On May, 12, 2003, the Attorneys General of 45 states, plus the District of Columbia, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico announced an agreement with the National Paint & Coating Association (NPCA) requiring the NPCA and its paint manufacturers to provide a warning of the dangers of lead exposure on paint can labels. The warning explains the danger of lead exposure from scraping, sanding, or removing old paint, provides guidance on clean-up, and refers consumers to the National EPA Lead Information Hotline. The agreement also requires paint manufacturers to provide point-of-sale consumer information until 2007. A separate sticker highlighted the warning until March 2005.

The agreement requires the NPCA to offer approved training courses in lead-safe work practices over a 4-year period, from September 30, 2003 to December 31, 2007. The training is offered free to attendees who may include contractors, painters, home inspection companies, code inspectors, maintenance workers, homeowners, rental property owners, housing authorities, community and social service organizations, and state and municipal agencies. The training program is offered on an ongoing basis in 50 different cities or regions throughout the country. Up to 150 trainings are projected to accommodate 3,750-7,500 attendees annually.

The NPCA is also required to partner with the national organizations representing manufacturers and distributors of safety equipment to provide discounts of at least 25 percent on rental or purchase of HEPA vacuum cleaners and purchase of NIOSH-approved respirators.

Background

On October 11, 2002, the Raleigh, NC News and Observer broke the story about an upcoming meeting between Attorneys General from various states and representatives of 10 paint companies to discuss warning labels on paint cans. In response to an Alliance E-mail alert, more than 100 organizations signed an October 21 letter of protest to Massachusetts Attorney General Thomas Reilly, who was coordinating these discussions. This letter pointed out the limited benefits of labels on paint cans and urged state Attorneys General to “insist that the paint industry contribute its fair share to a comprehensive strategy that actually adds up to a solution—with resources and action targeted to protecting children at highest risk.”

In late January 2003, staff from the Alliance and the Conservation Law Foundation in Boston met with Massachusetts AG Tom Reilly and his staff. While the Alliance tried to convince the Attorneys General to focus their attention on the lead paint manufacturers in addition to the current paint companies, it was important to push to strengthen this particular initiative. The Alliance provided recommendations to strengthen the wording of the warning label and suggestions about the spectrum of opportunities that AGs could pursue to secure more meaningful contributions from the paint companies in protecting children’s health.

Analysis of the Agreement

If the test is whether the paint companies’ contributions under this agreement are commensurate with the scale of the problem they created, the agreement clearly falls far short. As public health experts and advocates know full well, the missing ingredient in protecting children at highest risk is money to abate lead hazards in low-income, high-risk housing. This agreement includes no funds for such projects.

While this agreement does not foreclose the possibility of these AGs seeking further resources from the paint companies through lawsuits or future negotiations, it is possible that many AGs will be inclined to “declare victory” and move on to other issues. It appears that public health lawsuits, such as those filed by Rhode Island, Milwaukee, St. Louis, and other cities and counties offer the only real hope of securing significant contributions from the lead-based paint manufacturers to help pay to address lead hazards in low-income housing.

It is noteworthy that the AGs’ agreement with the paint companies goes beyond warning labels to provide training and price discounts on limited items. The fact that the paint industry has publicly acknowledged the value of painters, remodelers, and maintenance staff being trained in lead-safe work practices is significant. But, at an average assumed cost of $1,500 per training, 600 trainings amount to less than $1,000,000, a token monetary contribution in light of the scope of the problem.

As an intangible benefit, paint industry sponsorship of such trainings might help lead-safe work practices become the national norm and the de facto “standard of care” for painters and remodelers.

It remains to be seen what impact the label will have on the behavior of painters, contractors, and do-it-yourselfers. Warning labels on many consumer products go unread or ignored. While the warning label conveys the danger of lead paint and dust, it fails to offer specific warnings about open flame burning and power sanding, the two most dangerous methods of paint removal. It is also noteworthy that companies often try to use warning labels as a future liability shield, as in the case of warnings on cigarettes. Clearly, the paint industry’s concern over “failure to warn” suits was one of the motivating factors behind the decision to adopt labels.

While this is a small, positive step forward, it will do little to protect children at highest risk for lead poisoning. These children, who are overwhelmingly African-American and Hispanic, live in older properties in low-income communities that rarely get painted or remodeled. Now that state Attorneys General have a deeper appreciation of the toll that lead poisoning is taking on our children’s health, intelligence, and behavior, they need to demand that the paint companies pay their fair share to protect children at highest risk for the problem they created.