- Email: [email protected]
Tioxide loses appeal against the insurers over excess cover for uPVC pinking damages
F O C US bags, laptops, televisions, cell phones, paints and ink cartridges. We can use our tyres for 30,000 miles because of carbon black. Without this material, we’d be replacing tyres about every 10,000 miles. We believe the allegations in the lawsuit are without merit and we plan to defend ourselves vigorously.” The Proctor plant has been operating since 1972. Mr Bordas, the lawyer representing the plaintiffs, said: “We want the plant to stay. But, if a plant is going to operate in a community, then the company has an obligation to the citizens living there to conduct business in a way that is not going to cause harm to them.” Rubber and Plastics News II, 4 Jul 2005, 26 (16) (Website: http://rpnii.rubbernews.com)
DuPont to appeal against $15 M damages stemming from alleged pollution at De Lisle TiO2 plant About 2000 people have filed lawsuits against DuPont alleging that their health has been damaged by releases of dioxins and/or compounds of arsenic, chromium or nickel from the 350,000 tonnes/y chloride-route TiO2 pigment plant at De Lisle, Mississippi. Most of these lawsuits were originally filed prior to 2003 and as such they are not subject to the recent regulation enacted in Mississippi which sets an upper limit of $20 M on punitive damages. ‘CEN’ reports that in one of the first of these cases to come before the Courts, a former deputy sheriff has been awarded damages of $15 M because the jury upheld his allegation that his blood cancer resulted from exposure to pollutants emitted from the De Lisle plant. ‘CW’ reports that a local shell fisherman claimed that his multiple myeloma resulted from exposure to pollutants from the De Lisle plant: he was awarded $14 M in damages, while his wife was awarded $1.5 M. Presumably, these are two slightly different versions relating to the same case. For its part, DuPont has protested that it has been prevented from calling expert witnesses at these Court hearings. These witnesses would have clearly demonstrated that the company was not responsible for the local residents’ illnesses. DuPont
OCTOBER 2005
O N
PIGMENTS
states that it will “absolutely appeal” against such verdicts. Chemical Week, 7 Sep 2005, 167 (29), 9 & Chemical and Engineering News, 5 Sep 2005, 83 (36), 17-18
Tioxide loses appeal against the insurers over excess cover for uPVC pinking damages Huntsman Tioxide has faced a series of claims for damages from suppliers of plastic-framed double-glazed windows because during the 1990s the company allegedly supplied a few shipments of defective TiO2 pigments, which caused the problem of “pinking” of white uPVC window-frames. During 2003/04, Tioxide made payments totalling nearly £75 M to settle claims from most of the double-glazing suppliers. It had expected to receive reimbursement for these payments from its insurers. But some insurers refused to pay out, arguing that claims by Tioxide for insurance cover arising from the supply of the pigments under scrutiny after March 1994 were not allowable because Tioxide knew of the possible “pinking” problem from that date onwards. Huntsman filed a lawsuit against the insurers, but at the Court hearing in October 2004, Mr Justice Langley ruled in favour of the insurers. (See also ‘Focus on Pigments’, Mar 2005, 5). The company appealed against this ruling. However, the Appeal Court recently upheld the original ruling. The Appeal Court judges acknowledged that the company had correctly informed its primary insurers and it had been duly reimbursed for product liability claims up to a total ceiling of £50 M annually. However, the company had not properly informed the underwriters of the policies relating to the “excess layers” of insurance. Plastics and Rubber Weekly, 29 Jul 2005, 3
HEALTH & SAFETY Rutile TiO2 just as acceptable as anatase TiO2 for food colouring TiO2 pigments have been used as food colorants for many years. Icecream, peppermints, chocolatecoated mints and certain types of
cheese (eg Mozarella) often contain TiO2. Where it is used as an ingredient, European laws on food labelling require manufacturers to identify TiO2 as E-171, signifying that TiO2 is an approved food colorant. Traditionally, European and US regulations stipulated that only anatase grades of TiO2 could be approved as food colorants. A joint working party established by the Food & Agricultural Organisation (FAO) and the World Health Organisation (WHO) has investigated TiO2 usage as a food colorant and has concluded that the bioavailability of rutile grade TiO2 pigment is essentially the same as the bioavailability of anatase grade material. Based on this finding, the European Food Safety Authority has ruled that rutile grades and anatase grades will be equally permissible as food colorants. Food Chemical News, 12 Sep 2005, 47 (31), 18
European Food Safety Authority demurs on blanket approval of lycopene Lycopene is a carotenoid that can be extracted from tomato skins, with potential application as a natural food colorant. It is also claimed to have therapeutic properties, acting as an antioxidant and “mopping up” free radicals. Several companies are keen to produce and market lycopene, envisaging that the raw material source – tomato skins – will be cheap and abundant, being sourced from processing plants making tomato juices, sauces and concentrates. However, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is concerned about the possible impact of giving blanket approval to lycopene as a natural food colorant. It is due to consider an application from Vitatene for selling within the EU a dietary supplement consisting of suspension of lycopene in an essential oil containing alpha-tocopherol. Vitatene states that recommended usage of its product would entail increasing a normal person’s lycopene consumption by only 2 mg/day. EFSA, however, considers a “worst case scenario” in which an EU citizen might exceed the recommended dosage by a factor of 10. Food Chemical News, 13 Jun 2005, 47 (18), 22 & Terra e Vita, 4 Jun 2005, 46 (23), 80-81 (in Italian)
7
DuPont to appeal against $15 M damages stemming from alleged pollution at De Lisle TiO2 plant About 2000 people have filed lawsuits against DuPont alleging that their health has been damaged by releases of dioxins and/or compounds of arsenic, chromium or nickel from the 350,000 tonnes/y chloride-route TiO2 pigment plant at De Lisle, Mississippi. Most of these lawsuits were originally filed prior to 2003 and as such they are not subject to the recent regulation enacted in Mississippi which sets an upper limit of $20 M on punitive damages. ‘CEN’ reports that in one of the first of these cases to come before the Courts, a former deputy sheriff has been awarded damages of $15 M because the jury upheld his allegation that his blood cancer resulted from exposure to pollutants emitted from the De Lisle plant. ‘CW’ reports that a local shell fisherman claimed that his multiple myeloma resulted from exposure to pollutants from the De Lisle plant: he was awarded $14 M in damages, while his wife was awarded $1.5 M. Presumably, these are two slightly different versions relating to the same case. For its part, DuPont has protested that it has been prevented from calling expert witnesses at these Court hearings. These witnesses would have clearly demonstrated that the company was not responsible for the local residents’ illnesses. DuPont
OCTOBER 2005
O N
PIGMENTS
states that it will “absolutely appeal” against such verdicts. Chemical Week, 7 Sep 2005, 167 (29), 9 & Chemical and Engineering News, 5 Sep 2005, 83 (36), 17-18
Tioxide loses appeal against the insurers over excess cover for uPVC pinking damages Huntsman Tioxide has faced a series of claims for damages from suppliers of plastic-framed double-glazed windows because during the 1990s the company allegedly supplied a few shipments of defective TiO2 pigments, which caused the problem of “pinking” of white uPVC window-frames. During 2003/04, Tioxide made payments totalling nearly £75 M to settle claims from most of the double-glazing suppliers. It had expected to receive reimbursement for these payments from its insurers. But some insurers refused to pay out, arguing that claims by Tioxide for insurance cover arising from the supply of the pigments under scrutiny after March 1994 were not allowable because Tioxide knew of the possible “pinking” problem from that date onwards. Huntsman filed a lawsuit against the insurers, but at the Court hearing in October 2004, Mr Justice Langley ruled in favour of the insurers. (See also ‘Focus on Pigments’, Mar 2005, 5). The company appealed against this ruling. However, the Appeal Court recently upheld the original ruling. The Appeal Court judges acknowledged that the company had correctly informed its primary insurers and it had been duly reimbursed for product liability claims up to a total ceiling of £50 M annually. However, the company had not properly informed the underwriters of the policies relating to the “excess layers” of insurance. Plastics and Rubber Weekly, 29 Jul 2005, 3
HEALTH & SAFETY Rutile TiO2 just as acceptable as anatase TiO2 for food colouring TiO2 pigments have been used as food colorants for many years. Icecream, peppermints, chocolatecoated mints and certain types of
cheese (eg Mozarella) often contain TiO2. Where it is used as an ingredient, European laws on food labelling require manufacturers to identify TiO2 as E-171, signifying that TiO2 is an approved food colorant. Traditionally, European and US regulations stipulated that only anatase grades of TiO2 could be approved as food colorants. A joint working party established by the Food & Agricultural Organisation (FAO) and the World Health Organisation (WHO) has investigated TiO2 usage as a food colorant and has concluded that the bioavailability of rutile grade TiO2 pigment is essentially the same as the bioavailability of anatase grade material. Based on this finding, the European Food Safety Authority has ruled that rutile grades and anatase grades will be equally permissible as food colorants. Food Chemical News, 12 Sep 2005, 47 (31), 18
European Food Safety Authority demurs on blanket approval of lycopene Lycopene is a carotenoid that can be extracted from tomato skins, with potential application as a natural food colorant. It is also claimed to have therapeutic properties, acting as an antioxidant and “mopping up” free radicals. Several companies are keen to produce and market lycopene, envisaging that the raw material source – tomato skins – will be cheap and abundant, being sourced from processing plants making tomato juices, sauces and concentrates. However, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is concerned about the possible impact of giving blanket approval to lycopene as a natural food colorant. It is due to consider an application from Vitatene for selling within the EU a dietary supplement consisting of suspension of lycopene in an essential oil containing alpha-tocopherol. Vitatene states that recommended usage of its product would entail increasing a normal person’s lycopene consumption by only 2 mg/day. EFSA, however, considers a “worst case scenario” in which an EU citizen might exceed the recommended dosage by a factor of 10. Food Chemical News, 13 Jun 2005, 47 (18), 22 & Terra e Vita, 4 Jun 2005, 46 (23), 80-81 (in Italian)
7