Too many chemical companies hide behind claims of “trade secrets” to mislead or create false impressions in the market place, and sometimes gain advantages by their misrepresentation.

Everyone gets hurt.

Confidential Business Information (CBI) had been created to protect legitimate commercial interest regarding chemical manufacturing trade secrets. But it had become obvious to the EPA that this was being abused and the health and environmental risk is the much greater issue.

In January 2010 the EPA announced its plan to begin rejecting CBI claims on chemicals listed on the public portion of the Toxic Substance and Control Act (TSCA) inventory. And more recently the EPA took this even further. In May the EPA published a notice indicating that it would begin routinely reviewing CBI claims regarding all chemical entities that are part of a health/safety study. The EPA explained that, where a chemical identity does not explicitly contain manufacturing process information or reveal portions of a chemical mixture, the chemical identity will not receive confidential treatment. The EPA further proposed amendments to the TSCA in August to require CBI claims to be accompanied by an upfront, detailed, written explanation of why the chemical identity should be confidential. Read EPA article.

Lets all hope that the EPA remains steadfast, and pushes these regulations for increased transparency and increased public access to this information. Manufacturers can still protect their formulations, but we need these regulations and transparencies to understand the health and environmental risks, ultimately moving manufactures towards the greenest solutions possible.

What I love about this business is that even after 35 years, you learn something new every day.

We took a look at the business we had not won this last year and realized that even though we knew we were proposing the best damn dust control solution for the given problem, customers had financial and budget issues, wanted a lower-cost alternative and were willing to forgo the longer-term cost savings for shorter term relief.

So we went and developed the best basic dust control solution at the most competitive price – Earth Armour™. Now our customers have an economical dust control solution in situations where temporary dust control is the objective rather than significant long term stabilization of the surface.

Earth Armour also fulfills our pledge to live our Midwest Values; “we will understand our customer’s requirements and deliver on our commitments.” I mention this in this blog because it does no good at all to have values if they are not actively practiced, everyday. So Earth Armour fits into our portfolio of products because it represents living a Value which is the foundation of everything we do as a company.

If you have a chance, learn more of exactly how Earth Armour does this by learning more on our website.

I would like to share an interesting story with you. It represents an example of why I believe independent testing of company claims is very important for the purchasers of products from companies within our industry – during the bidding stage, and then again during the delivery stage.

For many years we have been supplying a customer with their requirements for a dust palliative and soil stabilizer. Our multi-year contract just expired and the user has issued a notice of solicitation for current bids to fulfill their requirements. Their solicitation included a detailed performance requirement for the product to pass CBR lab testing for a specific soil type to meet the standards for the customer’s needs. The specification matched our specific product, which they have been using for many years.

In the bidding, a competitor quoted a price approximately 20% below our quoted price. Part of the competitive vendor’s bid information included marketing and test data to prove that their product was equal to the product called for in the specification.

Shortly after the competitor was awarded the new multi-year contract for the delivery and installation of their brand name product, based on being the low bidder, they began communicating with producers of the basic raw materials stating they had just received a multi-year contract and needed to source significant volumes of a non-prime polymer emulsion. Within these communications there was no product chemistry specification that might indicate that what they were trying to source would meet the requirements as called for by the purchaser’s specification.

So here is the issue; since testing and documentation for the specification requirements is typically only required at the bidding stage, and product sampling is NOT required at the delivery stage to assure the exact product specified in the bid is being delivered, the bait and switch can take place and the customer will never know.

It will take due diligence on the part of the customer to catch this bait and switch activity. It will also take significant due diligence to confirm that the environmental soundness of whatever is actually delivered and installed on public roadways is in fact what was represented.

We know that price is an issue and customers need to assure their constituencies that they have done everything possible to obtain the best product solution for the lowest price. We also know customers do not want to “buy price” and close their eyes to product deficiency and possible environmental issues.

This is why it is in the best interest of both the community of users and principled industry leaders to expose such bait and switch activities. This is needed for both the protection of people and the environment in which these products might be used.