The Chemical World This Week
AEROSOL PRODUCERS HAVE ANOTHER BAD YEAR Less than a week after the government revealed its plans for phasing out chlorofluorocarbons as propellants for aerosols (C'&EN, May 16, page 4), the beleaguered aerosol industry got some more bad, if unsurprising, news: Production of aerosols continues to decline. According to the latest annual survey of aerosols and pressurized products, conducted by the Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association and released last week at CSMA's midyear meeting in Chicago, 2.29 billion units were filled in 1976. That number represents a 2.5% decrease from the 2.36 billion units filled in 1975 and a 21% decrease from the record 2.90 billion filled in 1973. Total aerosol production is now back where it was in 1968. About the best that can be said of the situation is that the 1976 drop was "only" 2.5%, compared to year-to-year declines of 6.2% in 1974 and 13.5% in 1975. Some major markets for aerosol products showed healthy increases from 1975. Insect sprays were up 12.0%, coatings and finishes 10.1%, animal products 13.6%, automotive products 15.6%, and industrial products 25.5%. However, the two biggest markets—personal products and household products, accounting for two thirds of total production—continued to shrink. Fillings of personal products (deodorants, hair sprays, shaving lathers, and such) totaled 981.4 million units—down 8.7% from 1975, 34.4% from the peak year of 1973, and 16.5% from 1968. House-
Aerosols production has fallen to 1968 level Billions of units
3.0
2.5
1967 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 Source: Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association
6
C&ENMay23, 1977
hold products (including disinfectants, cleaners, and laundry products), with 531.6 million units, were down 6.3% from 1975, 24.4% from their peak year of 1972, and 7.0% from 1968. Sales of personal deodorants and laundry spray products were particularly hard hit; hair sprays were essentially unchanged; and shaving lathers showed a sharp increase. CSMA's aerosol survey committee contends that "consumer preference did not contribute to the decrease." Looking at the numbers, one has difficulty figuring out how it came to that conclusion. Nevertheless, the committee blames the drop instead on the general state of the economy, on legislative and regulatory actions, on changes in propellant use, and on promotional efforts for nonpressurized alternatives. Industry spokesmen argue, with considerable justification, that obloquy aimed at chlorofluorocarbons has, as a result of distortions in communications media, adversely affected sales of all aerosol products, regardless of their propellants. CSMA executive director Ralph Engel notes that less than 30% of aerosol products
use chlorofluorocarbon propellants today, compared to about 50% when the ozone depletion issue was first raised. The process of converting to other propellants continues, Engel adds, and the industry hopes to meet regulatory deadlines, even though they will impose considerable economic hardship. At the meeting, CSMA's aerosol division proposed, as part of its "strategy for survival," a major advertising campaign to reacquaint the public with the virtues of aerosol packaging. "The days of the dignified soft sell are over," one speaker said. Such a campaign takes money, it was noted. Contributions were requested; $200,000 was the goal, and about $150,000 of that was pledged on the spot. Also, Stan Freberg, creator of several successful radio and television commercials, was hired to address the group, perhaps in hopes that he could do for aerosols what he did for prunes. Freberg allowed that their idea for an advertising and public relations campaign was a good one, and he would be glad to help—but they should be asking for $2 million rather than $200,000. D
Saccharin goes another round at FDA hearings As expected, last week's hearings on the Food & Drug Administration's proposed ban on the use of saccharin in foods produced more heat than light. The scientific issue now has become more of a highly charged public policy question. Little was actually added to the body of scientific knowledge about saccharin safety, even though FDA commissioner Donald Kennedy admonished the packed hearing room that "emotional appeals will be less useful than appeals to reason." This didn't stop demonstrators from waving prosaccharin placards in front of TV cameras, or from wheeling shopping carts filled with diet products in front of the hearing room. Leading off the 50 or so witnesses slated to testify during the two days of hearings was Rep. James G. Martin (R.-N.C), author of a bill (H.R. 5166) that would permit risk/benefit decisions not now possible under the Delaney clause of the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act.
Citing broad Congressional support for a change in the Delaney clause, Martin suggests that FDA put off action on saccharin for at least six months to "avoid the disruption of a ban that would be on one day and off the next." Martin, a Ph.D. organic chemist, observes that FDA's proposal to classify saccharin as an over-the-counter drug is "a clear demonstration that you [FDA] hold the benefits of saccharin to outweigh the risks." Speaking in favor of the FDA action, Dr. Sidney Wolfe of the Public Citizen Health Research Group, a Ralph Nader affiliate, affirms that saccharin has no proven medical benefit and thus shouldn't even be considered as an over-the-counter drug. "So far as the available evidence is concerned," Wolfe says, "saccharin is a convenience item, a mere taste." Citing studies that show saccharin lowers blood sugar, Wolfe suggested that saccharin use could produce the paradoxical effect of causing obese
