To destroy or seriously cripple the asbestos industry in this country through hastily developed or unnecessarily severe regulations will benefit neither the employee, the industry, nor the country as a whole, and could quite possibly have serious economic, social, and other consequences both now and in the future.
Any such warning label we might be required to use in connection with our products containing five percent or more asbestos content by weight would be unnecessary, inappropriate, ineffective and potentially damaging to the sales of the products and thus to the job security of employees engaged in their production.
Trying to put a handle on the potential number of lost jobs is extremely difficult....Perhaps 15 to 30 thousand is about as close as we can come at this time.
There will no doubt be cases where the technology is available to reduce levels to two fibers, but where the cost involved would make a particular product line either no longer profitable or no longer competitive on the open market....In these cases, the plant or manufacturing operation would also be shut down.
The proposed limit of two fibers...is impossible to meet....The cost of attempting to reach such a low limit would be astronomical and entirely unrealistic....The added expense would definitely force us out of business and would entail the loss of hundreds of jobs.
Past experience would indicate that in a sizable number of operations it will be impossible to reduce the levels to two fibers, no matter how much money is spent. In these cases, the operations obviously would have to be shut down and the men thrown out of work. We have a very rough idea at this time how large a segment of the manufacturing industry would be affected ion this manner, but an estimate of perhaps 15% to 20% seems reasonable.
Such a label would surely spell the demise of a number of major product lines of the industry....there is no doubt that our competitors will attempt to take advantage of the situation by encouraging the public to avoid asbestos-containing products because of the potential health hazards implied in the warning label, even though to the customer no such hazard exists.
The proposed regulations would also produce a loss in sales of at least $400 million because of the labeling requirements and the shut down of operations where two fibers [are] technologically unfeasible. A number of companies have already indicated that they do not believe a two-fiber standard is feasible in many operations, and that if such a standard is promulgated, they will close down those operations immediately rather than spend millions of dollars in a vain attempt to achieve the unachievable. The loss of jobs will be substantial.
The major problem imposed on us by the labeling requirements of the proposed regulation, which imply to the general public an exposure to the risk of asbestosis and cancer. In products ---for example, like ordinary Asbestos-Cement Siding-Shingles --- where the fibers are locked into the cement, it is highly misleading, if not downright dishonest, to scare the homeowner into believing he is exposed to cancer risk.
We have also removed the reference to cancer in the warning sign. Before using such scare tactics in the workplace, we feel much more should be known about the relationship between cancer and asbestos than is known at present.
