[From the Capital Times, Madison, Wis., Mar. 13, 1971] PRICE OF "WHITER THAN WHITE" The continuing controversy over phosphates in detergents-which peaked here in Wisconsin last week at legislative hearings on a number of phosphate-ban bills—is a symptom of a large problem. It is one that goes far beyond a housewife's vexation over grey wash. The real issue, it seems to us, is how long this country can continue to reverse such meaningless symbols of affluence as "whiter than white" laundry, at the expense of a clean environment. Housewives have been brainwashed into thinking they will be social misfits if their laundry is not at least as white as that of the woman next door. Meanwhile, the phosphates which produce that whiteness go into our lakes and streams, and nourish the growth of oxygen-consuming algae. Many of those who testified at last week's hearings indicated that, if forced to choose between whiter-than-white laundry and a clean lake, they'd choose the latter. That they are prepared to make that choice indicates that people are becoming more and more concerned about the quality of their lives and their surroundings. They are questioning whether our population and Gross National Product can continue to soar, while the resources which support us all are being depleted by our gluttonous, wasteful consumption patterns. The soap and detergent manufacturers are a part of the industrial complex which stimulates those consumption patterns by creating an artificial "need" (in this case, whiter-than-white laundry) in the minds of consumers, and then proceeding to satisfy it. We need whiter-than-white wash about as much as we need electric can openers. [Editorial by WITI-TV of Milwaukee, Wis., Mar. 17, 1971] BE SURE PHOSPHATES NOT REPLACED WITH DANGEROUS INGREDIENTS! There's a little doubt that scientific investigation has proved that phosphorus can bring rapid deterioriation to our lakes, rivers and streams. So one would suppose the only logical step would be to ban all phosphorus from our waters. Order all detergent makers who insist on using phosphates to take their product off the market. Apparently, though, it's not quite that simple. Most of us are willing to give up our "whiter than white" shirts and bed sheets . . . but we find now that may not be the only sacrifice we could be forced to make. At a public hearing in Madison last week, Milwaukee Health Commissioner, Dr. E. R. Krumbiegel, said that 64% of the phosphate detergents sold are for home laundry and could be safely banned. But, detergents with special uses, partilularly in food processing and health institutions, could not be banned immediately. So, we could be faced with serious problems in some areas if we move too quickly. An interesting moment occurred during the Madison public hearing. A woman produced a box of widely advertised no-phosphate detergent as "proof" that suitable substitutes are already available. At the same time, the federal food and drug administration was ordering the withdrawal of the product from the market, because lab tests showed that it is "highly dangerous, toxic, corrosive and upon contact, it creates severe eye irritation, open wounds and sores on the skin." She wanted that product to replace phosphate detergents. TV6 feels it is extremely important that both sides know what they're talking about. Much of the argument in this battle against phosphate detergents is based more on emotion than on solid fact. We're anxious as anyone to clean our rivers, lakes and streams of damaging phosphates. But, let's follow the advice of unemotional, unbiased experts. . . like Milwaukee's Dr. Krumbiegel whose only interest is the health and welfare of the people of the state. He stresses caution. Before we ban phosphates in detergents, let's be absolutely sure we're not replacing them with even more dangerous ingredients. Senator SPONG. The next witness scheduled to be heard is Mr. Sam D. Fine, Associate Commissioner for Compliance, Food and Drug Administration. Mr. Fine, we are pleased to have you with us this morning. STATEMENT OF SAM D. FINE, ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER FOR COMPLIANCE, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; ACCOMPANIED BY MALCOLM W. JENSEN, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF PRODUCT SAFETY, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION Mr. FINE. Senator, Dr. Edwards, the Commissioner, had hoped to be with you this morning. He is in Phoenix, Ariz. There has been an illness in his family. He asked me to express his regrets that he could not be here. I have with me Malcolm Jensen, head of the Bureau of Product Safety. He has a prepared statement. After Mr. Jensen has gone through the statement, both of us will try and answer any questions that you may have. Senator SPONG. Thank you. Mr. JENSEN. Mr. Chairman, we appreciate being invited to appear today to discuss the labeling and packing aspects of the detergent problem. The Federal Hazardous Substances Act, which is administered by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, recognizes that some of the substances used around the home are potentially hazardous. The legislation also recognizes the benefits derived from the use of many of these hazardous substances and that many of the hazards can be adequately safeguarded against by specific cautionary labeling. The act specifies with particularity the types of substances subject to its provisions, the hazards which it is addressed, the labeling required, and the penalties for violations. A household detergent is subject to the Federal Hazardous Substances Act when one or more of its characteristics is sufficiently hazardous to cause illness or injury under reasonably foreseeable handling or use. From our experience with detergents we know that some have proven to be toxic, corrosive, or irritating to the skin or eyes. The tests for toxicity and eye and skin irritation are defined in the act or regulations promulgated pursuant thereto. Section 2(p) (1) of the act requires certain information to appear on the container label of a detergent that is a hazardous substance. The required statement includes: 1. The name and place of business of the manufacturer, packer, distributor, or seller. 2. The common or usual name of each component which contributes substantially to the hazard. 3. The signal word, "Danger," "Warning," or "Caution" depending upon the degree of severity of the hazard. 4. An affirmative statement of the hazard or hazards, such as, 6. Instructions for first-aid treatment when necessary. 8. The statement, "Keep Out of Reach of Children," or its equivalent. Furthermore, the law and regulations impose specific requirements with respect to the placement and conspicuousness of label statements on containers of hazardous household substances in order to assure that the statements appear in proper contrast to other information on the label and to assure uniformity in type, size, clarity, and placement of the information on the package. If a marketed detergent product is found to be in violation of the Hazardous Substances Act, we have a number of alternatives both voluntary and regulatory available to us in order to protect the public health. We can ask the manufacturer or distributor to adequately label future production, as we did in some instances at the completion of our recent detergent survey. We can ask for a voluntary removal from sale or recall until the product is relabeled in accordance with the requirements. A number of detergent manufacturers agreed to this procedure last summer. We can go directly to the public with warnings issued through the news media. In these instances where a serious hazard exists, or when voluntary efforts are not successful we have authority to initiate seizures, as we did with two detergent products earlier this year when testing showed them to be toxic, corrosive to skin, and to cause severe eye irritation. Persons violating any of the requirements of the act are also subject to prosecution or injunction. In addition to these actions the act provides that if a substance is so dangerous that labeling adequate to protect the user cannot be devised, the product can be banned. Although we have not yet concluded that any household detergent is so hazardous that banning would be required, this action could be invoked if a detergent is so toxic or corrosive that it would be a very serious hazard around the household irrespective of the degree of warning labeling it bore. The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare also administers recently passed related legislation which could provide an additional means of protecting children from injury caused by hazardous household detergents. The Poison Prevention Packaging Act signed into law in December 1970, authorizes the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to require packaging in child resistant containers for those substances which by reason of their packaging pose a risk of serious personal injury or serious illness to children, the victims of most accidental ingestions. We could require that caustic or toxic detergent formulations be marketed in "special packaging" to preclude injuries or illness to children. We have moved quickly against those products found to be in violation of these consumer protection laws. Recently in response to the demand for no-phosphate or low-phosphate detergents, and with the temporary suspension of use of the most promising substitute for phosphates in home laundry products, many manufacturers turned to carbonates and silicates as builders in their products. These substances can be used in such a way that the product containing them poses serious accident hazards, especially to small children. These caustic formulations have the capability to burn, eat away, or destroy living tissue by chemical action. In two separate, but coordinated actions, Federal seizure was made. on 1,145 cases of laundry detergents on charges that the labeling failed to meet the requirements of the Hazardous Substances Act. Biological testing showed the two detergents to be toxic, corrosive to the skin, and to cause eye irritation. The packages failed to bear adequate labeling warning consumers of the hazards which could result if the products were accidentally swallowed or otherwise misued, and also failed to give adequate information on what a consumer should do if accidentally injured by the product. Recognizing that there was a need for a fuller understanding of the nature and extent of this problem, a detergent survey was undertaken by the Food and Drug Administration. A total of 39 phosphate and nonphosphate detergent products was sampled and examined, to determine both the chemical and toxicological characteristics of each product. Sixteen products failed one or more of these tests. Packages also failed to include adequate cautionary labeling as required by the Federal Hazardous Substances Act. All 16 manufacturers have submitted plans for relabeling their products in stores and warehouses and for properly labeling the products in production. When the plans are implemented, FDA will consider the products in compliance. Nine other detergent manufacturers were told to begin including adequate cautionary labeling on all future production. These products already carry some cautionary labeling, but the warning was judged inadequate. The FDA tests indicated these nine products did not present a problem serious enough to require relabeling of packages now in stores and warehouses. However, beginning with the next label printing, all future shipments must carry cautionary labeling consistent with the degree of irritation or toxicity of the product. Fourteen products among the 39 tested by FDA were found to be either safe for use without cautionary labeling or properly labeled. The tests included nonphosphate and low-phosphate, as well as the regular phosphate-based detergents. Surveillance testing by FDA's Bureau of Product Safety will continue on detergent products. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We will be glad to answer any questions you may have. Senator SPONG. Thank you. The Surgeon General, on September 15, encouraged housewives to purchase phosphate detergents. Two weeks ago, he stated that it was a generalization subject to exception. What I am wondering is if he was generalizing that day, why wasn't his general advice to use one of the safe nonphosphate detergents we have heard about, for example, one of the carbonate-based detergents? Mr. JENSEN. It would be improper for me to interpret the language and meaning of the Surgeon General's remarks. The general advice of the Surgeon General is that the housewife should exercise judg ment in selection of products for the home. If there are young children in the home, a different judgment may be exercised than otherwise. If there are particular environmental factors involved, this is another aspect to be considered. However, we attempt not to generalize. Senator SPONG. Well, I can understand your reluctance to respond to any more than you have to. Nevertheless, if you were the Surgeon General, would you have given the same advice? Mr. JENSEN. I would not have given the same advice, sir. Mr. JENSEN. I think my advice would have been, in light of the fact that there are a dozen of serious considerations to be given in the selection and use of household detergents, one cannot generalize. Certainly we are concerned about the environment, every one of us, not only for now, but for the future. At the same time we are seriously concerned about the possible hazard, particularly to children, of having readily available in the household a product that could cause injury or illness to the child. I would hope that we would be able to inform the housewives-I must admit I think they are totally confused now-that it is necessary to do two things: One is to be careful, and exercise judgment in the selection of the product, and, two, I think we should start some educational programs to keep these types of products generally out of reach of children. Senator SPONG. We, of course, are concerned about the use of safe alternatives to phosphates. With regard to those that the Surgeon General and FDA have found to be hazardous, why don't you ban these under the Hazardous Substances Act? Mr. JENSEN. The history of that statute shows that the first act was passed back in the early 1960's and was a Hazardous Substances Labeling Act, defining authority for specific labeling on substances determined to be hazardous. It was amended in the mid 1960's, to authorize banning. This requires us to make a specific determination as to the hazards posed to the public. We believe the Congress, in its wisdom, said that it is to be expected that among household products, there will be some that are hazardous, bleaches and ammonias, for example. To the extent that cautionary labeling can handle this public safety problem, it should be permitted to do so. But when the labeling does not handle the problem, banning is to be given consideration. Very few bannings have been necessary, but there have been some. The most widely known was banning of carbon tetrachloride. Despite strong labeling, tragic accidents were occurring. So in this case, the only choice available was to ban the product. Senator SPONG. Well, then, Mr. Jensen, is it your present judgment that labeling can control any hazards that may exist insofar as detergents are concerned? Mr. JENSEN. Our experience at this moment tells us that there is no single laundry detergent product on the market that is so hazardous that labeling would not be expected to make it acceptable for sale to householders. Senator SPONG. Now if you are wrong in that view, and we find that proper labeling will not do the complete job, wouldn't childproof packaging virtually eliminate the danger? Mr. JENSEN. I think here we open a whole new subject. We are now giving serious consideration to the advisability of this, especially for automatic dishwasher detergents which traditionally are more hazardous. When we talk of laundry detergents, we have a difficult problem because they are sold in sizes ranging from the size of a bar of Ivory |