Bad image a problem for chemical industry There is an intuitive feeling that the chemical industry is entering a new era. Technical competence is not in question nor is industrial productivity. Rather, in addition to the universal problem of energy, the chemical industry's problems in the new era are more in the nature of rebuilding public confidence and in reversing misperceptions of an industry that hasn't done much to defend its past good performance. The most demanding issues in the near future are health, worker safety, and environmental protection. These were explored from several points of view during a workshop at the American Institute of Chemical Engineers' 72nd Annual Meeting, held in San Francisco. The closest thing to a composite public view of the chemical industry was provided by James B. Lindheim, vice president of the firm of Yankelovich, Skelly & White. A decade of public opinion polls by Lindheim's firm indicates that much of the troubles of the chemical industry also are being experienced throughout society. In the 1970's, Lindheim says, there was nothing less than a massive social transformation of American society. He believes that most important in that transformation was the diminution, and maybe even the elimination, of the Christian ethic as a basic motivation. It has been replaced, according to the polls, with a new ethic of "self." An individual was formerly valued for what he contributed to society through good works, family cohesion, national service, and the like. Today, Lindheim says, it appears that service to self far overshadows everything else and the criterion for success is "finding one's self." The new ethic of self pervades all age groups and all parts of the country. Another important social trend in the 1970's that contributed to a new era of challenge for the chemical industry is called by Lindheim the "philosophy of entitlement." The basic idea is that "I am entitled to something" from the national institutions, and this includes trouble-free products from the chemical industry. At the same time, the polls suggest that there is no desire for a welfare state—a seeming contradiction. Lindheim explains that the philosophy of entitlement is concerned more with providing a safety net than with letting someone or something else run one's life. To Lindheim this suggests social parentalism rather than paternalism. In looking ahead to the 12
C&ENDec. 17, 1979
Fleming: public self-praise needed
1980's, Lindheim sees an acceleration of these trends. In refining his viewpoint to the specific realm of the chemical industry, Lindheim notes that the chemical industry has experienced all the problems of other industries, with two exceptions. The decline in confidence that hit all industry in the seventies didn't hit the chemical industry until about 1976. The only other one that experienced this delayed effect was the insurance industry. Also, when it did appear, public concern with the chemical industry was sharply focused on health, environmental protection, and worker safety. Beginning roughly in 1976, the polls showed a sharp rise in the number of people who believed, rightly or wrongly, that the chemical industry was not doing a very good job in these three areas. Today more than half the people polled consider the chemical industry the worst in matters of health and environmental damage. The chemical industry is tied with the mining industry as the least safe industry to work in. According to Lindheim, the reasons for the public perceptions of the chemical industry also have appeared in the polls. In the case of health, there has been an elevation of health matters to a national social issue during the 1970's. Closely related is the rise of "chemophobia," which, in the public mind, connects chemicals with cancer. Cancer definitely is perceived as the biggest health problem. Today, say the polls, 80% of the public believe smoking cigarettes causes cancer. In addition, 50% believe exposure in the workplace causes cancer and 50%
believe food additives cause cancer. Furthermore, 44% believe insecticides, pesticides, and herbicides can cause cancer. Another reason for heightened public concern, says Lindheim, is the "media circus." Contending with the media, Lindheim believes, has never been an industry strong suit, and he voices some doubt that corporate ads defending industry positions receive high regard. Despite the negative public reaction to the chemical industry, there isn't a widespread distrust of chemicals per se. The polls indicate that the idea of zero-risk products isn't given much credence. There is a definite desire for informed risk in which the public is given enough information to be able to judge the risk and proceed accordingly. Lindheim believes that the worst of the chemophobia may be over, but there is still a very high degree of distrust to be countered by industry. Eventually, Lindheim says, it all boils down to a matter of trust. There is a need, he says, to tell the truth, be accessible to the public whenever possible, begin an auditing system for waste disposal, and to get the good record of industry before the public. In presenting the industry's viewpoint, Richard Fleming, executive vice president of Air Products & Chemicals, notes that there is nothing new about risks with products. Most of the recent concern, he suggests, reflects some new perceptions, most of them incorrect. One that is properly perceived is that which recognizes that long-term exposure at very low levels can be dangerous. However, Fleming says, it is totally wrong to believe, as some claim, that there is any real one-molecule mechanism for cancer causation. The rapid expansion of analytical techniques to very low detection limits has been a blessing and a curse. It has helped promote the one-molecule theories, he says, and also has been extrapolated to regulatory decisions without reason. Fleming believes the industry has suffered from the adoption of the no-risk philosophy in government regulation. Fleming is strongly in favor of truth in the public arena, but he suggests that the chemical industry, in general, has been truthful in the past. Its safety record is extremely good. Its health exposure record is equally impressive. By and large its waste disposal record is good, although there have been some exceptions. But despite all these, the industry has not engaged in much public self-praise and that seems to be necessary to counter the often malign publicity by anti-industry groups. D
