dr. Ware on that account, X am quoting hie letter and ny reply. "Dr. W. A. Ruth, University of Illinois, College of Agriculture, TJrbana, Illinois. Dear Dr. Ruth: I thank you for your letter of the Pth en closing copies of ycur paper, "The Spray Residue Situation" . Mr. Gunderson and X have discussed the 'hole situation several times and both of us feel the a conference with you might result In a different understanding on our nart. I sincerely wish ther? could be some neutral ground on which producers, consumers, and federal agenelee could get together. e could all agree to ohefck our personal prejudices at the door along with our hats and discuss matters of mutual Interest from the standpoint of public welfare, why should it be necessary for Dr. Campbell to conduct serai-secret investiga tions, apparently to get ammunition with which to combat Industry If It should attempt to promote sal# of a product that In his opinion 1s inimical to the public Interest? Why couldn't euch 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' *eoelat1on membership, and manufacturing industry. One might even consider the advisability of asking the Farm Chemurglc 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 seme Moses who can lead us out of the widemesa of misunderstand ing. ESWisr Very truly yours, THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY g. . Ware (signed) E. E. Mare My reply to Dr. Ware follows: "Dr. g. E. Wars The Sherwin-Williams Company Cleveland, Ohio Dear Dr. Ware: January 9, 1936 I greatly appreciate your letter of January P, and I understand your attitude. I do not know what oan be Mr. L. 3. Hltchner 6 January pk, 1936 "dona along the llnea that you suggest-- 1.e., to eonvlnoe the Pood and Drug Administration that they should conduct the Investigation of lead toxicity under the guidance of a oommlttee, ohosen to reoresent the experiment stations, federal horticulturists, manufacturers, and fruit grower, ell as the Pood and Drug Administration itself. I gree with you that prejudices would he checked at the door. I am oertaln that the fruit growing Industry would have that attitude If it were allowed representation. My interview with Dr. Campbell and Hr. Phillip** opinion of him have made me sure, however, that any Investi gation that they eonduet will have as its sole purpose the ascertainment of faots. On the other hand, I oan easily see that, if it is conducted without the representation of Interests other than enforcement officials, it will be open to the criticism that you have in mind-- that its supposed purpose will be *to get ammunition*. Also, It is certainly true that this investigation can be planned in such a way that It will be fundamentally (scientifically) satlsfaolsry or unsat is factory to all Interests, and that the only way to lneure satisfactory planning is to have all interests represented. For example, the lead arsenate on washed aoples is probably much less toxic than acid lead arsenate, because of the weathering that has taken place on the fruit, which tends to transform It to basic lead arsenate, and because the washing prooes8 probably removes the particles that are most easily dissolved. Therefore, washed aoples should be used as one source of lead arsenate. A toxicologist or biochemist not ex perienced in horticulture would overlook this point. He might even imagine that he would be more scientific if he were to use pure acid lead arsenate because It is udecomposed and uncontaslnated. He might think, also, that he could get the purest lead arsenate from a chemical supply house. There are probably a number of Important points of that sort. Host important of all, perhaps, is the point that field investigations should constitute an important part of the investigation, by which I mean an examination of consumers for evidences of lead poisoning. I tHnk, as you do, that representatives of the various interests would participate in a perfectly fair way; presumably, also, the best companies, horticulturists, fruit growers, etc., could help the Food and Drug Administration actively after the facts were established. I have attemoted to state the situation as you see it in my own words. As far as I know, my statement is complete, and the argument Is absolutely sound. The arguments for conducting a separate investi gation at the Kettering Laboratory can be stated very briefly by saying that It, would be exaotlv that kind of an investigation exceot for the cooperation of the Food and Drug Administration in planning and conducting the work, that a laboratory is miraculously at hand for doing the work, that most of the ex pensa and effort would therefore be obviated because we would not have to work from the ground up, that the results of the " Mr. L. S. Hitohner 7 January 19 5 6 "experiment would bo acceptable to the Food and Drug Administra tion, as well as to other interests, and last, but not least, that we would not have to ask the Food and Drug Adaini stration to adopt a policy with which they are not already in sympathy. I would be assuming entirely too much If I were to say, as a result of my brief interview with Dr. Csmnbell, that I have expressed his final attitude. As I told you, I think that he is anxious for all the helo that he can get in arriving at the truth. Yours v*ry truly, WARiMH W. A. Ruth Chief In Pomologies! Physiology * This long letter, I believe, Just about exhausts everything that hae occurred recently in this connection. I might add, however, that I learned Indirectly a day or two ago that the American Can Company Is Interested in lead in O r t o and other foods. I learned this through the representative of a firm which makes apparatus used In lead analysis, doubtless many organizations are interested more or less directly, whose interest is not known to us at present. Before I conclude my letter I should add that all of the solentlets with whom I have talked about this experiment, both before and after seeing you, agree without qualification in the scientific soundness of the proposal. For example. Dr. Roger Adams, Head of the Chemistry Department here, In a conversation last night spoke very highly of the analytical work at the Ket tering Laboratory. It was, incidentally, Dr. Adame who, as presi dent of the American Chemical Society, has a very wide contact with chemical research, who gaveNOUr first hint of thle opportunity. Horticulturists and fruit growers are strongly in favor of experi mental work, (see the attached editorial, *?he Residue problem*, from the American Fruit Grower, written by Professor Gourley, Head, Department of Horticulture, Ohio State University and Dr. M. J. Dorsey, Head, Division of Pomology, university of Illinois.) I thoroughly agree with Dr. Ware in his statement that the United States Department of Agriculture, the state experi ment stations, the fruit growers, and the manufacturers should all be represented in the experiment, as my reply to him indicates. It Is an Interesting fact that the membership of the Amerioan pomologloal Society is drawn from exactly these sources. It Is the society that can most logically be expected to organize the experiment and to keep it going, which is Just as Important, because its Interests are commercial as well as scientific. Fur thermore, as any one who attended its December meeting could not fail to realize, it Is a very active society. Yours very truly, K H 0008561 Mr. L. 8. Hitohner 8 January ?. S* I am going to go through the two reprints that X aa sending you, transferring all11grams to grains, to which we are now acouetoaed in this connection. W. B. H 0008562