Subject: Cadmium in artists' paint
Kristin Fyrand <kristin [at] konservering__se> writes >The following is posted on behalf of The Swedish Chemicals Agency: > >Questions on Cadmium in artist paint - Proposal for an EU-wide >restriction > >Sweden (The Swedish Chemicals Agency) is doing preparatory work on a >proposal for an EU wide restriction under REACH for Cadmium and >cadmium compounds in artist paint and pigments for enamel, ceramics >and glasses. Thus it is important for us to collect as much relevant >information as possible from stakeholders. > > Do you use alternative pigments for substitution of cadmium > pigments in artist paints (and for cadmium pigments used in > enamels, ceramic and glasses)? > > If not, why? > > If there are areas where use of cadmium based artist paints > are required, what is the reason for the need? > > If you use alternative pigments, to what extent? > > Which alternative chemical substances are available and most > common for substitution of cadmium pigments in artist paints > (and for cadmium pigments used in enamels, ceramic and glasses)? > > Are there any technical differences between the uses of cadmium > pigment based paint compared to alternative pigments? > > If so, what are the differences? Cadmium sulfides, cadmium selenosulfides, cadmium zinc sulfides, cadmium sulfides laked on barium sulfate, and cadmium mercury sulfide with, and without, barium sulfate, are common pigments world wide in the yellow orange and red range. They are a lot more stable than the organic pigments that replace them. And every country I know, has exempted art materials from the environmental regulations and from consumer lead and cadmium regulations. Worse, paint and pigment manufacturers have obtained exemptions for the benzidine pigments such as benzidine yellows that are substitutes for cadmium. While almost every country bans the use of the cancer-causing benzidine dyes, these benzidine pigments, which are only less soluble in water/acid, are exempt. The acid solubility test used by art materials manufacturers to show these pigments are "safe" has been shown not to relate to bioavailability in humans. It is clear we have many digestive and uptake mechanisms other than stomach acid such as enzymes, heat, cellular activity, alkalis, bacteria, and more. In other words, to ban cadmium and let them replace it with benzidine pigments is to go from the fry pan to the fire. And why start with cadmium? I think it might be easier to set a precedent by banning mercury containing pigments first. They are pretty stable in the environment, but mercuric sulfide (Vermillion) and cadmium mercury sulfide, are still in use. Or how about the arsenic paint pigments which are only available now from a few places, but which are common in opaque white or pastel glass and enamel colors. Arsenic in glass can be replaced by fluoride minerals. At this point, I would be happy if the makers would provide precise chemical labeling so people could make up their own minds. And in the US, I want the "nontoxic" label removed from all adult artists paints because the manufacturers are assuming there is no exposure to the toxic pigments if the paints are used as directed. And how dare they call the majority of the organic pigments "nontoxic" when there is no chronic data on them? It is such an outrage. And the public is completely misled by this word. As for children's art materials, what gives Crayola, Prang and all the other manufacturers the right to consider those pigments "trade secrets?" A mother will find it absolutely impossible to identify the pigments in any child's product in the US and probably elsewhere. Those pigments are sure as hell not FDA batch-approved food dyes and pigments. And even if they were, some mothers need to know this. I don't know about you, but if it weren't for crayons, I'd have gone hungry as a child. Cadmium can really be easily replaced in glazes, enamels and glass. There are many other metals and mixtures of metals that will work. But remember that in these fired products, there must be *metal* pigments because organics would burn off. So you are limited. Many toxic minerals are used including many of the rare earth metals about which there is almost no toxicity data. Even uranium is still used in some glasses. Many colors and techniques will depend on the use of lead as a flux and major ingredient. I inspect college art facilities and see the messy areas in which glass is cut and ground with the fine mist and dust drying to a powder everywhere. I see the mixing of powdered glaze chemicals out in the open rather than in a fume hood or ventilation system. I see airbrushing of paints without ventilation, sanding of canvas paints, and other outrageous practices. It is not only the toxic substances in art materials. It is massive ignorance and abysmal 19th century conditions under which art is taught at the college level that are at fault. I've jumped around in this post. so I'll summarize the points I'm trying to make. The art materials industry/pigment manufacturers are a strong industry and have exemptions worldwide that will be difficult to repeal. Cadmium is one of the more widely used colors and it might make more sense to start with less common pigments containing mercury and arsenic. There should be some kind of consumer label provisions to alert users to the presence of toxic replacements for the metals that are banned. I don't think trying to ban the cadmium from all these art materials will work. But if there is *anything* I can do to help you try, I certainly will. I have never thought that art has the right to take casualties. Monona Rossol, MS, MFA, Industrial Hygienist Arts, Crafts and Theater Safety, Inc. 181 Thompson St., #23 New York, NY 10012-2586 212-777-0062 *** Conservation DistList Instance 27:6 Distributed: Saturday, July 20, 2013 Message Id: cdl-27-6-003 ***Received on Thursday, 11 July, 2013