Perception vs. Reality: The Chemical Industry Challenge

Introduction:

Those of you who remember the movie The Graduate may recall the sage advice given to the youthful Dustin Hoffman by an avuncular neighbour. "Plastics;' said the advisor tersely to a bewildered Hoffman, "get into plastics, son:'

Obviously, Dustin Hoffman has done very well staying in show business, but our guest speaker today started his successful career by "getting into plastics." In 1953, after graduation from the University of Alberta with a degree in chemical engineering, he joined Canadian Industries Limited, Plastics Division, and by 1968 was named General Manager of Plastics and in 1976 was seconded to Imperial Chemical Industries in England, serving as Deputy Chairman of I.C.I. Petrochemicals. On his return to Canada in 1978, he climbed the corporate ladder to become C-I-L's President and Chief Operating Officer in 1981, then Chairman in 1984.

C-I-L is the chemical giant of Canada comprised of four major groups: agriculture; forest products and polymers; mining and construction; and specialty chemicals and services. Last year, it did 1.3 billion dollars worth of business. Chuck Hantho oversees it all.

Others share the benefit of Mr. Hantho's management acumen. He is a Director of Algoma Steel Corporation, on I.C.I.'s North American Advisory

Board, Chairman of the Canadian Chemical Producers' Association and Vice-Chairman of the Canadian Manufacturers Association. He is the National Director of the Arthritis Society and a Director of Wellesley Hospital in Toronto.

Born in Lethbridge of Norwegian descent, he and his wife Phyllis have three sons and a daughter and reside in Toronto. The family enjoys golf, skiing and scuba diving. But his speech today will address a serious and topical subject: "Perception vs. Reality: The Chemical Industry Challenge." Ladies and gentlemen: Charles Hantho, Chairman and CEO of C-I-L.

C.H. Hantho:

It is an honour for me to address such a prestigious audience. It is also quite a challenge.

You see, I represent an industry that is perceived to be bad news by many Canadians. People are both mystified and worried about the products we make. I will deal with those perceptions.

We are also an industry that is the source of many innovations and discoveries that have greatly improved life for everyone. I want to tell you a bit about that as well.

As you will discover, we do care deeply about our products and their impact on human life and the environment. We care and worry far more than we are often given credit for.

Our failure-and it is a failure-is in not sharing our accomplishments and concerns with the public so that Canadians can better understand the benefits and inherent risks of chemicals.

Let me begin by outlining the magnitude of the Canadian chemical industry.

Our association consists of seventy-three companies. Together, we produce ninety percent of the chemicals manufactured in Canada. We are ten billion dollar business. And we directly employ twenty-five thousand people in one hundred and ten communities from coast to coast.

By anyone's measure, we are a large industry. Unfortunately, we make products that scare many people. When chemicals are referred to by the media or advocacy groups, the word "chemical" is almost always preceded by an adjective-such as "dangerous" chemicals or "toxic" chemicals or "carcinogenic" chemicals-out of all proportion to the real risk. However, the alarmist perception persists-and we must deal with it.

To make matters worse, we are associated with misfortunes that are rallying cries of alarm-Love Canal, the Mississauga evacuation and Bhopal.

The truth of these events cannot be denied either. Believe me, we are more concerned about the risk of their recurrence than anyone else. And we have taken decisive, preventive action.

Ideally, we should live in a world of zero risk. But that is not possible. Ideally, we might even wish to live in a world without chemicals. That is not a viable option, either.

What we do live in is a world where we strive to manage risk to maximise benefits.

In fact, we strive to manage risk and maximise benefits in so much of what we do. In driving a car, or flying on an airplane. In playing many body-contact sports, or constructing large buildings.

These, and many other life experiences, involve potentially grave risk. Consciously or unconsciously, we make choices about the risks compared with the benefits.

In some cases, our risk management is voluntary. If you believe the risk of a plane crash is great, you don't fly. In many cases, our risk management is involuntary. We place our trust in someone else-the mechanic who fixed your car, for instance.

Managing risk to maximise benefits is integral to chemical production. For us, and for the public, the negative aspects of chemicals are an ever-present concern, because chemicals are everywhere.

Natural or manufactured, chemicals are truly the essence of life.

Let me illustrate what I mean. The clothes you wear are made from chemicals.

Frankly, there is no way we could clothe the world without chemicals.

If we relied on cotton, we would have to set aside forty million acres of land.

If we relied on wool, the sheep would need one billion acres for grazing. That alone is equal to all the farmland in the United States, and larger than all of Europe.

Even then, we would need chemicals to grow sufficient grass and to protect the animals from disease.

Chemicals are everywhere. The salt, the sugar, the coffee and tea consumed during this luncheon. Without chemicals, much of our food would rot before it reached the kitchen table.

In fact, without chemicals, we could not feed the world's population. Starvation and malnutrition would be far worse than it already is in many Third World countries.

We do not have the means to produce sufficient natural fertilizers, such as fish meal or animal waste, to replace the manufactured fertilisers and pesticides that are essential to adequate food production.

If, for example, we replaced synthetic rubber with natural rubber, we would require arable land that could otherwise feed three million people.

Take a look around your homes and offices. Paints and drapes, carpets and finishes, appliances and telephones. All have components made from chemicals-including your VCR and your kids' high-powered stereo systems.

Chemicals are everywhere. Your new car contains more than three hundred pounds of plastics-all made from petrochemicals. So are the tires.

We wear chemicals on our faces as cosmetics and aftershave lotions.

We consume chemicals in the form of pharmaceuticals that save lives and prevent disease.

Yes, chemicals are everywhere. And they are used everywhere-in making steel or pulp and paper, in machinery and medicine.

Chemicals are essential to our standard of living as well as to the quality of life.

So why are we so frightened?

The answer can be found in one word: dosage.

As Paraclesus observed nearly five hundred years ago: "All substances are poisons. There is none that is not a poison. The right dose differentiates a poison and a remedy." All chemicals, natural or manufactured, are dangerous if you ingest large enough doses. Even water.

A few chemicals are very dangerous.

The most dangerous chemical of all is botulism toxin, produced by a microbe. A pinhead amount of this naturally occurring chemical would kill a thousand people. Many other natural chemicals are also killers.

When you come right down to it, life itself is a chemical experiment. We simply cannot live without chemical substances, and the ones we have created help to sustain and advance life.

Our primary goal, therefore, is to minimise harmful con-'l centrations of chemicals. If we attain that goal, we control and minimise the risk to our lives and the ecosystem.

Chemical compounds found naturally in the environment have emerged through a long and complex evolutionary process spanning millions of years.

Manufactured chemicals, by contrast, are relatively new. Most chemicals we take for granted today appeared in the past few decades. They have greatly enhanced our ability to feed, shelter and clothe the human race, as well as improve our health and life expectancy.

However, in the early development of many products, we lacked the foresight and the knowledge to pinpoint their exact long-term risks.

For example, chlorine is used to disinfect water. Since its creation at the beginning of this century, it has saved millions of lives and virtually eliminated waterborne diseases, such as typhoid.

Unfortunately, it was later discovered that chlorine reacts with trace amounts of organic substances to produce chloroform that has caused cancer in animals. Chlorine can also react with other chemicals to produce highly toxic mutagens. Fortunately, water engineers have discovered that even these trace amounts can be removed by an activated charcoal filter. We have learned and have found solutions to manage risk to achieve the benefits for society.

In other cases, man-made chemicals are perceived as a dire risk out of all proportion to their benefits. DDT is an example. To quote Dr. Howard Rapson, Professor of Chemical Engineering at the University of Toronto:

"Malaria, for thousands of years the number one killer of human beings, was finally brought under control after World War II by DDT. So was typhus, a disease communicated by body lice, that previously killed more soldiers than died in battle. But today, instead of hearing about the millions of human lives that have been saved by DDT over the past forty years, we are told about the damage it does to our natural environment, which is comparatively minor."

Recently, the American toxicologist Dr. Alice Ottoboni examined this issue from another revealing perspective. She points out that the banning of DDT prompted increased use of organophosphate insecticides. This increase was accompanied by a large increase in poisoning of farm workers, some so severe as to be lethal.

Dr. Ottoboni has concluded from her studies that the efforts to protect wildlife have increased the risk of producing acute health problems among farm workers in the agricultural industry.

To understand the impact of chemicals on our bodies and on the environment, we need to measure them in the most minute quantities. Until the last decade or so, we lacked the technology to measure substances in less than parts per thousand or parts per million.

Today, however, we can measure substances in parts per billion or even quadrillion.

How small is small?

You may recall that last year there were reports of tests conducted on water from the St. Clair River that indicated dioxins had been found at the level of twenty-seven parts per quadrillion. The implication was that this was a new development. If it was, it could create cause for concern.

The reality was that this was the result of a first-time ability to detect parts per quadrillion. What we don't know is whether this substance had existed in those quantities all along. Dioxins are generated by the combustion of wood, whether ignited by man or from forest fires. It occurs naturally.

Dioxins could have been present at the previous undetectable levels for hundreds of years.

But just what does a part per billion or trillion or quadrillion really mean?

Let's examine for a moment a part per trillion. Professor Rapson translated a part per trillion as one second in three hundred and twenty centuries. Or a pinch of salt in ten thousand tons of potato chips. Or one drop of vermouth in two hundred and fifty thousand barrels of gin. In size, it is one flea among three hundred and sixty thousand elephants. In money, it is one cent in ten billion dollars.

The point in all of this is that we now have the technology to measure chemicals in such tiny amounts that we sometimes scare ourselves. We are finding trace amounts of chemicals in water and tissue that we didn't even know existed before. In some cases, this has given rise to absurd concerns and is pushing us towards establishing safety levels that even nature has trouble complying with.

However, this technological competence is important. It has taught us that some past practices are not as safe as they could be. And so we have changed. As we learn more about the risks associated with chemical concentrations, we will adjust again and again.

And we will continue our quest for intrinsically safer chemicals.

Contrary to the belief of some environmental evangelists, we do care deeply about the impact of our products on the ecology of life. We desperately want our chemicals to enhance the health and safety of life. We desperately want to avoid any negative effect on the quality of the environment.

And we know that, if we do not accomplish this, we leave ourselves open to extraordinary intervention by policymakers and regulators.

That, in itself, is not the major concern. Our real worry is that intervention will be based on misinformation, on careless speculations and hypotheses, or as a result of exaggerated hysteria.

As you see, we have a problem. And we have a solution.

In the old days, we did what many industries did. We emphasised the economic benefits of our activities. The capital investments. The jobs. The value-added benefits rippling positively and pervasively through the economy. The balance-oftrade equation. The importance of chemicals to our affluent way of life.

We also worked hard at minimising chemical risks. But we didn't talk much about that in public, because we thought that people would not understand or wouldn't be interested.

Well, the economic arguments are still true. But they miss the point of public perception and political anxiety.

In the spring of 1986, we commissioned a major public opinion study of the Canadian chemical industry. That study told us everything we feared to know about the psychological terrorism of chemicals in the public's mind.

That study also gave us a good understanding of the dynamics, the specifics, and the intensity behind genuine public alarm.

The most damning finding was that Canadians believe we know precisely the risks associated with our products-and we deliberately withhold that information from them.

Not surprisingly, Canadians feel helpless in the face of this involuntary risk. They resent with a passion the assumption that we are making risk decisions for them. They want to make their own decisions based on their perception of the risks involved. And they believe we deliberately avoid open and honest dialogue with the public, the news media and government.

Perhaps many of you share these perceptions as well.

In fact, Canadians think the risks associated with chemicals are higher than those of any other industry except nuclear energy.

They do give us credit for our important contribution to the economy, but they are not prepared to compromise the environment for jobs.

So, we do have a problem. And we have a socially responsible solution.

Through the Canadian Chemical Producers' Association, our industry has set in motion a series of strategies and programmes to establish an understanding and trust with the public about what we are doing to minimise risk.

We are committed to demonstrating our social responsibility. In 1983, we made a giant step forward in that direction by putting in writing what we call a Statement of Guiding Principles on the Responsible Care of Chemicals.

This statement sets out principles of behaviour for the complete life cycle of chemicals.

It gives compelling literacy to our objective of making sure the public is adequately protected. It accepts the need for legislation and regulation. It articulates our commitment to voluntary actions.

In doing this, our Statement of Guiding Principles on the Responsible Care of Chemicals is much more than a piece of paper. A chemical manufacturer must formally sign and file a copy of the statement with our Association before that company is accepted as a member.

We are the only chemical association in the world to demand such an oath of responsibility from our members. And let me assure you this is not a publicity stunt. In signing the statement, our member companies have pledged themselves to action programmes, not just words.

Our industry philosophy is captured in the phrase "Responsible care: a total commitment." And that is exactly what it is-a total commitment.

We know that the entire industry will be judged by the performance of the least-careful company or plant, not by the responsible behaviour of the overwhelming majority. That is why we are invoking a total commitment in every company and in every plant and among all employees.

This statement of Responsible Care is given birth to a series of Codes of Practice. These Codes deal with identifiable stages in the management of chemicals-from the laboratory to final disposal, and everything in between. They put substance into the guiding principles.

Our objective is to intensify the identification of risks and to put in place practices that eliminate or minimise adverse effects on human health and the environment.

From each Code will flow a programme of action for implementation by individual companies.

Furthermore, our Association will follow up and review the activities of our member companies to ensure that they do what they have promised to do.

The first of our codes deals with Community Awareness and Emergency Response-the industry's CAER programme.

We want the public to be better informed about chemicals. We also want to ensure that a current and comprehensive emergency response plan exists for every chemical plant and every community. As the industry has two hundred plants in one hundred and ten communities across Canada, that means the development of one hundred and ten emergency response plans and two hundred community outreach programmes.

Slightly less than two thirds of the municipalities in this country have emergency plans in some form or another. We want to make sure they are as effective and current as possible, and to ensure that all the other communities also develop plans. We want civic leaders to support our efforts, and our neighbours to understand and participate in these emergency response plans.

In all of this, our objective is to take the fear out of chemical manufacturing by bringing the community into the plant. To meet our people. To explain what they do.

Under this programme, the chemical plant managers and all of our employees will be the public ambassadors for their companies and the industry.

I mentioned earlier that the public sees us as being secretive about our products. Our community awareness programme, and public disclosure of our emergency response plans, will help to correct this perception.

As another initiative, we will open a chemical referral . centre this summer.

By using an 800 telephone number, Canadians will be able to access the referral centre on questions concerning chemicals and be directed to the best-qualified information source.

These initiatives-the Codes of Practice, community awareness, updated emergency response plans, and the referral centre-underscore our determination to be an open and caring industry.

We have heard the public's fears. We are taking them seriously because we have nothing to hide and everything to lose.

We are also seeking to improve our relations with the news media, and their ability to understand the complexities of the chemical process.

Last year, we held a press conference to disclose the findings of our public opinion survey. We then conducted interviews across the country with environmental reporters. The process was most invigorating. The media treated us fairly because we answered their questions openly and honestly.

We realise, of course, that it will take a long time for us to win credible understanding among the majority of Canadians. But we have made a start. And we will do much more.

We also know that we will be judged by our deeds, and not by our words.

The fact remains, however, that we will be judged by the next accident that happens. And make no mistake about-accidents will happen. So we must all be realistic with our expectations. Despite our best efforts, trains do derail, trucks are involved in accidents, dykes do sometimes spring leaks.

We can never promise zero risk. What we can promise is that we will minimise risk, and, if there is an accident, we will move quickly and effectively to contain it.

Canada's chemical industry has one of the best safety records of any industrial sector in this country. We take safety very seriously-ours and yours.

We also expect the public, as consumers or as business operations, to understand and accept their responsibilities in the safe handling and disposal of chemical products they use. And we will be reaching out to assist in this education process.

None of this will be easy. Canadians have told us quite bluntly that they think government should be a lot tougher on legislation towards the chemical industry.

Our mission now is to prove to Canadians that chemicals are essentially quite safe if they are handled and used properly. If we accomplish that, we will close the gap between perception and reality and demonstrate that we have listened and responded.

Of course, one of our problems is that many chemicals are shrouded in mystery and complexity. Even in the language we use to identify and describe them.

I could, for example, shock you by asking that you join me in drinking some essential oils: methanol, acetaldehyde, methyl formate, ethanol, caffeine dimethyl sulfide, propionaldehyde, acetone, methyl acetate, furan, diacetyl butanol, methylfuran, isoprene and methylbutanol.

But you will be relieved to know that I've just asked you to join me in a cup of coffee.

Consequently, plain talk rather than technical jargon will be our guiding communications tool in bridging the gap between perception and reality.

That is our challenge: closing the gap.

What is at stake is not really the inherent or imagined risks of chemicals. Rather, it is the danger that the ability of chemicals to protect and enhance the wellbeing of Canadians will be unnecessarily constrained by legislation and regulations based on unfounded fear and inaccurate information.

Where legislation and regulation are required to insure protection of the public interest, we are anxious to work cooperatively with all the stakeholders-government, specialinterest groups, organised labour as well as industry-all have legitimate views.

These views need to be focussed into commonly agreedupon objectives and solutions.

In addition, we have to do a better job of communicating with the public, with word and deed, on how we manage risk to maximise benefits.

I hope this address has contributed to that challenge.

The appreciation of the meeting was expressed by BGen. S.FAndrunyk, O.M.M., C.D., a Past President of The Empire Club of Canada.